Stock msp vs base model RSX
- Thread starter Vicocola
- Start date
PA_MP3_Man
Member
I would assume you mean stop light to stop light. cause in any other race with twists or turns, the msp would kick it's ass. But It would probably be pretty close, aren't stock rsx's 166 hp or something like that?
tritonheat1
Banned
- :
- 06 MS6, 98 A4 1.8T Rebuilt
actually the MS-P should be matched with the Type-S if you ask lawerence he went to the track and ran 2 times. His first run was a 15.2@90mph 1/4 time, and his 2run was a 14.9@92.85mph and this was all stock. If you ask me, That is in the Type-S territory, also the base RSX 5-M isn't slow either, but no where in the performance category of the MS-P except Horsepower.
Base RSX:
160hp
141lb-fts torque
MS-P:
170Hp
160lb-fts torque
Also here are some #'s for the base RSX, Http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?id1=68&id2=0
Base RSX:
160hp
141lb-fts torque
MS-P:
170Hp
160lb-fts torque
Also here are some #'s for the base RSX, Http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?id1=68&id2=0
tritonheat1
Banned
- :
- 06 MS6, 98 A4 1.8T Rebuilt
Vicocola said:
you lost to a Base RSX
(scratch), Was the Car really modified or were you swithcing gears at 5krpm to keep the revs low. Maybe you do need to practice if you lost by 1car lengh. even if you were switching gears at 5k rpms, shoulda been even to a car lengh ahead of him.
I-Am-Chris
Member
LSD remember!!!!
are you 5ure? I think it i5 type 5 territory. I ran a prelude 5 -5peed with intake and exhau5t and from 0-60, i had about 2 car5 but he wa5 gaining and he pa55ed me around 95. From a roll, I had two car5 from 40-100 but if it continued then he would have won. I concluded that the5e car5 are capable of low 15 or 15 flat unle55 I have one of tho5e factory fireball.
tritonheat1
Banned
- :
- 06 MS6, 98 A4 1.8T Rebuilt
Vicocola said:it was on a uphill... maybe i should risk of burning clutch, just shift while stepping on gas pedal just to winbtw all he had prob was exhaust and carbon fiber hood.... -_-;;
Still Not sure why he would take you, cause the MSP has 19-ft lbs more of torque than the RSX. It's hard to find that out after lawerence owning a Stock SpecV and he evened mentioned that the spec would be even with the MS-P through the end of 1st-3rd gear but after the MS-P has the turbospooling up, he said the MS-P pulls strong up top 4th and 5th gear.(scratch) (scratch) (thought)
I would say the MSP would win. The MSP has a max torque of 160@3500 rpm vs. the RSX which has 141@4000, but the MSP is 143 lb more than the RSX. I would say that since it's higher torque would be sufficient enough to outweigh the increased weight over the RSX and it reaches it's peak torque before the RSX it would beat it but not by much
I would say its definitely more of a race for a Type-s (which I am eagerly awaiting to run) than the base model, but the type s probably has more up top.
And yea, I think this car does feel stronget then a specV especially in the higher gears, but the specV is pretty weak up top.
Has anyone else gone to the track yet besides me?
And yea, I think this car does feel stronget then a specV especially in the higher gears, but the specV is pretty weak up top.
Has anyone else gone to the track yet besides me?
kids, torque #'s don't matter. torque is measured and that is what's used to calculate power. power is what moves the car...think about it.
do you see a lot of TDI (diesel) Volkswagens tearing up the 1/4? of course not, b/c even though they have boatloads of torque, they have no power.
i would think (given equal drivers) an MSP should beat a base RSX, but narrowly lose to a Type-S. damn honda and their horrible stock tires. at least mazda has figured that out.
the -S is really driver-dependent...very unforgiving.
screw up (the -S is really tough to launch well and the shift gates are narrow) and you're done.
but do it right (the K20A pulls strong through 8000rpm and the shifter is short and quick) and the -S is tough to beat.
do you see a lot of TDI (diesel) Volkswagens tearing up the 1/4? of course not, b/c even though they have boatloads of torque, they have no power.
i would think (given equal drivers) an MSP should beat a base RSX, but narrowly lose to a Type-S. damn honda and their horrible stock tires. at least mazda has figured that out.
the -S is really driver-dependent...very unforgiving.
screw up (the -S is really tough to launch well and the shift gates are narrow) and you're done.
but do it right (the K20A pulls strong through 8000rpm and the shifter is short and quick) and the -S is tough to beat.
scapamouche
Member
Torque is actually much more important: it IS measureable..... HP is an artificial construct based on mathematics. Torque output is what actually gets the car moving.... HP is much more valuable when you are looking at top speed runs rather than acceleration like the 1/4 mile...
The TDI argument has some merit, but you also have to consider the lower rev range of the deisel engines, which means less HP because HP depends as much on RPMs as it does on Torque. With a lower rev range, the TDI also has to have higher gearing (numerically lower) and some torque multiplication is lost. The net effect is that the TDI car runs low revs, which reduces HP (because of the math involved in the HP construct) and it has higher gearing, which reduces torque multiplication, and therefore reduces the actual torque seen at the wheels.
For example, if you have a car with 100 ft-lbs and a 4.00:1 gear ratio, the it actually is putting 400 ft-lbs to the tires (ignoring chassis losses here.) By comparison, a 150 ft-lbs engine with a 2.25:1 gear ratio would only put 337 ft-lbs to the tires. In this case, the higher torque engine is generating LESS torque at the wheels because of torque multiplication. This is part of the reason why that TDI is slower. Plus it's really heavy (like all VWs
)
The TDI argument has some merit, but you also have to consider the lower rev range of the deisel engines, which means less HP because HP depends as much on RPMs as it does on Torque. With a lower rev range, the TDI also has to have higher gearing (numerically lower) and some torque multiplication is lost. The net effect is that the TDI car runs low revs, which reduces HP (because of the math involved in the HP construct) and it has higher gearing, which reduces torque multiplication, and therefore reduces the actual torque seen at the wheels.
For example, if you have a car with 100 ft-lbs and a 4.00:1 gear ratio, the it actually is putting 400 ft-lbs to the tires (ignoring chassis losses here.) By comparison, a 150 ft-lbs engine with a 2.25:1 gear ratio would only put 337 ft-lbs to the tires. In this case, the higher torque engine is generating LESS torque at the wheels because of torque multiplication. This is part of the reason why that TDI is slower. Plus it's really heavy (like all VWs
)a better explanation than i can give
everything you've said is technically correct. unfortunately it doesn't prove your point. it's basically the same thing i've said...torque is what is measured, and then used as a variable to compute HP...
HP = (Torque * RPM)/5252
the reason the VW is not quick is BECAUSE its rev range is so limited. revs factor into the HP equation. if the VW was able to maintian that torque production into higher revs, then the power level would rise, since
torque = force * distance = work
and
power = work/time = force*(distance/time) = work*speed
so (ignoring gearing), the MSP's 160 ft-lbs is already factored into its 170HP rating, just as the RSX-S's 141 ft-lbs is factored into its 200HP rating. short and dirty, the MSP redlines at 6500(?), the RSX-S at 7900. so even though the torque of the motor is less, the motor can do more work more quickly than the MSP motor.
(NOW...granted, low-end wheel torque DOES increase the around-town driveability of a car, and will often make the car FEEL faster at the track and around town, but butts are notoriously poor accelerometers.)
the POWER is what moves the car.
lbm=pound(mass)
lbf= pound(force)
ft=distance (feet)
s=time (seconds)
units of mass = lbm
units of force = lbf
units of acceleration = ft/(s^2)
Force = mass * acceleration
F=ma
a=(F/m)
(ft/s^2) = (lbf)/lbm <---- lbf = lbm-ft/(s^2)
= [(lbm-ft)/s^2]/lbm = ft/(s^2) = acceleration
SO, the power at the wheels = the force propelling the car. try it w/ torque as force, and you get ft. no time component.
everything you've said is technically correct. unfortunately it doesn't prove your point. it's basically the same thing i've said...torque is what is measured, and then used as a variable to compute HP...
HP = (Torque * RPM)/5252
the reason the VW is not quick is BECAUSE its rev range is so limited. revs factor into the HP equation. if the VW was able to maintian that torque production into higher revs, then the power level would rise, since
torque = force * distance = work
and
power = work/time = force*(distance/time) = work*speed
so (ignoring gearing), the MSP's 160 ft-lbs is already factored into its 170HP rating, just as the RSX-S's 141 ft-lbs is factored into its 200HP rating. short and dirty, the MSP redlines at 6500(?), the RSX-S at 7900. so even though the torque of the motor is less, the motor can do more work more quickly than the MSP motor.
(NOW...granted, low-end wheel torque DOES increase the around-town driveability of a car, and will often make the car FEEL faster at the track and around town, but butts are notoriously poor accelerometers.)
the POWER is what moves the car.
lbm=pound(mass)
lbf= pound(force)
ft=distance (feet)
s=time (seconds)
units of mass = lbm
units of force = lbf
units of acceleration = ft/(s^2)
Force = mass * acceleration
F=ma
a=(F/m)
(ft/s^2) = (lbf)/lbm <---- lbf = lbm-ft/(s^2)
= [(lbm-ft)/s^2]/lbm = ft/(s^2) = acceleration
SO, the power at the wheels = the force propelling the car. try it w/ torque as force, and you get ft. no time component.
scapamouche
Member
Yikes!!! The engineering math is out!!!! I shoulda studied harder 
I follow your argument, and I do agree to a point, but in 1/4 mile and autox, getting the car going is more critical than the top end, and that's where torque gives a better measure.
As far as the butt dyno goes, mine must be BADLY out of whack!!! my Celica felt MUCH quicker than the MSP does, but I'm sure the MSP actually does get up to speed better....
Of course, none of this proves my point either....
I shoulda studied harder I follow your argument, and I do agree to a point, but in 1/4 mile and autox, getting the car going is more critical than the top end, and that's where torque gives a better measure.
As far as the butt dyno goes, mine must be BADLY out of whack!!! my Celica felt MUCH quicker than the MSP does, but I'm sure the MSP actually does get up to speed better....
Of course, none of this proves my point either....
