2000 cc engine produces 146 HPs. How could Honda accomplish this level of power on its 1999 CR-V?
David Le
1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
in
1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
only produced about 140 HPs.
How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
special
engine such as the rotary engine, Turbo, or VTEC, a 2.0 litter cannot
produce that much. This is 73 HPs per each litter of engine!!!!!
This 2.0 litter engine even outperforms the 2.2
litter Honda Accord and Toyota Camry engines which produce only aprox.
125 HPs. Can the Big three Auto companies ever be able to make engines
that
produce that much HPs per 1000 cc, such as a 3.0 GM engine produces 210
HPs, and
a 4.0 Ford Explorer engine produces 292 HPs?
Bob
>
>The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
>1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
>the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
>produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
>produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
>in
>1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
>only produced about 140 HPs.
>
>How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
>know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
>special
Many companies are going back to the old method of measuring HP.
After 1972 engine were dynoed at the drive wheels with all accesories.
prior to this engines were dynoed by themselves on test stands.
Benjamin Kaufman
(pushrod) was around 160Hp.
Pumping horsepower out of an engine has many other factors in addition
to its combustion chamber cubic displacement, it's also a matter of how
well it breathes, that is, how much fuel/air mixture it can consume per
unit time and how well the mixture combusts. Other factors are the
compression ratio, the valve inlet area, the duration which input valves
are open, exhaust tuning, timing tricks etc. For example, many motor
cycle engines with 10K+ redlines produce over 100HP with 1000 CC.
Ben
On October 19 1998, David Le <D...@nospam.com> wrote:
> The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
> 1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
> the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
> produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
> produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
> in
> 1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in
> 1996 only produced about 140 HPs.
>
> How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
> know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have
> the special
> engine such as the rotary engine, Turbo, or VTEC, a 2.0 litter cannot
> produce that much. This is 73 HPs per each litter of engine!!!!!
> This 2.0 litter engine even outperforms the 2.2
> litter Honda Accord and Toyota Camry engines which produce only aprox.
>
> 125 HPs. Can the Big three Auto companies ever be able to make engines
> that produce that much HPs per 1000 cc, such as a 3.0 GM engine
> produces 210 HPs, and
> a 4.0 Ford Explorer engine produces 292 HPs?
--
Ben Kaufman
antispam: To Email me, change domain from spam_sync to pobox.
- 10/19/98
SedanBoy
1) It's COMMON to make that much hp out of 2.0L these
days.
Nissan's SE-R made 140 from 2.0L. DOHC Neon's make 150hp
from 2.0L
73hp/liter is common with modern engines. Lexus has a 300hp
4-liter
Nissan's 300ZX non-turbo made 74hp/liter.
2 The SHO engine NEVER made it into anything other than a
SHO.
The "weakest" SHO motor makes 220hp, so there's no way the
'97 Explorer
has a 160HP SHO motor.
Modern times, modern technology, modern hp/liter. Common
criteria : non-blower is 75hp/liter with blower
100hp/liter. Many have variable
valve timing (each company has their own name for it),
which doesn't
necessarily add hp/liter per se, but lets you have a more
flexible powerband
with such a high strung motor.
The 1.8L Acura Type-R makes 107hp/liter without a blower.
--
Dave Lum - remove * to e-mail
'71 Datsun 510
www.datsuns.com
David Le <D...@nospam.com> wrote in article
<362BA6...@nospam.com>...
SedanBoy
hp out of
less displacement. See my other post.
--
Dave Lum - remove * to e-mail
www.datsuns.com
Bob <bob...@uswset.net> wrote in article
<70gapm$k0q$3...@usenet46.supernews.com>...
> >
> >How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter
engine? I don't
> >know much about mechanical engineering but I thought
unless you have the
> >special
>
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
> 1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
> the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
> produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
> produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
> in
> 1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
> only produced about 140 HPs.
>
> know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
> special
> produce that much. This is 73 HPs per each litter of engine!!!!!
> This 2.0 litter engine even outperforms the 2.2
> litter Honda Accord and Toyota Camry engines which produce only aprox.
> 125 HPs. Can the Big three Auto companies ever be able to make engines
> that
> produce that much HPs per 1000 cc, such as a 3.0 GM engine produces 210
> HPs, and
> a 4.0 Ford Explorer engine produces 292 HPs?
No big deal here. Check out the horsepower ratings on some of the
liter-size sport motorcycles. There are several that exceed 100 hp out
of 1.0 liter (1,000 cc). I think that one of the 98 models was around
130 hp from a liter and this was a normally aspirated engine.
I can hardly be impressed by a measly 73 hp/liter!
Matt
Fabian Zalis
>
> Hey guy,
>
> 1) It's COMMON to make that much hp out of 2.0L these
> days.
> Nissan's SE-R made 140 from 2.0L. DOHC Neon's make 150hp
> from 2.0L
> 73hp/liter is common with modern engines. Lexus has a 300hp
> 4-liter
> Nissan's 300ZX non-turbo made 74hp/liter.
>
> 2 The SHO engine NEVER made it into anything other than a
> SHO.
> The "weakest" SHO motor makes 220hp, so there's no way the
> '97 Explorer
> has a 160HP SHO motor.
>
> Modern times, modern technology, modern hp/liter. Common
> criteria : non-blower is 75hp/liter with blower
> 100hp/liter. Many have variable
> valve timing (each company has their own name for it),
> which doesn't
> necessarily add hp/liter per se, but lets you have a more
> flexible powerband
> with such a high strung motor.
> The 1.8L Acura Type-R makes 107hp/liter without a blower.
>
> Dave Lum - remove * to e-mail
> www.datsuns.com
>
> David Le <D...@nospam.com> wrote in article
> <362BA6...@nospam.com>...
Chris Phillipo
> know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
> special
> engine such as the rotary engine, Turbo, or VTEC, a 2.0 litter cannot
> produce that much. This is 73 HPs per each litter of engine!!!!!
> This 2.0 litter engine even outperforms the 2.2
> litter Honda Accord and Toyota Camry engines which produce only aprox.
> 125 HPs. Can the Big three Auto companies ever be able to make engines
> that
> produce that much HPs per 1000 cc, such as a 3.0 GM engine produces 210
> HPs, and
> a 4.0 Ford Explorer engine produces 292 HPs?
Higher RPM. I don't know if this is how they did it in the CRV but look
at the new Chevy Silverado engines, they list the HP at 5000 RPM. Who's
going to be driving that truck around at 5k? I like the trucks and am a
GM fan, that that's pretty cheap.
--
__________________________________
Remove "delme" from email address to reply.
AlienSexFiend
under the hood.
It's about dynamics - something americans forgot when they produced
big-block gas guzzlers in the 70's
Bob wrote in message <70gapm$k0q$3...@usenet46.supernews.com>...
>In article <362BA6...@nospam.com>, D...@nospam.com says...
>>
>>The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
>>1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
>>the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
>>produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
>>produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
>>in
>>1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
>>only produced about 140 HPs.
>>
>>How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
>>know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
>>special
>
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> Actually it's nothing in Europe to have a 200 BHP car based on a 2.5
> under the hood.
>
> It's about dynamics - something americans forgot when they produced
> big-block gas guzzlers in the 70's
What???
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > David Le wrote:
> > >
> > > The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
> > > 1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
> > > the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
> > > produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
> > > produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
> > > in
> > > 1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
> > > only produced about 140 HPs.
> > >
> > > How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
> > > know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
> > > special
> > > produce that much. This is 73 HPs per each litter of engine!!!!!
> > > This 2.0 litter engine even outperforms the 2.2
> > > litter Honda Accord and Toyota Camry engines which produce only aprox.
> > > 125 HPs. Can the Big three Auto companies ever be able to make engines
> > > that
> > > produce that much HPs per 1000 cc, such as a 3.0 GM engine produces 210
> > > HPs, and
> > > a 4.0 Ford Explorer engine produces 292 HPs?
> >
> > liter-size sport motorcycles. There are several that exceed 100 hp out
> > of 1.0 liter (1,000 cc). I think that one of the 98 models was around
> > 130 hp from a liter and this was a normally aspirated engine.
> >
> > I can hardly be impressed by a measly 73 hp/liter!
> >
> > Matt
>
What? The horsepower and torque figures that most manufacturers provide
are the PEAK numbers at whatever RPM is required to achieve the
maximum. From a marketing perspective, it would be silly to report
anything less than the max.
> It's always hacked my off that they don't provide the power curve for vehicles.
> You have to go digging for it and even then it might not be accurate.
Well, the brochure for my 1994 Chevy truch does contain the power and
torque curves. I saw a 1999 truck brochure and it contains the curves
also. I believe, likewise, that Dodge trucks also include the actual
curves. I don't think it is as common with cars, however.
Matt
AlienSexFiend
Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <362BC6...@epix.net>...
William Ho
engine. Prelude VTEC has 190hp 2.2L engine. 2.0L 146hp is pretty tame if
you ask me.
David Le wrote in message <362BA6...@nospam.com>...
Daniel J Stern
> The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
> 1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine
^^^^^^
What an appropriate, even Freudian, slip.
> the HP will be 146.
<yawn> So?
> Normally it should take a larger engine to produce that much
> horsepower.
My 224 horsepower (stock) 255 horsepower (currently) 1991 Dodge Spirit R/T
with 2.2 litre 4-cylinder engine would BEG to differ with you.
> For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer produced only about 140 HPs
> until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine in 1997 and pushed the HP
> up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996 only produced about
> 140 HPs.
AH! I see your problem: You have no understanding of the concept of
torque.
> How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine?
By revving it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY up.
--Daniel
To write to me, make my address go:
dastern "at" umich "dot" edu
"KRACH - Gerausch von Glassplittern..."
WindsorLX
Daniel J Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, David Le wrote:
>
> > The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
> > 1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine
> ^^^^^^
> What an appropriate, even Freudian, slip.
>
> > the HP will be 146.
>
> <yawn> So?
Really... I had a Toyota truck with a carburator that 112 HP with a 2.3. Add
FI and a turbo and I'm sure it could have made 150, but for how long?
dunham
Nissans 200sx ser 2.0 with 140bhp
Dodges Neon 2.0 with 150bhp
and just because an engine has VTEC that doesnt make it special, VTEC is
only there to control the opening and closing of the valves dependent on
certain conditions such as RPM, for better combustion.
In that case we can also include the many Honda/Acura engines that make good
bhp out of very small engines..... such as
1.6 @ 127hp, 1.6 dohc at 160hp, 1.8 dohc @ 170bhp,
1.8 dohc type-r @ 190hp, or even up to the 2.2 prelude @ 195hp
then theres the Mitsubishi nonturbo 2.0 @140hp
I can keep going but it aint gonna help prove the point.
David Le wrote in message <362BA6...@nospam.com>...
>The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
>1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
>the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
>produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine in
1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
only produced about 140 HPs.
Lane Flynn
David Le wrote in message <362BA6...@nospam.com>...
>The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
>1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
>the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
>produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
>produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
>in
>1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
>only produced about 140 HPs.
>
>How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
>know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
>special
>engine such as the rotary engine, Turbo, or VTEC, a 2.0 litter cannot
>produce that much. This is 73 HPs per each litter of engine!!!!!
>This 2.0 litter engine even outperforms the 2.2
>litter Honda Accord and Toyota Camry engines which produce only aprox.
>125 HPs. Can the Big three Auto companies ever be able to make engines
>that
>produce that much HPs per 1000 cc, such as a 3.0 GM engine produces 210
>HPs, and
>a 4.0 Ford Explorer engine produces 292 HPs?
engines to smaller, highly tuned European and Japanese engines. My 94 325is
makes 190 hp out of 2.5l; this equals 76 hp/l stock, and people have tuned
these engines for a lot more. My father's 89 944 Turbo with a chip makes
300hp out of 2.4l; 125 hp/l blown out of an I4. The one thing displacement
will get you is low-end torque; few European or Japanese cars are designed
to cruise or accelerate at 1500rpm, but many American cars and especially
trucks will do that happily.
--Lane Flynn
94 325is
--
ATTENTION SPAMMERS:
I do not accept bulk email for commercial purposes. Any spam I receive will
be construed as a request for my email testing service, which will cost you
$200 MINIMUM. Thank you.
Siddiq
rpm HP; that is, you might have to wind it up to get anything resembling
response. The others might be tuned for low to mid range torque, which is
what really counts in everyday commuting. Then, Honda may be using
variable valve timing (VTEC in Hondas, VVTi, VANOS, VARIOCAM, etc. in
other cars). Also, Honda tends to build small displacement high revvers,
so they have a wealth of experience with regards to how to get so much
power.
--
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor--Ovid
Siddiq
have been many--too many--posts about why/how/etcetc. If you could make an
auto engine with the same design (cams, exhaust, etc), you could get the
same, but it would not be practical space-wise.
Siddiq
for other marques, though.
Siddiq
> >Actually it's nothing in Europe to have a 200 BHP car based on a 2.5
> >under the hood.
Actually, you really wouldn't care for torque on the 'bahn. You
need high rpms there to accel from triple digits, not torque to get to
triple digits, which is the case in the US.
outthere@leftfield
>Many companies are going back to the old method of measuring HP.
Yeah, right, BOB. Tell us another story.
White Tornado
>know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
>special engine such as the rotary engine, Turbo, or VTEC, a 2.0 litter cannot
The actual displacement of an engine is meaningless, except for a very
rough estimation of how much air the engine will process with each
rev.
The key to making horsepower to processing the most amount of air/fuel
possible. Larger displacement is simply the most obvious way to
increase horsepower. But you can also tune the engine to rev higher,
improve it's breathing (multi-valves) etc. Honda has a design that
revs higher, thus allowing the same displacement to process more air.
5.0L @ 4000rpm = 2.5L @ 8000 same amount of air processed, in theory
the same amount of horsepower produced all other things being equal.
Dan
THAT Would Be Good...
--
92' EB Explorer, JBL, 4x4
Please Visit My Explorer Page...
http://home1.gte.net/1ateam/explorer/index.html
Bob
nope
>
>Many companies are going back to the old method of measuring HP.
>prior to this engines were dynoed by themselves on test stands.
This is partially incorrect. Perhaps you are confusing the old Gross vs. SAE
Net HP. Gross HP allowed for no drive-line accessories to be attached, in
addition to some non-standardized variables that went on (unregulated air
temp, etc). This allowed for higher figures than SAE HP -- which is a
standardized method of measuring HP; Standard air temperature, and full
drive line accesories are required, as well as any smog control device.
Both gross and SAE are measured at the crankshaft -- NOT the wheels. "Wheel
HP" is what's measured 99% of the time with aftermarket tuners/owners. Wheel
HP always gives lower numbers due to driveline friction which is typically a
15 to 20% loss.
Cóta Mór
> Modern times, modern technology, modern hp/liter. Common
>criteria : non-blower is 75hp/liter with blower
>100hp/liter.
RX-7 gives 196hp/litre. "Modern technology", indeed :)
Richard Fay
>
> Modern times, modern technology, modern hp/liter. Common
> criteria : non-blower is 75hp/liter with blower
> 100hp/liter. Many have variable
> valve timing (each company has their own name for it),
> which doesn't
> necessarily add hp/liter per se, but lets you have a more
> flexible powerband
> with such a high strung motor.
> The 1.8L Acura Type-R makes 107hp/liter without a blower.
>
How about 200hp per Litre?
Unfortunately this engine resides in a bike - YZF R6
120hp from 600cc
Richard
Harry C. King III
to impress me, give me more torque out of a given displacement. Maybe you
should go drive one of these things, too, and report back. I guarantee
that you'll be disappointed. You have to revv the daylights out of the
engine to get the car to go anywhere.
Harry
--
Harry Crawford King III
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gtd845a
Internet: gtd...@prism.gatech.edu
Harry C. King III
>
>What? The horsepower and torque figures that most manufacturers provide
>are the PEAK numbers at whatever RPM is required to achieve the
>maximum. From a marketing perspective, it would be silly to report
>anything less than the max.
HP=torque*RPM/5252. Therefore, to get more power, all you have to do is
increase RPM. No biggie. Yeah, you have to maintain torque at the higher
RPM, which is why different engines have differetn ratings at differents
RPM.
rmoburg
>In article <362BA6...@nospam.com>, D...@nospam.com says...
>>
>>The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
>>1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
>>the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
>>produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
>>produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
>>in
>>1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
>>only produced about 140 HPs.
>>
>>How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
>>know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
>>special
>
>Many companies are going back to the old method of measuring HP.
>After 1972 engine were dynoed at the drive wheels with all accesories.
>prior to this engines were dynoed by themselves on test stands.
That's interesting... When did the standards bodies approve this? I've
seen nothing on it?.
Harry C. King III
>>under the hood.
>>
>
>yes, and all the torque of a Dremel tool.
>
<G>
Harry C. King III
Cóta Mór <adh...@deifir.ie> wrote:
>On 19 Oct 1998 22:31:06 GMT, "SedanBoy" <di...@ix.netcom*.com> wrote:
>> Modern times, modern technology, modern hp/liter. Common
>>criteria : non-blower is 75hp/liter with blower
>>100hp/liter.
>
Yep. The most modern design in use. It only dates back to the 40s,
unlike OHCs, which date back to the teens. Hey, you know, I just realized
that pushrod engines are more modern than OHC engines!
Lloyd R. Parker
: The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
: the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
: produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
: produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
: in
: 1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
: only produced about 140 HPs.
:
: How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
: know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
: special
Chrysler's 2.0 dohc in the Neon produces 150 hp. You use 4 valves per
cylinder and dohc to get more rpms; the Explorer V6 doesn't do this.
However, small engines like this usually don't produce much torque --
Chrysler's engine mentioned above only makes 130 lb-ft or so.
Chrysler's 2.0 V6 makes 200 hp, more hp/L than any other regular fuel V6,
and I believe only the Ford Contour SVT and Acura NSX V6s make more hp/L
of any V6 (non turbo).
Lloyd R. Parker
:
: The gain in HP is because they measured at a higher RPM...
No, it's because the engine develops peak hp at a higher rpm.
Lloyd R. Parker
: On 19 Oct 1998 22:31:06 GMT, "SedanBoy" <di...@ix.netcom*.com> wrote:
: > Modern times, modern technology, modern hp/liter. Common
: >criteria : non-blower is 75hp/liter with blower
: >100hp/liter.
:
: RX-7 gives 196hp/litre. "Modern technology", indeed :)
You can't compare a rotary's "displacement" to that of a piston engine's,
since each lobe of the rotor sweeps the same displacement. That's why
most racing organizations multiply a rotary's "displacement" by 2 to give
its comparable displacement and racing class (Mazda's 1.1 L ran in the
under-2.5-L class and its 1.3 L in the over-2.5-L class, if I remember the
old Trans Am formula correctly).
Lloyd R. Parker
: All you have to do to increase horsepower is to increase RPM. If you want
Not so, or all engines would have their peak hp at their redline.
Lloyd R. Parker
: >What? The horsepower and torque figures that most manufacturers provide
: >are the PEAK numbers at whatever RPM is required to achieve the
: >maximum. From a marketing perspective, it would be silly to report
: >anything less than the max.
:
: HP=torque*RPM/5252. Therefore, to get more power, all you have to do is
: increase RPM. No biggie. Yeah, you have to maintain torque at the higher
Not if torque drops off; this is why all engines don't develop their peak
hp at their redline.
AlienSexFiend
200 BHP and 220 ft/lbs Torque @ 2900 RPM
Naxt please!
Bob wrote in message <70h2oj$6a9$1...@usenet41.supernews.com>...
>In article <70gk3v$fc$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, sy...@host-u.ml.org says...
>>
AlienSexFiend
Siddiq wrote in message ...
>On 20 Oct 1998, Bob wrote:
>> >Actually it's nothing in Europe to have a 200 BHP car based on a 2.5
>> >under the hood.
>> yes, and all the torque of a Dremel tool.
Harry C. King III
>: increase RPM. No biggie. Yeah, you have to maintain torque at the higher
>
>Not if torque drops off; this is why all engines don't develop their peak
>hp at their redline.
>
Did you see where I wrote "Yeah, you have to maintain torque at the higher
RPM."? And very few engines develop thier peak hp at redline, unless they
are rev limited, because of the dropping off of the torque.
Bob
> Actually, you really wouldn't care for torque on the 'bahn. You
>need high rpms there to accel from triple digits, not torque to get to
>triple digits, which is the case in the US.
>
I've been there. it's only a few miles of road.
Simon Scuffham
>
> Integra Type-R has 195 hp 1.8L engine. Civic Type-R has 185hp? 1.6L
> engine. Prelude VTEC has 190hp 2.2L engine. 2.0L 146hp is pretty tame if
> you ask me.
>
>
And my Lotus Elise Sport is a 1.8, has 190BHP@7000RPM and 152 Ft/Lbs@5650RPM
These are not unusual in Jap/Euro cars, we don't need 5L and 8 cly to make an
engine.
Simon
Henry Meyerding
nothing to do with the b.h.p. output or torque (within reason).
Compare some of the Formula 4-cylinder race engines that produce more
than 500 bhp and 300+ ftlb torque from 2000 ccs with some of the monster
engines of the post WWI cars - as many as 16 cylinders, 8, 10, or even
12 thousand ccs and something less than 100 bhp.
Getting the most bhp isn't necessarily the object of the exercise. For
example, said formula engines are designed to run maybe a few thousand
miles between complete rebuilds. Other less extreme engines will go 100
times as long before requiring an overhaul. For take the strange case
of the Jaguar 6-cyliner, which was a fine, race-bred engine until it got
mated to the awful borg-warner 3-speed auto: then it never revved and
thus sucked valves.
It is generally easier and cheaper to build a more powerful big motor
than it is to build an equally powerful little motor. It is also true
that above 500 bhp, the engine must be physically larger because you
start running into the structural limits of the strength of steel.
Modern cars are designed very much to their uses: driving
characteristics, longevity, serviability, esthetics, and owner
expectations are the principle design themes persued.
Good luck to you,
Henry Meyerding
WindsorLX
Siddiq wrote:
> Huh? Every Toyota brochure I've seen has BOTH hp and tq curves. Can't say
> for other marques, though.
>
> --
> video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor--Ovid
May I assume this reply was to me since my post mentioned Toyota? If so, Do
WHAT ?
Kyller
(1999) turn into an old car?
--
Kyle M.
"Kyller"
Erich Coiner
o do is
> >: increase RPM. No biggie. Yeah, you have to maintain torque at the higher
> >
> >Not if torque drops off; this is why all engines don't develop their peak
> >hp at their redline.
> >
>
> Did you see where I wrote "Yeah, you have to maintain torque at the higher
> RPM."? And very few engines develop thier peak hp at redline, unless they
> are rev limited, because of the dropping off of the torque.
>
> Harry
I think he was replying to the "no biggie" part. Maintaining the torque
at rpm is not easy. What is even more difficult to do is to have high
torque over a wide rpm range. Achieving that goal is why there are
variable length intakes like the Ford Cobra DOHC engine. Look at the
torque curve for that engine. It is virtually flat at 300 ft-lbs for a
very long way. I can't remember the range so I won't quote wrong numbers
but it is VERY impressive how flat the curve is.
Erich
Erich Coiner
>
> And my Lotus Elise Sport is a 1.8, has 190BHP@7000RPM and 152 Ft/Lbs@5650RPM
>
> These are not unusual in Jap/Euro cars, we don't need 5L and 8 cly to make an
> engine.
>
> Simon
Simon,
It is not about need, it is all about WANT. Americans WANT 5L and 8
cylinders. If your gas prices were 1/3 of what it is today, you would
WANT it too.
Erich The smallest engine we own is 3.8L and the largest is 7.5L
Harry C. King III
Henry Meyerding <h...@goomba.com> wrote:
>
>Compare some of the Formula 4-cylinder race engines that produce more
>than 500 bhp and 300+ ftlb torque from 2000 ccs with some of the monster
>engines of the post WWI cars - as many as 16 cylinders, 8, 10, or even
>12 thousand ccs and something less than 100 bhp.
I agree with just about everything you said. However, there is one thing
worthy of mention. When you start talking about non-normally aspirated
engines, your displacement theory becomes a bit misleading. At the same
RPM, a 2.5 liter engine boosted 14.7 psi is pushing as much air as a 5.0
liter normally aspirated engine. Well, roughly. Vacuums and such will
affect this, but you get my point. I don't know what kind of boost the F1
engines run, but it does make a huge amount of difference to as how much
air is going through the engine. That is why the CART cars, at 2.6 (?)
liters are so much faster than the IRL cars at 4.0 liters. The engines
are similiar in design, less the superchargers.
AlienSexFiend
smaller cars too :-P
I think big-block's are popular because of penis size......
go figure
AlienSexFiend
Erich Coiner wrote in message <362CD7...@NOSPAMhp.com>...
Anonymous
Um, there are plenty fo examples of more powerful engines. For example,
just about all the european Supertourings were normally aspirated 2.0 i4's
making around 300hp.
paul.o'...@pss.boeing.com
> 1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
> the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
> produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
> produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
> in
> 1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
> only produced about 140 HPs.
91-98 4.0L OHV = 160hp & 225ft*lb
97-98 4.0L SOHC = 205hp & 250ft*lb
There is no "SHO" engine in the Explorer.
>
> How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
> know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
> special
> engine such as the rotary engine, Turbo, or VTEC, a 2.0 litter cannot
> produce that much.
A stock Neon DOHC 2.0L is 150hp.
> This 2.0 litter engine even outperforms the 2.2
> litter Honda Accord and Toyota Camry engines which produce only aprox.
> 125 HPs.
Base engine in Accord is 2.3L 135hp.
Base engine in Camry is 2.2L 133hp.
Please research what you are saying before you post.....
--
_________________________________________
Paul O'Gorman
Boeing 777 Division
-----------------------------------------
93 Explorer Sport 4x4
97 Neon SOHC 16v
-----------------------------------------
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> should go drive one of these things, too, and report back. I guarantee
> that you'll be disappointed. You have to revv the daylights out of the
> engine to get the car to go anywhere.
No true always. Few cars have their horsepower peak at their redline
RPM. HP is a function of torque times RPM. Once the torque begins to
fall off rapidly enough (nonlinearly), then the linear increase in RPM
will result in a net decrease in HP. Check out a few power curves to
see this...
Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> >
> >What? The horsepower and torque figures that most manufacturers provide
> >are the PEAK numbers at whatever RPM is required to achieve the
> >maximum. From a marketing perspective, it would be silly to report
> >anything less than the max.
>
> increase RPM. No biggie. Yeah, you have to maintain torque at the higher
> RPM.
True, but maintaining the torque is non-trivial and requires engine
modifications. You can't just simply spin the engine faster!
Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> No, not agian. Of course motorcycles make more power per liter, but there
> have been many--too many--posts about why/how/etcetc. If you could make an
> auto engine with the same design (cams, exhaust, etc), you could get the
> same, but it would not be practical space-wise.
Why not? My 1200cc Kawaski engine isn't much of any bigger than a
similar-sized car engine. I think other factors enter in such as fuel
efficiency, tighter auto emission specs, cost, etc.
Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> If you didn't want to detroy the world with your emissions, you would drive
> smaller cars too :-P
I haven't seen the specs in the last couple of years, but about 3 years
ago the emissions of a typical US-spec auto was substantially less than
a typical Euro-spec auto even considering the larger average
displacement. Anyone have the current Euro specs? I'll bet that US
cars are STILL cleaner.
Matt
Topless Pig
David Le wrote:
> The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
> 1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
> the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
> produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
> produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
> in
> 1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
> only produced about 140 HPs.
>
> How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
> know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
> special
> engine such as the rotary engine, Turbo, or VTEC, a 2.0 litter cannot
> produce that much. This is 73 HPs per each litter of engine!!!!!
> This 2.0 litter engine even outperforms the 2.2
> litter Honda Accord and Toyota Camry engines which produce only aprox.
> 125 HPs. Can the Big three Auto companies ever be able to make engines
> that
> produce that much HPs per 1000 cc, such as a 3.0 GM engine produces 210
> HPs, and
> a 4.0 Ford Explorer engine produces 292 HPs?
73 hp per liter is nothing special. Motorcycle engines, including those made
by Honda, have been producing well in excess of 100 bhp per liter for years.
Tim Jensen
Brent McNabb
wrote:
> If you didn't want to detroy the world with your emissions, you would drive
> smaller cars too :-P
That's right, damnit! I'm also driving around eating hamburgers out
of the old McDonald's styrofoam containers, tossing them out the
window, and I huge chainsaw in the trunk so I can go around cutting
down trees! All the while only getting 1 MPG! >:) (Apologies to
Denis Leary.)
> I think big-block's are popular because of penis size......
> go figure
This is complete crap. One of the best things about a big block is
the unmistakable exhaust note. I love it. Plus, I have yet to find a
four cylinder engine with bagfuls of torque down low in the RPM band.
That visceral rush off the line is wonderful.
---
Remove SPAMMENOT from e-mail address to reply.
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
ICQ# 8871834
AlienSexFiend
average 50MPG
EU automobile to get where you're going, you're putting out 4 times the
emissions
Think about it...........
Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <362CFB...@epix.net>...
>AlienSexFiend wrote:
>>
>> If you didn't want to detroy the world with your emissions, you would
drive
>> smaller cars too :-P
>
Chris Phillipo
>
> DougW (doug...@flash.net) wrote:
> :
> : The gain in HP is because they measured at a higher RPM...
>
What are you trying to say here, "No. (period) No because the engine
develops peak hp at a higher rpm?" If so, that's what he said. Honda
must not have given the peak numbers the year before, just like Chevy
might decide next year that the new engines can go to 5200 RPM for 5
more horsepower with no ill effect.
--
__________________________________
Remove "delme" from email address to reply.
AlienSexFiend
Brent McNabb wrote in message ...
>
>> If you didn't want to detroy the world with your emissions, you would
drive
>> smaller cars too :-P
>
>of the old McDonald's styrofoam containers, tossing them out the
>window, and I huge chainsaw in the trunk so I can go around cutting
>down trees! All the while only getting 1 MPG! >:) (Apologies to
>Denis Leary.)
he he! knew that would get people going :-P
>> I think big-block's are popular because of penis size......
>> go figure
>
>This is complete crap. One of the best things about a big block is
>the unmistakable exhaust note. I love it. Plus, I have yet to find a
>four cylinder engine with bagfuls of torque down low in the RPM band.
>That visceral rush off the line is wonderful.
Pah! I don't have anything to prove, Rice-Boy :-P
I'll stick with my 4 on the floor thanks :-)
AlienSexFiend
1985 Dodge Daytona
1989 Subaru 1.8 Turbo
Chris Phillipo
>
> Harry C. King III (gtd...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
> : All you have to do to increase horsepower is to increase RPM. If you want
>
Obviously there has to be a flat line int he curve somewhere for each
engine, red line or not.
Chris Phillipo
>
> Why on earth was this posted in rec.autos.antique? When did the future
> (1999) turn into an old car?
>
Acording to the resale book, as soon as I had thoughts about driving it
off the lot. :)
Chris Phillipo
> >
> >
>
> And my Lotus Elise Sport is a 1.8, has 190BHP@7000RPM and 152 Ft/Lbs@5650RPM
>
> These are not unusual in Jap/Euro cars, we don't need 5L and 8 cly to make an
> engine.
>
> Simon
Plus it only weighs about as much as a bag of Aluminum cans :) You
should try putting wings on tht thing and see if it can take an F-16. :)
Randy Davis
|Simon Scuffham wrote:
|> And my Lotus Elise Sport is a 1.8, has 190BHP@7000RPM and 152 Ft/Lbs@5650RPM
|>
|> These are not unusual in Jap/Euro cars, we don't need 5L and 8 cly to make an
|> engine.
|
|
|It is not about need, it is all about WANT. Americans WANT 5L and 8
|cylinders. If your gas prices were 1/3 of what it is today, you would
|WANT it too.
|
|Erich The smallest engine we own is 3.8L and the largest is 7.5L
Actually, I beleive it might more accurately be termed that people
want high TORQUE, whether they know thats the term for it or not. They
*want* the feeling that over 300ft-lbs gives at low rpm.
Personally, I couldn't care less what the power/displacement ratio is -
I'm more concerned in the power and torque versus the weight of the vehicle,
which translates into how it will accelerate and often how much relative
*fun* the vehicle is (granted, along with other attributes). If it happens
to be achieved with 10 cylinders and 8 liters to *only* give 450 hp and
490 ft-lbs of torque, yet is still under 3500 lbs, then, well, I happen
to find that to be very desirable and a BLAST to drive.
Obviously, your viewpoint may be different...
Randy Davis
(to email, replace nospam with randy)
rmoburg
<sy...@host-u.ml.org> wrote:
>I had a 2.0 Fiat station wagon in England.
>200 BHP and 220 ft/lbs Torque @ 2900 RPM
>
You want to try that again?????? The horsepower on a really big
stretch maybe..... The torque is out of the question...
chsw
rpm.
rmoburg wrote in message <362d226b...@nntp.interaccess.com>...
Stilian
Cóta Mór wrote:
> On 19 Oct 1998 22:31:06 GMT, "SedanBoy" <di...@ix.netcom*.com> wrote:
> > Modern times, modern technology, modern hp/liter. Common
> >criteria : non-blower is 75hp/liter with blower
> >100hp/liter.
>
> RX-7 gives 196hp/litre. "Modern technology", indeed :)
The RX 7 is turbocharged, so it is a little different, How about the old
Honda F1 1500cc turbo engine making
1250 hp (1350 with overboost for 15 sec) or the BMW F1 engine from the
same vintage 1500cc - 1650 hp with overboost that makes 1100 hp /L, but
also lasts a few hours if that. High hp/L figures are nice but there are
other factors in engine design.
Stilian
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> They are about as clean - but if you burn 3 times as much gas as your
> average 50MPG
> EU automobile to get where you're going, you're putting out 4 times the
> emissions
>
> Think about it...........
I have. Last I knew, emissions were specified in units (grams
typically) per mile. Not grams per gallon or grams per cylinder or grams
per cc or grams per cubic inch.
Think about it...
If someone has the numbers for a European country or two we can quickly
find who whose cars are cleaner per mile. I'm pretty sure it is the
American cars by a substantial margin.
Matt
Stilian
> cylinders. If your gas prices were 1/3 of what it is today, you would
> WANT it too.
>
> Erich The smallest engine we own is 3.8L and the largest is 7.5L
This is not entirely true. Suppose you have a 4.0L V6 engine that develops 200 hp
@ 4000 rpms and a2.0L I4 engine developing 200hp @ 8000 (not that unreasonable
today). They will consume the same amount of fuel, only the bigger engine will have
more torque and will be quieter and smoother. Power is energy and you need more
fuel to make more power. It is that simple. It does not matter how you do it -
forced induction, VVT, more displacement etc.. Now that is why we have different
engines for different applications. A real world example is the 3.0 V6 SOHC VTEC
Accord engine that has worse mileage than the 3.8 V6 OHV GM Buick engine of the
same power in similar type cars.
Stilian
Stilian
rmoburg wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:01:45 -0400, "AlienSexFiend"
> <sy...@host-u.ml.org> wrote:
>
> >I had a 2.0 Fiat station wagon in England.
> >200 BHP and 220 ft/lbs Torque @ 2900 RPM
> >
>
> You want to try that again?????? The horsepower on a really big
> stretch maybe..... The torque is out of the question...
It is turbocharged. The new ones have 2.0L I5 20v with 225hp and
250lbft with light pressure turbo.
Stilian
AlienSexFiend
rmoburg wrote in message <362d226b...@nntp.interaccess.com>...
AlienSexFiend
But remember - Fiat is now made by Ferarri :-)
chsw wrote in message <70j9v1$mt9$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>It's a Fiat. The writer meant 200 brake hamster power and 220 g/m @ 9200
>rpm.
>
chsw
You have it the wrong way around. Ferraris are now made by Fiat. The
prancing $ 300,000 horse has no balls and goes out of tune if you breathe
on it.
AlienSexFiend wrote in message <70jc17$aem$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
Stilian
Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
The europeans measure the CO and C02 in g per km. You can find it the data
on any major car european manufacturer www.bmw.de, www.audi.de etc. And yes
the european cars do have lower numbers than american ones, simply because
they have smaller engines and in general less power. There are big tax and
other penalties for high displacement engines. In Italy anything > 2.0L is
taxed so badly that many people drive 1.1 - 1.4L Fiats during the week and
the "illegal" (no tax paid) Ferraris only on weekends and on the curvy back
roads, to prevent unpleasant encounters of the law enforcement officials -
(Carabineri).
Stilian
AlienSexFiend
Anyone who thinks you need big block for decent torque hasn't driven
a European automobile......
Anyone remember the Lancia Thema ie 8.32? Ferarri engine under the
and a shitload of torque....small block
ASF
Stilian wrote in message <362D34B8...@manatee.naxs.com>...
>
>
>rmoburg wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:01:45 -0400, "AlienSexFiend"
>> <sy...@host-u.ml.org> wrote:
>>
>> >I had a 2.0 Fiat station wagon in England.
>> >200 BHP and 220 ft/lbs Torque @ 2900 RPM
>> >
>>
>> You want to try that again?????? The horsepower on a really big
>> stretch maybe..... The torque is out of the question...
>
AlienSexFiend
chsw wrote in message <70jcn9$fn5$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>
>
>
>You have it the wrong way around. Ferraris are now made by Fiat. The
>prancing $ 300,000 horse has no balls and goes out of tune if you breathe
>on it.
>
>
>AlienSexFiend wrote in message <70jc17$aem$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>>he he, nice analogy :-)
>>But remember - Fiat is now made by Ferarri :-)
>>
>>chsw wrote in message <70j9v1$mt9$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>>>It's a Fiat. The writer meant 200 brake hamster power and 220 g/m @
9200
>>>rpm.
>>>
>>>rmoburg wrote in message <362d226b...@nntp.interaccess.com>...
Harry C. King III
AlienSexFiend <sy...@host-u.ml.org> wrote:
>Yes it was. I had it when I lived in the UK.
>Anyone who thinks you need big block for decent torque hasn't driven
>a European automobile......
Aren't Porsches made in Europe? Well, okay, I admit, you can add
compressed air into it and make it think it is a big block. Otherwise,
you do need one.
Harry
--
Harry Crawford King III
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gtd845a
Internet: gtd...@prism.gatech.edu
AlienSexFiend
for the American market - they're DE-TUNED basically.
Anyone who's ever driven one IN EUROPE would tell you that
ASF
Harry C. King III wrote in message <70jfi3$7...@acmex.gatech.edu>...
Diekem
thought that your bigger "cleaner" engines burn the fuel twice as fast if
not 3 times faster then our "small" engines do, especially when you put the
foot down.... plus think of the dirty refining process that all that extra
fuel you consume goes through in comparison to small more efficient
engines.... now which engine is really "cleaner"
Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <362CFB...@epix.net>...
>AlienSexFiend wrote:
>> If you didn't want to detroy the world with your emissions, you would
drive smaller cars too :-P
>
Diekem
and drop the clutch it will accelerate faster then you think... how do you
think they have MULTIPLE Hondas and Acuras that are daily driven and running
10, 11 and 12 second 1/4 miles???
Must be that damned acceleration thing, huh?
<snip>
>> I think big-block's are popular because of penis size......
>> go figure
>This is complete crap. One of the best things about a big block is
>the unmistakable exhaust note. I love it. Plus, I have yet to find a
>four cylinder engine with bagfuls of torque down low in the RPM band. That
visceral rush off the line is wonderful.
<snip>
Siddiq
--
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor--Ovid
Siddiq
> Harry C. King III (gtd...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
> : All you have to do to increase horsepower is to increase RPM. If you want
> Not so, or all engines would have their peak hp at their redline.
exception I know of is the Toyota Supra TT: 320hp@5600rpm, red@6800
Siddiq
> Siddiq wrote:
> > Huh? Every Toyota brochure I've seen has BOTH hp and tq curves. Can't say
> > for other marques, though.
> May I assume this reply was to me since my post mentioned Toyota? If so, Do
> WHAT ?
Actually, I don't think I was replying to you. My post was a
response to someone who said that manufacturers don't put hp/tq curves
anymore; I don't recall your writing that.
Siddiq
...do your research....
May I add that is 130hp in California trim? ;-)
Siddiq
Siddiq
> Um, there are plenty fo examples of more powerful engines. For example,
> just about all the european Supertourings were normally aspirated 2.0 i4's
> making around 300hp.
Yeah, but I doubt that those engines can survive urban gridlock on
the rotten LA freeways in the middle of summer with ambient air temps into
the triple digits....
Steven McColl
some ppl out there, you can gain that by switching to synthetic oil!
Don't get caught up in the 'I've got 10 more horsepower than you do'
crap... If it's not a 50+ HP gain, it's not worth mentioning...
Steve
In rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang David Le <D...@nospam.com> wrote:
: The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
: 1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
: the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
: produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
: produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
: in
: 1997 and pushed the HP up to 160. Even Toyota 4Runner 2.7 engine in 1996
: only produced about 140 HPs.
: How could Honda get 146 HPs out of a small 2.0 litter engine? I don't
: know much about mechanical engineering but I thought unless you have the
: special
: engine such as the rotary engine, Turbo, or VTEC, a 2.0 litter cannot
: produce that much. This is 73 HPs per each litter of engine!!!!!
: This 2.0 litter engine even outperforms the 2.2
: litter Honda Accord and Toyota Camry engines which produce only aprox.
: 125 HPs. Can the Big three Auto companies ever be able to make engines
: that
: produce that much HPs per 1000 cc, such as a 3.0 GM engine produces 210
: HPs, and
: a 4.0 Ford Explorer engine produces 292 HPs?
Chris Mains
I for one, love cars and trucks. Every vehicle out there is built for
a purpose and a target market. The Honda CR-V is a cute little SUV
that will take a few people up to the ski resorts on snow covered
roads. The horsepower is at a very high RPM so who cares. What
interests me is how much power is available to me at 70 mph when I
decide to pass someone without downshifting. How many people do you
see driving their cars at 5000+ RPM all day and still maintain legal
speeds. We must also remember the the honda SUV will never ever be
able to tow anything. It simply does not have the mass or the low end
grunt to adequately pull anything.
I think US car manufacturers see the consumer as realists. Speed
limits are our limiting factor here; the answer large displacement
for low RPM power. I own a 93 YJ with the 4.0 HO and love that I have
so much torque available at 1500 rpm on the freeway. Now, I know that
my vehicle is not the greatest tow vehicle either, but that is not why
I bought it. I intend to buy a large american built truck to tow my
jeep (or my boat or my 5th wheel trailer when I own em). To tow you
need torque; gobs or torque. Todays full size trucks with the big
diesel engines provide that.
I am happy that todays modern small displacement engines are able to
crank out 146 hp. I will be absolutely drop dead impressed when I see
a 2.0 liter gas engine pulling a 10,000 pound trailer up to Lake Tahoe
at 65 mph.
Chris
>avid Le <D...@nospam.com> wrote:
>The November 1998 issue of Consumer Guide mentioned that the
>1999 CR-V will be equiped with the same 2.0 litter engine but
>the HP will be 146. Normally it should take a larger engine to
>produce that much horsepower. For exampe the 1996 4.0 V6 Ford Explorer
>produced only about 140 HPs until Ford replaced it with the SHO engine
>in
Remove nospam_ from address to reply
Workin' then wheelin' :)
Jack Mott
Drag strip: Viper wins!
Road Course: Viper wins!
Street: Viper wins!
Getting chicks: tie.
Price: Viper wins
so, uh, who cares?
Bob
>
>Why on earth was this posted in rec.autos.antique? When did the future
>(1999) turn into an old car?
>
crossposting and trolling.
luckily its beinging trimmed
Brad Swidzinski
AlienSexFiend wrote in message <70jee5$12m$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>Yes it was. I had it when I lived in the UK.
>Anyone who thinks you need big block for decent torque hasn't driven
>a European automobile......
>
>and a shitload of torque....small block
>
>ASF
>Stilian wrote in message <362D34B8...@manatee.naxs.com>...
>>
>>
>>rmoburg wrote:
>>
>>> <sy...@host-u.ml.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I had a 2.0 Fiat station wagon in England.
>>> >200 BHP and 220 ft/lbs Torque @ 2900 RPM
>>> >
>>>
>>> You want to try that again?????? The horsepower on a really big
>>> stretch maybe..... The torque is out of the question...
>>
>>250lbft with light pressure turbo.
>>
>>Stilian
>>
For sure! Ferrari 355 for example. 400hp and 300lb torque from 3.5L, no
turbo, no S/C!!! 13.2 1/4 miles with handling to outclass anything and a
ride that you can actually take your hands off the wheel at an insane
180mph!!! Add on the styling and 18 coats of primer and paint and you've
got something America will never equal. Sure, it costs $100K, but what a
car!
Brad
Chris Phillipo
>
> OK so you are only thinking of how clean what you burn is?? What about the
> thought that your bigger "cleaner" engines burn the fuel twice as fast if
> not 3 times faster then our "small" engines do, especially when you put the
> foot down.... plus think of the dirty refining process that all that extra
> fuel you consume goes through in comparison to small more efficient
> engines.... now which engine is really "cleaner"
Depends on the car, put a crappy 4 banger in a heavy vehical and it will
probably burn more than a V6 trying to haul itself up hills. Add that
the fact that it will wear out faster and start to burn oil. We should
all be driving methonal or even hydrogen anyway, if the car was invented
yesterday, the guy who showed up with a tin can full of gasoline in his
proposal for the worlds fuel would be locked up.
--
__________________________________
Remove "delme" from email address to reply.
Cóta Mór
<sy...@host-u.ml.org> wrote:
>If you didn't want to detroy the world with your emissions, you would drive
>smaller cars too :-P
Hmm. You cause more pollution spilling a teaspoon of petrol on the
ground than you do driving a modern, catalytic-converter equipped car
500 miles. In fact, Saab claim that since 1992 their cars actually
emit cleaner air than they suck in.
Cóta Mór
wrote:
>YIKES! 196hp/L?? How can rotaries be that friggin good?
You have to compare like with like. A rotary has twice as many power
strokes, for want of a better word, than one of these steam-engine
derivatives. So as far as the government's vehicle licensing is
concerned, a 1.3 litre rotary is rated as equivalent to a 2.6 litre
boinger. However, that's to dismiss the rotary too lightly. Not only
can rotaries run at higher speeds than reciprocating engines (Wankel
was building 25,000rpm engines decades ago) but their volumetric
efficiency can be more than 100%, not having any silly valves to open
and close across the intake and exhaust ports.
Mind you, I can't recommend them for fuel efficiency or pollution
reasons.
Paul Hansen
Actually, I've heard there's various crank problems with the Mazda-built
rotary that makes passing 8,000rpm rather, erm, interesting.
Paul Hansen
--
Japan Sports Car - enthusiasts information for japan's domestic market only sports cars
http://www2.gol.com/users/polarbr/sportscar
Julian Phipps
petrol (gas) engine, but not so easy to increase the amount of torque.
Formula One racing engines produce around 300bhp per litre, but at about
14,000rpm which is not ideal for road use.
General Motors 2litre 16valve engine as fitted to European Opels and
Vauxhalls since the mid 80's produce around 150bhp as standard and upto
250bhp when fitted to Caterham sports cars. Even with 125bhp per litre the
car is perfectly driveable. It seems the US market prefers cubic capacity to
technology and this allows US manufacturers to continue to sell engines
based on 50's and 60's designs.
The engines you list will never produce outputs higher than 60bhp per litre
because most US engines are still relatively low-tech. They tend not to be
Overhead Cam and have two valves per cylinder and no new technologies such
as variable valve timing. They also tend to be 'oversquare' ie the bore is
greater than the stroke which does not help in producing high-revving power.
The fact that Ford and GM produce many engines in Europe which match or
equal the Honda example proves that they can do it, but that they feel it is
not appropriate to do so for the US market.
David Le wrote in message <362BA6...@nospam.com>...
Doug Baehr
released Audi TT is 180 HP. These engines can be upped to 195hp with
just a computer modification and run for years..with a larger turbo
and exhaust/intake mods 250 hp..
To reply please remove x from in front of d...@webt.com
AlienSexFiend
and don't forget that EU emissions are tighter than US ones in the first
place.
and the EU does it largly WITHOUT catalytic convertors.....
Diekem wrote in message <70jjm5$gud$1...@slave1.aa.net>...
>OK so you are only thinking of how clean what you burn is?? What about the
>thought that your bigger "cleaner" engines burn the fuel twice as fast if
>not 3 times faster then our "small" engines do, especially when you put the
>foot down.... plus think of the dirty refining process that all that extra
>fuel you consume goes through in comparison to small more efficient
>engines.... now which engine is really "cleaner"
>
>Matthew S. Whiting wrote in message <362CFB...@epix.net>...
>>AlienSexFiend wrote:
>>> If you didn't want to detroy the world with your emissions, you would
>drive smaller cars too :-P
>>
AlienSexFiend
Siddiq wrote in message ...
>"Base engine in Camry is 2.2L 133hp"
>...do your research....
> May I add that is 130hp in California trim? ;-)
>