warranty voided by mazda rep

[RallyeRedSi]

though 130 ft lbs torque at the wheels doesn't(dance)

(smash)

 

[controlo]

Why do you have such a hard-on about torque? It has nothing to do with acceleration. Acceleration is completely dependent on (wheel) hp. Dumping on other peoples cars was cool back in high school.

yea... uh... torque does matter... but, i agree... we shouldn't dump on other peoples cars. i really like the Si. it's a great car.

Unless car people abuse the vocabulary, I can say as a physics teacher that torque on a wheel will affect acceleration greatly.

physics FTW!

 

[phillyb]

Why do you have such a hard-on about torque? It has nothing to do with acceleration. Acceleration is completely dependent on (wheel) hp.

maybe we shouldn't 'dump' on each other's cars since those are all personal preferences...but did you really expect a statement like this to 1) go unnoticed and 2) un-argued?

what the **** are you talking about?
and please inform the entire car community that torque doesn't matter...we'll be waiting your explanation. we will then post it on every other car board and also on howstuffworks.com and definitely wikipedia since the world needs to know what captain ******* crunch has to say about engine torque and acceleration.

Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

here is something you can read - http://craig.backfire.ca/pages/autos/horsepower

 

[mckraut]

/\ uncalled for

 

[phillyb]

with the luck i've had on these boards lately, it will probably get edited or my whole thread deleted.

HI MODS

 

[coololddude]

can't we all just get along? ( a long what??)

 

[LordWorm]

Why do you have such a hard-on about torque? It has nothing to do with acceleration. Acceleration is completely dependent on (wheel) hp.

Dumping on other peoples cars was cool back in high school.

Whilst this is way off topic....

You're a little confused... engine torque may not have a great deal to do with acceleration, but WHEEL TORQUE (that is *geared* torque) most certainly does.

If you multiply out the torque you are producing at a given RPM, by the gear ratio (including final drive and wheel diameter), you can work out the force (torque) being delivered to the wheels. This force (less rolling resistance, friction, the effect of weight and air resistance) is directly related to how fast you accelerate.

Where people get it HORRIBLY wrong is thinking that LOW END torque is important... the truth is the later you can produce your peak torque, the quicker you will go because of gearing. This is why cars with high peak HORSEPOWER (torque and horsepower are very much related) accelerate much faster than cars with a very high, but very early peak torque, assuming weight is the same. The high horsepower car produces a far greater amount of WHEEL TORQUE at higher RPM.

I've got all the graphs and so forth laying around here if you are interested in learning more - send me a pm....

Sorry for derailing the thread.... carry on...

 

[Capt Crunch]

Whilst this is way off topic....

You're a little confused... engine torque may not have a great deal to do with acceleration, but WHEEL TORQUE (that is *geared* torque) most certainly does.

If you multiply out the torque you are producing at a given RPM, by the gear ratio (including final drive and wheel diameter), you can work out the force (torque) being delivered to the wheels. This force (less rolling resistance, friction, the effect of weight and air resistance) is directly related to how fast you accelerate.

Where people get it HORRIBLY wrong is thinking that LOW END torque is important... the truth is the later you can produce your peak torque, the quicker you will go because of gearing. This is why cars with high peak HORSEPOWER (torque and horsepower are very much related) accelerate much faster than cars with a very high, but very early peak torque, assuming weight is the same. The high horsepower car produces a far greater amount of WHEEL TORQUE at higher RPM.

I've got all the graphs and so forth laying around here if you are interested in learning more - send me a pm....

Sorry for derailing the thread.... carry on...

What you're saying is exactly my point. People rail about how a Civic has no torque, but they're referring to torque at the engine. Put in the gear multipliers and a 200 hp civic makes as much torque at the wheels as a 200 hp GTI.

Here's a very long but simple explanation that I wrote for everyone else that swears by the Carol Shelby quote:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1192834

EDIT: I'll quote it here--

OK dudes and dudettes, it's time to finally set Torque vs. Horsepower to rest. Not to blow my own horn, but I have a Math and Physics degree so I'm not a complete idiot. Most of this is my own work, but I did get some examples and wording from a little research on the internet.

Part 1 - Introduction

"OMG my car pushes me back in the seat, it's got mad torque y000000!!!11"

Wrong, your car has mad horsepower y00000000.

Part 2 - The MATH

The math isn't that hard, even if you're lazy I encourage you to read this part.

Let:

F = Force
M = Mass
A = Acceleration
P = Power (motive)
V = Velocity
T = Torque

So we've all seen F = MA before. Standard physics and says for a fixed mass, force is proportional to acceleration. The people that have a hard-on about torque say: "Well, torque is a force, so the higher peak torque I have, the faster my car will go!" This is wrong, torque is not the force described here. We need to go a little bit further.

At a instant in time motive power (P) is:

P = FV

Rearranging gives F = P/V

Plugging this in to F = MA gives P/V = MA which in turn gives:

A = P/(MV)

Acceleration = Power / (Mass x Velocity)

This equation is the real deal. In this case acceleration is proportional to power which is measured in units of, you guessed it, horsepower.

Part 3 - WTF WHAT ABOUT TORQUE YOU FOOL?!!1

First let me start with Carroll Shelby's famous quote: "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." While I have the utmost respect for Shelby, this statement is misleading at best and at worst betrays massive ignorance about physics. It's wrong. Don't listen to it. Listen to me.

Torque is a force applied to a moment arm. One foot-pound of torque is taking a 1-foot socket wrench and pushing with 1 lb of force on the end of the wrench. The way an engine produces torque is the engine makes and explosion and pushes the piston down which in turn applies a torque on the crankshaft.

Where does horsepower come in? We first let's assume that an engine produces the same torque, say X ft-lbs, at any rpm. If you look at a dynograph this would be manifested by a flat torque line. The LS1-7 motors make a very nice flat torque line.

So lets floor our imaginary engine at 1000 rpm. The pistons turn the crank with the torque of X ft-lbs. Now let's floor our engine at 4000 rpm. The pistons are still turning the crank with the same torque, X ft-lbs, but this time it's applying it 4 times faster. How does this difference manifest itself?

Power = Torque / Time

What this equation implies is that power is proportional to torque and inversely proportional to time. This means if you double the torque, the power is doubled. Conversely, if you half the time taken, the power doubles. So the equation with units included is:

Power (horsepower) = [ Torque (ft/lbs) x RPM (revolutions/minute) ] / 5252 (revolutions)

HP = [ Torque x RPM ] / 5252

The 5252 is just a constant. Notice the revolution units cancel and you get units of (ft/lbs)/minute, which is exactly as above. Thus for our ideal engine if you spin at 4000 RPM instead of 1000 RPM you are applying the same torque in a quarter of the time, which means you are quadrupling your horsepower.

Part 4 - So why does my high-torque car feel faster?

Because it's making more horsepower. At a given RPM, if you increase the torque you increase the power and thus the acceleration. It's not that torque is something unrelated to horsepower and makes you faster all by itself.

Part 5 - Why more hp = fastAr in werds

You may have noticed from the equation A = P/(MV) that if you double the power you double the acceleration. "But Crunch," you ask, "If I double my RPM then I double my power, which means I double my acceleration, but I never feel it!" Correct, you don't, but that's because if you double your RPM then you are doubling your speed. Then you get:

A = 2P/(M * 2V) = P/(MV)

Which is exactly what you had before. The doubling of the speed cancels out whatever increase in power you make as a result of increasing the RPM. In other words, for a SPECIFIC GEAR (you cannot compare differently geared cars) P/V= Torque * rpm/V = Torque * C where C is a constant related to the gear ratio. So you get:

A = Torque * C/M

Or in other words, constant torque implies constant acceleration.

Don't let this equation fool you. This equation does not take gearing into account, change the gearing and you change the constant C. Let's see what happens when we compare differently geared cars. So lets look at out ideal motor which makes the same torque at all RPM. One engine with torque of 400 ft-lbs redlines at 4k, the other with 200 ft-lbs redlines at 8k. Plugging these into our little equation, both cars make the same peak HP. The first, 304.6 hp at 4k RPM, the second 304.6 hp at 8k RPM. If the cars are geared in such a way that both cars are going the same speed at their redline (4k and 8k respectively), then these cars will be equally fast. Why?

Well for the first car:

A_1 = torque * C/M

but for the second car the torque is halved, but the gear ratio constant is doubled.

A_2 = .5 * torque * 2 * C/M = A_1

The accelerations are the same!

Another way to think about it is looking at the dyno graph. Sometimes dyno graphs have horsepower listed as a function of speed. This takes gearing out of the equation and is easier to understand. Lets say you dyno the two cars above so that for each dyno run they go from 0 rpm to redline, which for both cars equates to, say, 120 mph. Then, their graphs will look identical. It will be a straight line from 0 hp at 0 RPM to 304.6 hp at 120 mph. They will be as fast as each other in EVERY SINGLE SITUATION EVER and yet one makes double the torque of the other.

So whoever has the most area under the HORSEPOWER curve over the rev range used will be faster. If you're racing and you shift from 6-8k RPM, the only thing that matters is how much power you're making from 6-8k RPM. If you're making 500 whp from 6-8k RPM and 5 whp everywhere else and your buddy is making 400 whp from 4-6k but has 5x the peak torque as you, you have nothing to worry about.

NO IF, ANDS, OR BUTS, HORSEPOWER WINS RACES. FORGET TORQUE AT THE ENGINE. NOTHING ABOUT IT IS IMPORTANT OTHER THAN IT MAKES HORSEPOWER.

Q.E.D.

 

[LordWorm]

What you're saying is exactly my point. People rail about how a Civic has no torque, but they're referring to torque at the engine. Put in the gear multipliers and a 200 hp civic makes as much torque at the wheels as a 200 hp GTI.

Here's a very long but simple explanation that I wrote for everyone else that swears by the Carol Shelby quote:

Indeed...Sorry to have had a go at you in a previous post dude...but yeah, you're right on here.

All anyone really needs to do is run the maths against their dyno graph and gear ratios to work out the sheer amount of torque a low gear will multiply.

I've never actually heard the Carol Shelby quote (frankly, i'm not really into the whole "muscle" car thing) - but i can see now where the whole "low end torque is best for racing/acceleration" nonsense comes from... I mean...do you think a Formula 1 car has oodles and oodles of "low end torque" (relatively speaking)... hell no...but they'll out accelerate just about any circuit car on the planet.

Another interesting point that the maths reveals is that the LATER in the rev range you can build peak torque, the FASTER you will accelerate because you are better able to use the gearing to your advantage.

And gearing is also the reason why it is often advantageous to spin an engine out to red line when racing, even if you are already falling off the power curve...

Anyway dude, I guess i'm trying to say, top post....

 

[Texaco]

I did not read all the way through to see how we got from voided warranty to torque discussions..?

I think the low end torque on the MS3 (or any car) is a real positive for everyday driveability. You only need to use a few gears in city driving and always have decent power on tap. Having this power at lower RPM's means a quieter engine and less vibration for normal everyday driving.

So I contend that low end torque IS important, but only for driveability reasons. My sport bike is at the other end of the spectrum, making most of its power high in the RPM band (8K-11K). This is great for acceleration, but means a lot of shifting and a much higher RPM to keep decent power on tap. Naturally the higher RPM's = more noise and vibration.

 

[LordWorm]

I did not read all the way through to see how we got from voided warranty to torque discussions..?

I think the low end torque on the MS3 (or any car) is a real positive for everyday driveability. You only need to use a few gears in city driving and always have decent power on tap. Having this power at lower RPM's means a quieter engine and less vibration for normal everyday driving.

So I contend that low end torque IS important, but only for driveability reasons. My sport bike is at the other end of the spectrum, making most of its power high in the RPM band (8K-11K). This is great for acceleration, but means a lot of shifting and a much higher RPM to keep decent power on tap. Naturally the higher RPM's = more noise and vibration.

its your gearbox that is making it drivable....not the "low end torque".... read ken's post again.

 

[Texaco]

Negative. The low end torque makes it more driveable, the gears are obviously involved, but without a low end torque engine design they are not the primary source of the street driveability I describe. Gearing options on a street car are somewhat limited. Engineers must factor in accelleration, fuel economy, and typical highway speed limits..all with only 5-6 availabile gears.

Gearing yes -- I could design a ten speed go-cart with a weed wacker engine that would feel like a beast up to its 25 mph max speed. We are talking steet cars with the engineering constraints I mentioned above.

I want power on tap below 4K rpm, quiet and smooth. Only a low end torque engine design delivers in a street car. Sure, I could have similar power on tap driving an RX8, but with a much higher rpm and associated noise.

Another opinion (and there are plenty out there):

""So, if there is such a fixed relationship between torque and power, why do some people say that a certain engine has lots of power, but no torque? Remember that the connection between torque and power is rotational speed. A sportbike motor might generate 150hp at 14,000 RPM but the torque at that RPM is very small; about 53 ft-lbs. In comparison, a large-displacement twin might peak at 100 hp at 7000 RPM. The torque applied at the twin's 7000 rpm, 75 ft-lbs, is greater than the torque applied at the sport bike's 14,000 rpm but the sport bike makes up for it with a lot more engine speed and ends up with more horsepower.

The street, though, complicates things because the sport bike will probably not be ridden at 14,000 RPM. At 5000 RPM, the twin would likely have more power. This is an artificial handicap; the sport bike wasn't meant to be ridden at that speed since it generates its power by sending the RPM part of the equation sky-high. For street riding, the twin is easier to ride, less prone to stalling as you pull away from a light, and you get that satisfying "oomph" when you twist the throttle. But as the RPM increases, the twin runs out of breath and the race bike, although the torque is low and probably getting lower, continues to make more and more power until it hits its peak at 14000.

Engines are designed for their intended use. Our twins are designed to yield fairly high torque values at low RPM, because this makes them easy to ride in day-to-day life, and Harley-Davidsons have their torque concentrated even lower in the RPM range than BMWs do. Low-end torque is accomplished by several design traits, one being small valves and intake tubes which create high air velocity into the cylinder for good fuel mix at low speed.""

from - http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html

 

[Perro del Sol]

If you roll over and take that your doing exactly what they hope. I doubt a throttle sensor failed because of boost controller, bpv and gauge. Figh them legally you have nothing to lose.

He'll be in for a long fight, hopefully he has a massive amount of money and time, he'll need it! Read the owners manual, any mods will void the warranty.


For you drag racers be advised that Mazda has a team that not only that looks at all Mazda forums, but they also look at videos that are shot. the will get the license plate number, the vin # and void the warranty.

 

[parkerfe]

Read the owners manual, any mods will void the warranty.


Not true, the Moss-Magnuson Act specifically prohibits voiding a warranty based merely on the installation of aftermarket parts. Mazda has 100% of the burden to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that the aftermarket parts(s) caused the failure for warranty coverage is sought...

 

[Gasological]

Read the owners manual, any mods will void the warranty.


Not true, the Moss-Magnuson Act specifically prohibits voiding a warranty based merely on the installation of aftermarket parts. Mazda has 100% of the burden to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that the aftermarket parts(s) caused the failure for warranty coverage is sought...

Aye. Fed law trumps any owner's manual.

 

[Capt Crunch]

Read the owners manual, any mods will void the warranty.


Not true, the Moss-Magnuson Act specifically prohibits voiding a warranty based merely on the installation of aftermarket parts. Mazda has 100% of the burden to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that the aftermarket parts(s) caused the failure for warranty coverage is sought...

In theory, but not in practice. I've said this a million times. You bring car in. Dealer voids warranty. You cite Moss-Magnuson. Dealer says to go pound sand. You come on to the forums crying because you don't have money for a lawyer and you don't have another daily driver.

 

[parkerfe]

In theory, but not in practice. I've said this a million times. You bring car in. Dealer voids warranty. You cite Moss-Magnuson. Dealer says to go pound sand. You come on to the forums crying because you don't have money for a lawyer and you don't have another daily driver.

The you file in Magistrate-Small Claims court with no lawyer...Mazda still has the burden of proof to prove the aftermarket part caused the failure. In you do nothing you lose...so why not at least try?

 

[shane02pro5]

I'd like to hear of one case where a warranty was voided for aftermarket parts (especially a boost controller and/or voltage clamp) and gone to court and mazda paid! Seriously this is totally unrealistic!

Cars are getting more and more hard to modify without causing other problems with everything being controlled by the ecu!

My warranty was out the window at under 8k miles but I knew that going into it.

 

[parkerfe]

I'd like to hear of one case where a warranty was voided for aftermarket parts (especially a boost controller and/or voltage clamp) and gone to court and mazda paid! Seriously this is totally unrealistic!

Cars are getting more and more hard to modify without causing other problems with everything being controlled by the ecu!

My warranty was out the window at under 8k miles but I knew that going into it.

I have won several for clients over the years. Most of the time the dealer capitulates and agrees to pay without even having to go to trial. On the ones that did go to court, we easily won as the dealers just brought in one of their mechanics that could not be qualified as an expert pursuant to Daulbert, so I was able to keep out the mechanics testimony. So, since the dealer could not meet its burden of proof, it lost. FYI, the dealer has to present expert testimony to the court that the after market part caused the failure; a mere assertion by an employee of the dealer is insufficient. Like I indicated before, you are 100% guaranteed to lose if you do nothing, bend over and just accept the dealer's denial...you at least have a chance to win or more likely settle if you file suit...

 

[Capt Crunch]

The you file in Magistrate-Small Claims court with no lawyer...Mazda still has the burden of proof to prove the aftermarket part caused the failure. In you do nothing you lose...so why not at least try?

Sure, you have nothing to lose if your warranty is already voided. But if you're deciding between modding your car and not, you have a lot to lose.

I'm glad that you've taken cases to court and won, really. But if my car has a busted motor and the dealer voids my warranty, I have to go pay for a rental car out of pocket, or pay for the repair out of pocket, until I go to court. I stand a much better chance if I have a lawyer, which I'll have to pay for, and there's a good chance that I don't get back all the money that I threw at the situation. Moreover I have to take a huge amount of time to deal with the BS and take time off of work.

Seriously, if you will represent me in a case of violation of Moss-Magnuson in the event a dealer illegally voids my warranty and can guarantee that your lawyers fees and all associated fees like loss of time on the job/rental will be covered in the settlement... I'll go buy an intake right now. You got nothing to lose!