If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message ... >>> As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot >>> pounds of torque at 5252 rpm. >> >> >>this is a sign of a castrated engine. >>I mean it needs some work to get the max. torque so late. > > So, let me get this straight... > > Any engine that develops horsepower equal to ft-lbs torque at 5252 rpm > is a "castrated engine." You certainly are knowledgeable about the > relationship of torque rpm and horsepower, aren't you. any engine that gets the max. torque point at an RPM higher than 4000 is a castrated engine -- usually the lowested RPM point for which max. torque is available is mentioned. Of course it is helpful if this max. torque is available over as broad range as possible. E.g. the 2.0 Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops max. torque between 1800RPM and 4800RPM. The 1.8 Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops max. torque betwen 1950RPM and 5000RPM. For both only the smaller values of the RPM are mentioned. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message ... >>> As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot >>> pounds of torque at 5252 rpm. >> >> >>this is a sign of a castrated engine. >>I mean it needs some work to get the max. torque so late. > > So, let me get this straight... > > Any engine that develops horsepower equal to ft-lbs torque at 5252 rpm > is a "castrated engine." You certainly are knowledgeable about the > relationship of torque rpm and horsepower, aren't you. I'm a Electrical Engineer -- I studied enough physics so I know about the relationship between torque and HP. Torque*RPM = power. Of course there is some fudgefactor to get from pd*ft/min to HP. Would be easier if we would deal with metric units like in europe (Torque in Nm and Power in kW = 1000Nm/s). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
"TWW" > wrote in message news:Z0zyf.750$oG.228@dukeread09... > Let me see. I guess the ideal was my old 71 454 Vette I owned 35 years > ago > or so. With 365 hp at 4800 rpm and 500 ft lbs of torque at 3200 it was > like > a tractor. Heck, you could let the clutch out at idle without even giving > it the gas and it would chug away. Lousy gas mileage, though. On the > other > hand, I guess my 01 Prelude with its 200 hp I4 is not made for driving -- > too peaky I suppose and not enough torque at 1500 rpm. Despite the > advice -- I'll stick with my Prelude. I prefer an engine where the gas-mileage depends on my driving behaviour. I dislike an engine where the gas-mileage is kind of build in by being castrated. Gas-mileage ought to be measured with identical acceleration -- only then it is a real comparision. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
"Frank Puck" > wrote in message
m... > I nether met a woman which would care much about the power of a car -- but > there may be exceptions. > I posted this mostly so that people pay attention to such issues. > There are people buying a honda/acura as a sporty car. > HP is not everything -- one can castrate the engine like Honda is usually > doing it. Correct. HP is meaningless without factoring in weight. HP-to-weight ratio will give you an overall indication of a car's performance. Look at car rag 0-60 and 1/4m times and see if they don't reflect hp-to-weight ratio. I've also seen hp-to-weight ratios being used to compare performance, but NEVER torque-to-weight ratios or any reference to torque. For example: http://www.ultimateresourceguides.co...ent/index.html) And Honda doesn’t "castrate the engine", they just sometimes use a lower displacement. Isn't torque output simply a factor of displacement (unless it's force fed)? For example, my '99 Civic Si... http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20001.jpg http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20004.jpg http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20007.jpg http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20010.jpg ....has the same torque output as say...a base MINI (both 1.6L, both 111 ft-lbs.). Now I don't know the mechanics of any of this, but I do know from personal experience having driven a lot of rentals the past few years while traveling for work, that a nice torquey engine (especially a V6 [usually a 3.4L or 3.8L in my case]) will pull extra weight easier than my Civic. That is, I'd rather drive a new 4-clyinder Malibu (yes, I really like GM's current line of Ecotec 4-clyinder engines) over my Civic if I had to regularly haul a carload of passengers. And that's with an automatic transmission vs. my Civic's 5-speed. But I hardly ever have a carload of passengers, usually just my skinny wife of 18 years. I also don't have a lot of heavy stereo equipment (added only a small amp and replaced speakers with after-market). Thus I personally have no problem with low torque output nor my torque-to-weight ratio. I'm not saying that I could do 0-60 in the low 7's nor the 1/4m in the high 15's as did all of the professional magazine drivers with a new '99 Si, but it's still quick enough for me. And practical as well, provided I'm not using it to car pool. My Civic (purchased new, VERY well maintained and never modified) is about to be semi-retired though, as we're about to buy a new Saturn VUE (with the Honda 3.5L). Then one day, when I can afford to, I'll replace my Civic with a new Mustang GT - 320 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm! Now THAT'S torque worth bragging about, and for only ~25k! P.S. If you want more torque in a 4-cylinder Honda engine, the CR-V has 160 ft-lbs. @ 3600 rpm (more torque than the S2000). But I'll keep my 111 ft-lbs. @ 7000 rpm for my application. And I'm sure you're not going to see many original S2000 owners (153 ft-lbs. @ 7500 rpm) swapping their out their engines for the CR-V's 2.4L power plant either. ;-) -- Mark '99 Civic Si |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
"Mark Gonzales" > wrote in message ... > "Frank Puck" > wrote in message > m... > Correct. HP is meaningless without factoring in weight. > > HP-to-weight ratio will give you an overall indication of a car's > performance. Look at car rag 0-60 and 1/4m times and see if they don't > reflect hp-to-weight ratio. I've also seen hp-to-weight ratios being used > to > compare performance, but NEVER torque-to-weight ratios or any reference to > torque. I think that HP-to-weight ratio is meaningless -- when are you actually driving at such RPMs? It is more important how much HP are available at 2000-4000RPM -- this is where I use my engine every day. Power=torque*rotary-speed This is the reason why I'm looking at the torque description of the car (including the weight of course). > And Honda doesn't "castrate the engine", they just sometimes use a lower > displacement. Isn't torque output simply a factor of displacement (unless > it's force fed)? Honda produces castrated engines. Look at the 244HP V6 engine: http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/honda...v_Crf9c6p1eb8F It has max. torque only at 5000RPM -- and the max. torque is only 211ft-pd -- this is nearly the same amount like the 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW and Audi. Who knows how much is avilable at 2000RPM -- certainly less. Thus this 240HP engine is less agile than the 200HP 2.0 Turbo Engine from VW and Audi. The 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops 207ft-pd between 1800RPM and 4800RPM -- this engine is made for driving. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
"Frank Puck" > wrote in message
m... > > "Mark Gonzales" > wrote in message > ... > > "Frank Puck" > wrote in message > > m... > > > > Correct. HP is meaningless without factoring in weight. > > > > HP-to-weight ratio will give you an overall indication of a car's > > performance. Look at car rag 0-60 and 1/4m times and see if they don't > > reflect hp-to-weight ratio. I've also seen hp-to-weight ratios being used > > to > > compare performance, but NEVER torque-to-weight ratios or any reference to > > torque. > > > I think that HP-to-weight ratio is meaningless... Then I guess it's you against the rest of world. ;-) > -- when are you actually > driving at such RPMs? Let's be specific. What RPMs? Judging by the rentals I've driven which included a tach, I'd say I'm turning around 1k-2k more rpms in my Civic in normal traffic. Is this a problem for you? It might be a problem for me if I constantly had to turn these higher rpms with those other engines. But you must consider that my 1.6L was DESIGNED to rev all the way to 8k rpms (limiter at 8,200 rpms) and it does so quickly and willingly. As I like to say, my 1.6L is as smooth as Crown Royal but with less kick. ;-) So those higher rpms aren't even noticeable to me unless I'm looking at my tach. 6,500+ rpms is noticeable though due to a deeper and louder exhaust note. But I only rev that high when I want to have fun, which admittedly is far less today as I’m nearing 40 than it was when I owned a brand new '89 CRX Si in my early 20's. I have one fault with my car, which I'm assuming has been resolved with new Civic Si since it has a 6-speed... And that is that I'm turning 4,400 rpms at 80 mph (usually my maximum hwy speed [~10 mph over the given limit]). Why do I have a problem turning 4,400 rpms at 80 mph? Noise? Nope. I have a bone stock car (compliments to Honda for keeping it quiet - not even audible at idle) plus an interior Dynamat job (mainly for better low-power stereo efficiency). The problem is that my hwy mileage is hardly any better than my city mileage, about 26 - 28 mpg (according to my wife). Another gear would certainly get me better hwy mileage, yes? Consider that my Civics’ top gear acceleration times are actually lower than the 6-speed C5 Corvette... C5 Corvette: top gear acceleration times ---------------------------------- 30-50 mph: 11.6 secs 50-70 mph: 11.7 secs '99 Civic Si: top gear acceleration times ---------------------------------- 30-50 mph: 10.3 secs 50-70 mph: 11.3 secs <Note: these numbers were taken from a thread on this newsgroup dated March 16, 2001 entitled "Some real world facts about Vtec". The links from this thread no longer work but the numbers are not disputed.> While these numbers have no value whatsoever regarding overall performance, it does indicate how GM gets 30 mpg hwy from the LS1 AND that Honda could have probably lowered cruising rpms in my Si (by using another gear?). Am I understanding this correctly? But again, I assume this problem is fixed with the new 6-speed Civic Si (along with the new Si having a better hp and torque-to-weight ratio). If you have a problem turning a few more rpms than what you consider to be normal, then I assume your engine isn't designed to do it. > It is more important how much HP are available at 2000-4000RPM -- this is > where I use my engine every day. And I'm sure this is where *your* engine was designed to be used every day. ;-) > Power=torque*rotary-speed > This is the reason why I'm looking at the torque description of the car > (including the weight of course). You're looking at what's on paper, right? Why not forget what's on paper and take test drives? When I test drove my Civic, I had both my wife and a salesman in the car. I can't say that I was overly impressed with acceleration (compared to an earlier '99 Mustang GT test drive) but it was certainly adequate, especially for an ~$18k loaded Civic. Here's something else for you to consider... I test drove the other '99 Civic coupe models. I certainly felt a difference in power and acceleration along the Civic line, although the only real difference with each car was hp, not torque. In fact, the Si had the worse torque-to-weight ratio of any of the '99 Civic coupes I test drove, yet it felt the quickest to me. No doubt this was due to having a higher hp (as is reflected in published 0-60 and 1/4m times for different Civic models). BTW, the '02 Civic Si received a nice bump in torque over the '99-'00. The result? A poorer performing car with dismal sales. > > And Honda doesn't "castrate the engine", they just sometimes use a lower > > displacement. Isn't torque output simply a factor of displacement (unless > > it's force fed)? > > > Honda produces castrated engines. > Look at the 244HP V6 engine: > http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/honda...v_Crf9c6p1eb8F > It has max. torque only at 5000RPM -- and the max. torque is only 211ft-pd Let's compare, say...the Accord and the Pontiac G6... According to Edmunds... 2006 Pontiac G6 ============ 3.5L 201 hp @ 5600 rpm 222 ft-lbs. @ 3200 rpm Curb Weight: 3415 lbs. 2006 Honda Accord ============== 3.0L 244 hp @ 6250 rpm 211 ft-lbs. @ 5000 rpm Curb Weight: 3364 lbs. Find some 0-60 and 1/4m times for these cars and see if they don't reflect hp-to-weight ratios (not counting Accord's 6-speed manual). But I'll give you this. Having an automatic in both while carrying 5 passengers might be easier for the G6 in everyday traffic. But even under these conditions, I don't think it would be enough to negate the extra 43 hp in the Accord in a race, although you could argue that under these conditions the G6 might be more practical. I'd still bet my hard earned cash on the extra 43 hp though. > -- this is nearly the same amount like the 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW > and Audi. So you want to compare a force-fed engine? Nothing against VW but how much would a turbo VW cost? Wouldn't you be much better off with a new ~$25k Mustang GT for some torque worth bragging about (if that's your thing)? That new Mustang sure is sweet looking IMO, inside and out. Awesome interior in the GT, IMO. I've gone from hating Mustangs to loving them with the '05. > Who knows how much is avilable at 2000RPM -- certainly less. > Thus this 240HP engine is less agile than the 200HP 2.0 Turbo Engine from VW > and Audi. An engine being agile? I don't understand what you mean. When I think of agility I think of handling, something the GTI couldn't match against the Civic Si when R&T compared the '99 Civic Si vs. the '99 Golf GTI GLX(?). The Golf whipped the Civic in 0-60 and 1/4m though, but that's what two more cylinders and at least 5 extra grand will get you (wasn't really a fair comparison, IMO). So I wouldn't call the GTI a great bang-for-the-buck performer. Very nice car (I've always liked VWs, except for the new Jetta/Toyota styling) but the GTI has become a soft pig over the years. Has this been rectified since '99? If you want more info, I'll dig up that 1999 R&T article. I wonder if the '06 Civic Si and '06 Golf GTI will be in a new shootout? > The 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops 207ft-pd between > 1800RPM and 4800RPM > -- this engine is made for driving. You don't drive an engine, you drive a car. ;-) You need to be a little more specific. For starters, what's the car's weight and price? -- Mark '99 Civic Si |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
Frank, you know what I love best about my Honda? With the exception of an O2
sensor which had to be replaced recently, along with relatively expensive regular maintenance (i.e. just had the 90k mile servicing done at Honda), it's been a GREAT car and I haven't had a car note in a couple of years! I hope I have the same success with my upcoming Saturn and Ford, and that you do as well with your VW. ;-) -- Mark '99 Civic Si |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
> > The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of torque > at 1800RPM > -- this is an engine made for driving. > Comparing these two engines the 200HP engine of the VW compares to 295HP > on the Acura (207/140*200) > -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi > knows what is available at 2000RPM. also keep in mind, your compairing a turbo engine (that needs premium gas I might add) to a N/A engine that uses regular. If torque is all your going to talk about, why didn't you get a TDI? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
| don't tell me you're ignoring the amounts of HP a given car has.
HP is often irrelevant to *cars with auto gearboxes, e.g. in a speed limit of 110 kph ( radar detectors are illegal here ), an SM4 ( on 205/65R15 tyres with axle height of 30.2 cm, combined gear ratio of 3.1323 )'s engine in top gear must not spin >3025 rpm. Only on germany's autobahn will HP be relevant to *. VW's 2ws is inferior to japanese ( incl honda )'s 4ws. Looks like you never expereinced 4ws. [i] 1 can corner hard without a nose-dive ; only a slight sideward tilt towards outer edge of road curve will happen, because all 4 tyres can turn to change car's direction, i.e. nearly twice as much tyre grip. 1 needs not slow down as much, & lose / waste momentum. [ii] esp useful in a city like Sydney ( australia ) whose city centre's road lanes are just 7' wide ( approx, I could not stop to measure them ) : over curves all 2ws cars ( trucks are worse )' tails inevitably cut into other lanes, 1's car will be scratched / dented unless 1 carefully avoids these cutting-in`s, i.e. 1 must not drive into busy curves. 4ws vehicles need not cut into other lanes ( their tails can follow road curves ), should be charged lower rd tax for their tighter use of narrow lanes ( enable fstr traffic flow ). [iii] a narrow gap ( on a curve rd / path ) impassable to a 2ws car can be passable to a 4ws car of similar size. The same with a short parking space, or a 3 point turn to reverse car's direction. 4ws saves time, this is what cars are for in the 1st place. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
hondas are for loosers
Frank Puck wrote:
> I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake. <snipped> Hi, Prank, thanks for contributing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Renovating Hondas for Income & Fun | Elle | Honda | 10 | July 6th 05 03:25 PM |
New to Hondas, got a few questions | tonyrama | Honda | 21 | May 11th 05 12:56 AM |
UK Hondas | [email protected] | Honda | 6 | April 29th 05 04:33 PM |
My Golf GTI 2.0 L 16 Valve EATS Those Crap HONDAS | EUROBADBOY | VW water cooled | 1 | October 25th 04 10:29 PM |
Which Mobil1 for late model Hondas | rossbailey | Honda | 1 | September 22nd 04 03:04 PM |