How long will a Vtec last..............
Max Power
cars but since Honda's peak at crazy revs it applies to them in particular.
Driving at >7k rpm has got to take it's toll on an engine no matter who
makes it.
I dont want to buy an Si and then find out that it has to be driven easy.
rm
when I sold my 90 Accord (146K miles) it didn't leak or burn any oil,
and except for noisy valves when cold (like all hondas) the engine
still had lots of life left. The accord 2.2 motor redlines at ~6K and
my daily commute calls for some thrash-n-burn driving. My 92 Accord
also sees a lot of the 4-6000 rpm range and is still perfect at 135K
miles.
Dave Feltenberger
damaged by revving them...
Max Power <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6lTm3.45239$5a.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
BRG1500
>cars but since Honda's peak at crazy revs it applies to them in particular.
>Driving at >7k rpm has got to take it's toll on an engine no matter who
>makes it.
>
>I dont want to buy an Si and then find out that it has to be driven easy.
>
any honda will last forever if it has been maintained well, especially frequent
oil changes.
sandro
those rpm's and given Honda's expertise in building high strung racing and
production car and motorcycle engines, I don't think you should have
anything to worry about.
Sandro.
Max Power <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6lTm3.45239$5a.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Ryan Rahim
: the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
: damaged by revving them...
But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
driven less aggressively, no?
It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
experience its *narrow* powerband.
Ryan
--
Fight Road-Rage....Slower Traffic Keep Right
Pars
accelerator regardless of the rev. After about 100000 km of this kind of
driving, I'd be really impressed if the car maintained its peppiness.
Pars
AcurTyper
with no oil in the motor and it still tan fine...might i add the motor has 160K
miles and runs liek a charm....but its to bad i will be replacing her(the motor
to a b18c5) very shortly.
][-][ (()) ][\\][ ][)) //-\\ the only way to go
project b18c5 civic ex sedan
not just your average 4 door
Atalan
> Dave Feltenberger (rond...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
> : damaged by revving them...
>
> But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
> driven less aggressively, no?
True. But that's the price to pay for getting a performance oriented
engine.
> It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
> experience its *narrow* powerband.
>
> Ryan
First, the powerband is very broad.
(http://www.vtec.net/asia/vtectruth/myth1.htm) Second, taking a car to a
screaming redline is the most fun you can have in a car with your clothes
still on.
Brian P. Van Lieu
>Dave Feltenberger (rond...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>: the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
>: damaged by revving them...
>
>But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
>driven less aggressively, no?
>
>It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
>experience its *narrow* powerband.
>
> Ryan
Yes...about as narrow as your head Ryan.
:P
- b
Wei, Jim (BNR:BNRTP:3R67)
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> > Dave Feltenberger (rond...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > : the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
> > : damaged by revving them...
> >
> > But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
> > driven less aggressively, no?
>
> True. But that's the price to pay for getting a performance oriented
> engine.
>
> > It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
> > experience its *narrow* powerband.
> >
> > Ryan
>
> First, the powerband is very broad.
> (http://www.vtec.net/asia/vtectruth/myth1.htm) Second, taking a car to a
> screaming redline is the most fun you can have in a car with your clothes
> still on.
Torque band on a DOHC VTEC engine is very broad, but unless the engine has
large displacement, the power band is narrow, at above the VTEC switchover
point.
Jim
Ziggy
> It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
> experience its *narrow* powerband.
When compared to other non-VTEC engines of the same displacement, the
powerband is not narrow at all (much broader, actually). Of course, when
you compare the tiny 1.8L or 2.2L VTEC with a 5.7L V8, the powerband
seems infinitely narrow.
Stilian Elenkov
Atalan wrote:
>
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> > Dave Feltenberger (rond...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > : the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
> > : damaged by revving them...
> >
> > But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
> > driven less aggressively, no?
>
> True. But that's the price to pay for getting a performance oriented
> engine.
>
> > It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
> > experience its *narrow* powerband.
> >
> > Ryan
>
> First, the powerband is very broad.
> (http://www.vtec.net/asia/vtectruth/myth1.htm) Second, taking a car to a
> screaming redline is the most fun you can have in a car with your clothes
> still on.
Rpm range and powerband are very different terms
The DOHC VTEC low displacement engines have very wide rpm range and
narrow power band (steep power curve), which is fine for certain
application but sucks in others. That is why people also call these
engines "peaky". Not torque, but hp "peaky". The torque curve is fairly
flat and extends for wide rpm range but the actual torque in not a lot.
The hp curve is too rpm dependent and shifting a 5 sp loses you a lot
of power on every shift. The solution is more torque (less steep power
curve) or more gears and better driving skills. Unfortunately Honda does
not offer any of these.
Stilian
Gordon McGrew
Not quite sure what "better driving skills" have to do with it but the "skill"
needed to drive the Honda engine is merely being unafraid to rev it. Then you
start looking for excuses to redline it.
If you are "losing a lot of power on every shift" then you are a candy ass
driver and you should be driving a Town Car or something.
Stilian Elenkov
Dude look at the hp/torque curve - in a B16A if you upshift @ 8000 rpms
(183hp) from any gear you are down to 7000 (160hp) which translates into
23hp LOSS on an upshift. Do you now understand what is the problem with
an ultra high rpm dependent for power, low displacement engine mated to
a 5sp tranny? WTF is wrong with you. Look at the power torque/curves,
gear ratios and final drive and think before you make a fool of
yourself. So again: you need 6sp (or more) closer ratio tranny and good
driver skills to keep the engine @ its power peak and not destroy it on
a downshift (very common with these types of engines). The fact is Honda
offers only 5sp with these engine which prevents the driver from fully
utilizing their potential even when shifting past redline.
BTW I hit the rev limiter (7100 - 7200rpms) on all my cars fairly often
(hint: I shift past redline most of the time). The fact is that I do not
have to shift my 735i @ redline to make it move quickly while you NEED
that in a Honda - how sad.
Stilian
Ryan Rahim
: >......when it is driven like it is supposed to. This question goes for all
: >cars but since Honda's peak at crazy revs it applies to them in particular.
: >Driving at >7k rpm has got to take it's toll on an engine no matter who
: >makes it.
: >
: >I dont want to buy an Si and then find out that it has to be driven easy.
: any honda will last forever if it has been maintained well, especially frequent
: oil changes.
Since my friend needed an engine rebuild for his '92 Integra at 115,000
miles, I doubt this is true. He opted for a whole new engine.
Ryan Rahim
: In rec.autos.makers.honda, Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
: > Dave Feltenberger (rond...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: > : the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
: > : damaged by revving them...
: >
: > But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
: > driven less aggressively, no?
: True. But that's the price to pay for getting a performance oriented
: engine.
Shouldn't performance oriented engines have good low-end as well?
: > It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
: > experience its *narrow* powerband.
: >
: > Ryan
: First, the powerband is very broad.
: (http://www.vtec.net/asia/vtectruth/myth1.htm) Second, taking a car to a
: screaming redline is the most fun you can have in a car with your clothes
: still on.
But torque is anemic, leading many reviewers to say that the engine is
nothing to write home about unless you keep it on the boil.
Justin Van Aulen
I don't understand your point. Honda engines aren't designed to have the
low end torque of a V6 or V8 engine, weather that engine is European, or
Japanese, or American. There are many ways for producing more horsepower.
Higher rev's, or a bigger displacement are a few. VW goes to the
displacement side, producing the 2.0 (I-4 8v) and 2.8 liter VR6 (narrow
angle V6 12v) engine's for it's American market. Honda goes the other way,
high revving, small displacement engines (1.6 VTEC 1.8 VTEC) for it's. More
power is produced though either method. This is just and example of two
different car companies using different technology's to our benefit. One
isn't better then the other.
What reviewers think the 1.8L VTEC engine is an "anemic" power-plant?
What do they say about handling? Do you think the Integra is simply a "All
Engine" car? Many racers I know think less of an engine when everything else
performs well on the car, such as the braking, skidpad load shift, adhesion
though apex, and handling in general. Granted, It needs to be revved high
for major power, but I still don't understand why that is a bad thing in
your opinion. The engine is designed that way, so it shouldn't it be used
that way? Gobs of torque is a great thing, however, it's not EVERYTHING.
Perhaps if Honda would use the 3.2L 24v V6 in the Integra, you would have
nothing to complain about, however, that's not the way there design practice
works. Just because it doesn't agree with your logic, does it make sense to
think it's wrong? If you think your logic is best, perhaps your should take
a step back and look at the big picture, automakers think different, just
like You and I.
Thanks,
Justin
Jetta
>>......when it is driven like it is supposed to. This question goes for all
>>cars but since Honda's peak at crazy revs it applies to them in particular.
>>Driving at >7k rpm has got to take it's toll on an engine no matter who
>>makes it.
>>
>>I dont want to buy an Si and then find out that it has to be driven easy.
>>
>
>any honda will last forever if it has been maintained well, especially frequent
>oil changes.
NOTHING lasts forever, and, some Honda's don't last long even if well
maintained.
I'm a VW guy, but I'd never say "any VW will last forever...", even tho all
mine have lasted a LONG time.
To reply by e-mail, remove the asterisks and everything you see between them.
Spammers suck!!
Mike Smith
news:Klpn3.1985$Hs3.1...@nnrp2.ptd.net...
> Hello Ryan,
>
> I don't understand your point. Honda engines aren't designed to have
the
> low end torque of a V6 or V8 engine, weather that engine is European, or
> Japanese, or American. There are many ways for producing more horsepower.
> Higher rev's, or a bigger displacement are a few. VW goes to the
> displacement side, producing the 2.0 (I-4 8v) and 2.8 liter VR6 (narrow
> angle V6 12v) engine's for it's American market. Honda goes the other way,
> high revving, small displacement engines (1.6 VTEC 1.8 VTEC) for it's.
More
> power is produced though either method. This is just and example of two
> different car companies using different technology's to our benefit. One
> isn't better then the other.
Some of us live in places with traffic lights and stop signs. Hitting 8000
rpm is generally not an option. Meaning that the engine that produces more
torque down low will give more *usable* acceleration and performance.
Hondas are great for people who live on racetracks.
--
Mike Smith. No, the other one.
sandro
Mike Smith <kld_m...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7nlagp$soe$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Yet, a great many of us live in areas where the speed limit is 55mph or less
and where traffic congestion greets us daily. Using 300+ hp V8s and V12s
in todays cars isn't much of an option either in real world driving,
unfortunately.
Sandro.
ralph
>
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Wei, Jim (BNR:BNRTP:3R67)
> <jim...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote:
> > Torque band on a DOHC VTEC engine is very broad, but unless the engine has
> > large displacement, the power band is narrow, at above the VTEC switchover
> > point.
> >
> > Jim
>
> narrow? I mean, power is a multiple of rpm and torque. So assuming a
> reasonably flat torque curve that falls off past a certain rpm, the power
> will rise linearly with rpm, peak, then plummet. Isn't that typical of
> all engines?
>
> When I hear people talk about a "narrow power band," I hear them talking
> about the acceleration behavior in a single gear. The '86 911 I've
> driver/raced (it has a 3.2l flat-six) is a truly "peaky" engine. Floor
> it, and you'll notice a *significant* increase in acceleration at around
> 5000rpm. Floor a VTEC engine at cruising speeds, and you'll feel an
> increase of acceleration around torque peak, sure, but it's remarkably
> smooth. The '97 911 (3.6l flat-six) I test drove was like this, too. It
> has nothing to do with the displacement.
>
> Or do we have different definitions of the term "peaky" and "power band"?
> My definition of power band is really a "torque band," but that's how
> people seem to use it. Otherwise, saying an engine has a narrow power
> band is pretty meaningless (see my first paragraph.)
Yes, what would constitute a nice broad power band? An engine that has
peak torque at 2000 rpm and falls off proportionally with rpm after that
is the only way. Oh yeah, gimme one of those.
--
Fast as lightning, slick as glass.
Out from Hell on a three day pass.
Funj
strong. Just make sure the oil is changed regularly. FYI, the stock
pistons, block, crankshaft works well to 9200rpms. At that rpms range,
you'll want different valves and valve springs...
--
Funj
96 JDM Civic SiR EK4
Pearl Black, sunroof, go fast mods...
http://www.escalix.com/freepage/funj
Max Power <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6lTm3.45239$5a.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Atalan
Atalan
>
>
> Atalan wrote:
> >
> > In rec.autos.makers.honda, Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> > > Dave Feltenberger (rond...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > > : the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
> > > : damaged by revving them...
> > >
> > > But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
> > > driven less aggressively, no?
> >
> > True. But that's the price to pay for getting a performance oriented
> > engine.
> >
> > > experience its *narrow* powerband.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> >
> > First, the powerband is very broad.
> > (http://www.vtec.net/asia/vtectruth/myth1.htm) Second, taking a car to a
> > screaming redline is the most fun you can have in a car with your clothes
> > still on.
>
> The DOHC VTEC low displacement engines have very wide rpm range and
> narrow power band (steep power curve), which is fine for certain
> application but sucks in others.
Help me out here. What would make an engine have a less steep power
curve? How would that feel differently from an engine with a flat torque
curve but a "steeper" power curve?
> That is why people also call these
> engines "peaky". Not torque, but hp "peaky".
All engines are hp peaky though, aren't they? Just look at any dyno
graph - hp increases, peaks, then falls off. Classic "peaky-ness."
> The torque curve is fairly
> flat and extends for wide rpm range but the actual torque in not a lot.
> The hp curve is too rpm dependent and shifting a 5 sp loses you a lot
> of power on every shift.
Well, considering that for every engine out there, hp equals torque times
rpm, all their curves are quite rpm dependent. :-)
> The solution is more torque (less steep power
> curve) or more gears and better driving skills. Unfortunately Honda does
> not offer any of these.
Let's see... Mind if I try a little mind experiment? Let's say we have
a large displacement engine that makes peak power of 200hp at 5000rpm.
That's 210 lb-ft of torque. Now, a small displacement engine needs to
get up to 8000rpm to make 200hp. That's 131 lb-ft of torque. Pretty
reasonable for some made up engines, right? A graph might look a bit
like this:
power
200 A B
150 A B
100 A B
50 A B
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
rpm x 1000
Connect the dots and - isn't the power curve of the large displacement,
high torque engine quite a bit steeper than the small displacement, high
rpm engine?
ps - I don't know of *any* car maker that offers better driving skills.
Wish I did, though. :-)
Atalan
> (183hp) from any gear you are down to 7000 (160hp) which translates into
> 23hp LOSS on an upshift.
<nitpick> I think you mean "downshift." I'd hope you don't go
upshifting at reline... </nitpick>
Now, tell me, how much power is lost in, say, a Mustang V8 when the revs
drop 1000 rpm? My guess would be a lot more than 23hp. Refer back to my
previous post with the theoretical dynochart as to why I think it'll be
more.
> Do you now understand what is the problem with
> an ultra high rpm dependent for power, low displacement engine mated to
> a 5sp tranny? WTF is wrong with you.
Yeesh, why get so angry over this? (At least, that's how I read
something like "WTF" as indicating.)
> Look at the power torque/curves,
Yes! They show a *steeper* power curve for high hp, low rpm engines, as
compared to high hp, high rpm engines.
> gear ratios and final drive and think before you make a fool of
> yourself.
Ditto. :-)
> So again: you need 6sp (or more) closer ratio tranny and good
> driver skills to keep the engine @ its power peak and not destroy it on
> a downshift (very common with these types of engines).
All things being equal except for redline, properly downshifting a high
redline engine is just as difficult/easy as a low redline engine. All it
takes is familiarity of the gear/speed/rpm relationship and facility with
the heel-toe process.
> The fact is Honda
> offers only 5sp with these engine which prevents the driver from fully
> utilizing their potential even when shifting past redline.
NSX - 6spd. S2000 - 6spd.
But then, you could say of ANY engine that having a 5sp vs 6sp prevents a
driver from fully utilizing its potential.
> BTW I hit the rev limiter (7100 - 7200rpms) on all my cars fairly often
> (hint: I shift past redline most of the time).
Congrats! I do too. It's a blast, isn't it?
> The fact is that I do not
> have to shift my 735i @ redline to make it move quickly while you NEED
> that in a Honda - how sad.
*shrug* I personally find high-rpm engines much much much more exciting
than a lower rpm but higher torque engines. I'm sad for you.
Atalan
> : True. But that's the price to pay for getting a performance oriented
> : engine.
>
Nah, that's more in the daily driving range. Which, btw, VTEC engines do
well enough in.
> But torque is anemic, leading many reviewers to say that the engine is
> nothing to write home about unless you keep it on the boil.
>
> Ryan
At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly every other
engine of that displacement. You've been hanging out here long enough to
know that, I'm sure. The high-rpm ranges are where the excitement stats,
yes. But, that's the entire reason for existence of the VTEC system.
Surely this is known to you?
Ryan Rahim
: At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly every other
: engine of that displacement.
Uhm, yeah, but none of the competition to the DOHC VTECs are "of the same
displacement."
The DOHC VTECs, have _BY FAR_ the lowest peak torque in its class.
: You've been hanging out here long enough to
: know that, I'm sure. The high-rpm ranges are where the excitement stats,
: yes. But, that's the entire reason for existence of the VTEC system.
: Surely this is known to you?
The competition has comparable hp, and far more torque. Surely this is
known to you?
Ryan
Atalan
>
> : At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly every other
> : engine of that displacement.
>
> Uhm, yeah, but none of the competition to the DOHC VTECs are "of the same
> displacement."
>
> The DOHC VTECs, have _BY FAR_ the lowest peak torque in its class.
True. That's because the VTEC improves upon the engine and bumps it up
into a higher performance class.
> : You've been hanging out here long enough to
> : know that, I'm sure. The high-rpm ranges are where the excitement stats,
> : yes. But, that's the entire reason for existence of the VTEC system.
> : Surely this is known to you?
>
> The competition has comparable hp, and far more torque. Surely this is
> known to you?
Yes, exactly. That's how VTEC works. I'm glad we agree on this.
Dave Feltenberger
> Justin Van Aulen <j_van...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Klpn3.1985$Hs3.1...@nnrp2.ptd.net...
> > Hello Ryan,
> >
> > I don't understand your point. Honda engines aren't designed to have
> the
> > low end torque of a V6 or V8 engine, weather that engine is European, or
> > Japanese, or American. There are many ways for producing more horsepower.
> > Higher rev's, or a bigger displacement are a few. VW goes to the
> > displacement side, producing the 2.0 (I-4 8v) and 2.8 liter VR6 (narrow
> > angle V6 12v) engine's for it's American market. Honda goes the other way,
> > high revving, small displacement engines (1.6 VTEC 1.8 VTEC) for it's.
> More
> > power is produced though either method. This is just and example of two
> > different car companies using different technology's to our benefit. One
> > isn't better then the other.
>
> Some of us live in places with traffic lights and stop signs. Hitting 8000
> rpm is generally not an option. Meaning that the engine that produces more
> torque down low will give more *usable* acceleration and performance.
> Hondas are great for people who live on racetracks.
Do you get to use the full potential of an engine with lots of low end torque
in stop and go traffic? If you're in stop and go traffic, you're not going to
be driving fast. Hence, there's no need for lots of low end torque *or* high
revving engines. Go buy a Ford Festiva and stop complaining about city
driving.
Dave
gre...@my-deja.com
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
> Atalan (ata...@home.com) wrote:
>
> : At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly every
other
> : engine of that displacement.
>
> Uhm, yeah, but none of the competition to the DOHC VTECs are "of the
same
> displacement."
What about the BMW 318ti? It was 1.8L at one point right?
>
> The DOHC VTECs, have _BY FAR_ the lowest peak torque in its class.
Yet they're still competitive, with engines that have _By FAR_ more
displacement. For those who like to rev, this is a good thing. I
suppose you would prefer to drive a Viper over a Ferrari 360M by the
same token.
>
> : You've been hanging out here long enough to
> : know that, I'm sure. The high-rpm ranges are where the excitement
stats,
> : yes. But, that's the entire reason for existence of the VTEC
system.
> : Surely this is known to you?
>
> The competition has comparable hp, and far more torque. Surely this
is
> known to you?
Really? Since when did the v6 Passat have more torque than an Acura TL?
Greg
>
> Ryan
>
> --
> Fight Road-Rage....Slower Traffic Keep Right
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
z
them more acceleration for the same engine torque. Surely this is known to
you?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Stilian Elenkov
Atalan wrote:
>
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Wei, Jim (BNR:BNRTP:3R67)
> <jim...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote:
> > Torque band on a DOHC VTEC engine is very broad, but unless the engine has
> > large displacement, the power band is narrow, at above the VTEC switchover
> > point.
> >
> > Jim
>
> Umm... But in that sense, isn't the "power band" of ANY engine pretty
> narrow? I mean, power is a multiple of rpm and torque. So assuming a
> reasonably flat torque curve that falls off past a certain rpm, the power
> will rise linearly with rpm, peak, then plummet. Isn't that typical of
> all engines?
>
> When I hear people talk about a "narrow power band," I hear them talking
> about the acceleration behavior in a single gear. The '86 911 I've
> driver/raced (it has a 3.2l flat-six) is a truly "peaky" engine. Floor
> it, and you'll notice a *significant* increase in acceleration at around
> 5000rpm. Floor a VTEC engine at cruising speeds, and you'll feel an
> increase of acceleration around torque peak, sure, but it's remarkably
> smooth. The '97 911 (3.6l flat-six) I test drove was like this, too. It
> has nothing to do with the displacement.
>
The narrow power band is the slope of the power curve ie how steep it
is. Steeper curve - peaky engine regardless how linear the power
delivery is. If a 1000 rpms drop results in a 25hp drop - the power
curve is too steep therefor the engine is peaky.
Stilian
> Or do we have different definitions of the term "peaky" and "power band"?
> My definition of power band is really a "torque band," but that's how
> people seem to use it. Otherwise, saying an engine has a narrow power
> band is pretty meaningless (see my first paragraph.)
Not exactly. There is rpms range and power band the rpm range where for
e.g 90 % of the power is.
Compare the torque/power curves of of similar power output one using the
high rpm approach to achieve it (VTEC) the other one using the
displacement (including forced induction which de facto increases
displacement) to achieve the hp (the traditional method), and you will
see what I am talking about.
Stilian
Stilian Elenkov
Atalan wrote:
>
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
> > Dude look at the hp/torque curve - in a B16A if you upshift @ 8000 rpms
> > (183hp) from any gear you are down to 7000 (160hp) which translates into
> > 23hp LOSS on an upshift.
>
> <nitpick> I think you mean "downshift." I'd hope you don't go
> upshifting at reline... </nitpick>
>
> Now, tell me, how much power is lost in, say, a Mustang V8 when the revs
> drop 1000 rpm? My guess would be a lot more than 23hp. Refer back to my
> previous post with the theoretical dynochart as to why I think it'll be
> more.
>
See my reply to your previous post in the "...usually do not like Honda
... " thread and see the a similar 1000 drop in the Mustang GT result
in 10hp LOSS, the VR6 - 12hp, the 3.8 M5 - 13hp, the 1.8T - 4.5hp vs
23hp in the Civic R
Would you care to reconsider your statement?
> > Do you now understand what is the problem with
> > an ultra high rpm dependent for power, low displacement engine mated to
> > a 5sp tranny? WTF is wrong with you.
>
> Yeesh, why get so angry over this? (At least, that's how I read
> something like "WTF" as indicating.)
I am angry that people like you pull stuff from places (typically back
orifices) and make bold statements without any reasonable research and
data to back them. And when corrected are still stubborn and think they
know it all, and I am forced to spend time and do the research for them
and they still refuse to accept the data and its analysis. I can think
of many more interesting things to discuss on the these forums rather
than bicker about make superiority in way too long threads twice a
month.
>
> > Look at the power torque/curves,
>
> Yes! They show a *steeper* power curve for high hp, low rpm engines, as
> compared to high hp, high rpm engines.
>
> > gear ratios and final drive and think before you make a fool of
> > yourself.
So you admit that the Si would benefit more from a 6sp than the EX for
e.g.?
>
> Ditto. :-)
>
> > So again: you need 6sp (or more) closer ratio tranny and good
> > driver skills to keep the engine @ its power peak and not destroy it on
> > a downshift (very common with these types of engines).
>
> All things being equal except for redline, properly downshifting a high
> redline engine is just as difficult/easy as a low redline engine. All it
> takes is familiarity of the gear/speed/rpm relationship and facility with
> the heel-toe process.
Again look at the shift points graph in the previous post of the Integra
R vs SE-R
and you will understand the problem. The GS-R. Si need more gears to
perform as well as a a similar output much heavier 323i, 320i (with 2.5
170 and 2.0 150hp I6s and less steep power curves)
>
> > The fact is Honda
> > offers only 5sp with these engine which prevents the driver from fully
> > utilizing their potential even when shifting past redline.
>
> NSX - 6spd. S2000 - 6spd.
>
> But then, you could say of ANY engine that having a 5sp vs 6sp prevents a
> driver from fully utilizing its potential.
6speed is a must with an engine with ultra high rpm dependent power.
See the reference to the 323i, 320i, they do better (despite being much
heavier) with the same or less hp and better power curves and 5sp.
>
> > BTW I hit the rev limiter (7100 - 7200rpms) on all my cars fairly often
> > (hint: I shift past redline most of the time).
>
> Congrats! I do too. It's a blast, isn't it?
>
> > The fact is that I do not
> > have to shift my 735i @ redline to make it move quickly while you NEED
> > that in a Honda - how sad.
>
> *shrug* I personally find high-rpm engines much much much more exciting
> than a lower rpm but higher torque engines. I'm sad for you.
That is where you are wrong the 3.5 I6 has power at both the low and
high end the 209hp @ 5800 is not low is it? and the 224lbft @ 3200 is
not high is it? In fact it is pretty much the same as the RL's brand new
engine - shame.
The 3.3 - 3.5 I6 is regarded as a very free revving engine despite being
SOHC with 2v per cyl. It was used in the M1, M5 with 24vDOHC head. It
also offers very smooth power delivery, excellent torque, bulletproof
design, and excellent sound.
I also have an 86 GTI, which despite its low redline (6800) and 1/2 the
size of the 3.5, offers all the benefits of the 3.5 I6 (scaled down),
but in a light car that can still outperform many newer Hondas and
Acuras.
BTW my 735i still outperforms the new Honda Acura competition (EX V6,
RL, TL, CL) in every respect and does so with a class.
Stilian
Peter
> BTW my 735i still outperforms the new Honda Acura competition (EX V6,
> RL, TL, CL) in every respect and does so with a class.
>
> Stilian
Shouldn't you compare the RL/TL and CL to something within its class,
like the 328?. Besides, isn't the 735i almost twice the price of the
Acuras? For that price, why don't you compare it to the NSX instead?
Ryan Rahim
: In article <7nlu0c$ami$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
: rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
: > Atalan (ata...@home.com) wrote:
: >
: > : At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly every
: other
: > : engine of that displacement.
: >
: > Uhm, yeah, but none of the competition to the DOHC VTECs are "of the
: same
: > displacement."
: What about the BMW 318ti? It was 1.8L at one point right?
The 318Ti had a carry-over engine to save costs.
: > The DOHC VTECs, have _BY FAR_ the lowest peak torque in its class.
: Yet they're still competitive, with engines that have _By FAR_ more
: displacement.
Absolute rubbish. The peak hp numbers are mid-pack, and the torque
numbers are the poorest.
For those who like to rev, this is a good thing. I
: suppose you would prefer to drive a Viper over a Ferrari 360M by the
: same token.
Either car has sufficient torque.
: > The competition has comparable hp, and far more torque. Surely this
: is
: > known to you?
: Really? Since when did the v6 Passat have more torque than an Acura TL?
Although this discussion was about the DOHC VTECs, the Passat makes more
torque at its peak rpm than the TL. The difference in peak torque is
marginal eventhough the TL has 0.4L more displacement.
John Baker
> If a 1000 rpms drop results in a 25hp drop - the power
> curve is too steep therefor the engine is peaky.
All you are saying is that engines with flat torque curves
show a greater hp drop (upon shifting) than engines with
falling torque curves. Simple arithmetic shows that to be
true. But if you think this somehow means that falling
torque curves are better, your understanding of the situation
is lacking.
John Baker
Stilian Elenkov
$5k (KBB), And is comparable to the RL and TL and Accord EX V6 of today
in size, engine size, power output etc. Sad - 15 year old car that is
superior that the newest ones from Honda.
I wish I could get an any NSX for $5k though.
Stilian
Peter wrote:
>
> > Acuras.
> > BTW my 735i still outperforms the new Honda Acura competition (EX V6,
> > RL, TL, CL) in every respect and does so with a class.
> >
> > Stilian
>
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> ... The GS-R. Si need more gears to
> perform as well as a a similar output much heavier 323i, 320i (with 2.5
> 170 and 2.0 150hp I6s and less steep power curves)
What about the response I personally received here when
I tried using BMW's power "ratings" for the current 2.5l
"Baby Six"? Several folks pointed out that the 170 HP
rating was significantly understated based upon actual
chassis dyno results.
I don't disagree with your point -- that the "area under
the power curve" tends to be smaller with Honda's engines
than with other engines with similar peak power. I just
want to make sure that we don't use acceleration times of
cars with understated power outputs to prove the point.
> 6speed is a must with an engine with ultra high rpm dependent power.
You mean like those Camaros that come equipped with a
6-speed? Just kidding -- if ever there was an engine
that did NOT need a 6 speed...
A 6-speed would certainly help as would a CVT. Just
look at the surprisingly good performance of the Civic
HX with the CVT. If you plant the pedal, that engine
zeroes in on the power peak and lets the CVT keep it
right there. Pretty effective for an economy engine.
I actually agree that the DOHC VTEC engines from Honda
would benefit from 6-speed transmissions. Too bad it
would probably fall outside the cost structure of cars
like the Civic Si and GS-R to equip them as such...
> That is where you are wrong the 3.5 I6 has power at both the low and
> high end the 209hp @ 5800 is not low is it? and the 224lbft @ 3200 is
> not high is it? In fact it is pretty much the same as the RL's brand new
> engine - shame.
> The 3.3 - 3.5 I6 is regarded as a very free revving engine despite being
> SOHC with 2v per cyl. It was used in the M1, M5 with 24vDOHC head. It
> also offers very smooth power delivery, excellent torque, bulletproof
> design, and excellent sound.
I have to agree with you here! I'll let Ryan explain
how I know this. I guess it's probably about time to
spill the beans...
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
<kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com> sorry!
Stilian Elenkov
Why is it?
You have easier access to more power? I do not see a problem with that.
Stilian
> John Baker
Cognitive Dragon
Mike Smith <kld_m...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7nlagp$soe$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> news:Klpn3.1985$Hs3.1...@nnrp2.ptd.net...
> > Hello Ryan,
> >
> > I don't understand your point. Honda engines aren't designed to have
> the
> > low end torque of a V6 or V8 engine, weather that engine is European, or
> > Japanese, or American. There are many ways for producing more
horsepower.
> > Higher rev's, or a bigger displacement are a few. VW goes to the
> > displacement side, producing the 2.0 (I-4 8v) and 2.8 liter VR6 (narrow
> > angle V6 12v) engine's for it's American market. Honda goes the other
way,
> > high revving, small displacement engines (1.6 VTEC 1.8 VTEC) for it's.
> More
> > power is produced though either method. This is just and example of two
> > different car companies using different technology's to our benefit. One
> > isn't better then the other.
>
> Some of us live in places with traffic lights and stop signs. Hitting
8000
> rpm is generally not an option. Meaning that the engine that produces
more
> torque down low will give more *usable* acceleration and performance.
> Hondas are great for people who live on racetracks.
I'm really growing tired of this nonsense that Hondas are completely
undrivable in city traffic. Is it time yet to move past this and argue
actual points?
Jason
Lee Cao
Mike Smith wrote:
> Some of us live in places with traffic lights and stop signs. Hitting 8000
> rpm is generally not an option. Meaning that the engine that produces more
> torque down low will give more *usable* acceleration and performance.
> Hondas are great for people who live on racetracks.
Given that the Civic Si experiences acceleration at 2000RPM that is
within 15% of its acceleration at 8000RPM, I don't think your
"usable" argument holds any water. So if you think that the Civic
Si is getting great acceleration at 8000RPM, it is getting at least
85% of that great acceleration at 2000RPM. =)
Care to argue otherwise?
>
> --
> Mike Smith. No, the other one.
--
Lee Cao - www.leecao.com
BlueText Development
Lee Cao
"Wei, Jim (BNR:BNRTP:3R67)" wrote:
> Torque band on a DOHC VTEC engine is very broad, but unless the engine has
> large displacement, the power band is narrow, at above the VTEC switchover
> point.
Define powerband...
Between what two points is the powerband?
Torque, not HP, causes acceleration. HP is a measurement of the
engine's ability to do work. Before anyone attempts the "for any
given speed the greatest acceleration is the gear that puts the
RPM closest to the HP peak" argument, note that this argument
assumes a fixed speed and variable gearing. Meanwhile, the usage
of a power-band requires a fixed gear pulling through the RPM
range that is within the powerband, and thus variable speed as
well.
>
> Jim
Lee Cao
Ryan Rahim wrote:
>
> Atalan (ata...@home.com) wrote:
> : In rec.autos.makers.honda, Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> : > Dave Feltenberger (rond...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : > : the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
> : > : damaged by revving them...
> : >
> : > But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
> : > driven less aggressively, no?
>
> : True. But that's the price to pay for getting a performance oriented
> : engine.
>
> Shouldn't performance oriented engines have good low-end as well?
If you nit-pick, race car engines generally lack good low-end
torque in comparison to their high end torque output because
they are rarely driven slow enough to require good low end
torque.
On the other hand, performance-oriented engines that must
satisfy the needs of a daily driver must also have good
low end torque in combination with good high end. That's
what a VTEC motor is: a balanced, smooth, flat torque
curve that spans from 2000 to 8000 RPM.
I don't understand the purpose of engines with good low
end torque but a steadily falling top end torque. But
Buick and VW drivers seem to like them a lot.
> But torque is anemic, leading many reviewers to say that the engine is
> nothing to write home about unless you keep it on the boil.
I am sure the crank torque, in combination with a properly selected
set of transmission gears, is more than adequate for good performance.
Performance figures for the Civic Si is on-par with other engines of
similar power ratings mounted in cars with smilar weight.
As to keeping the enging in the high RPM range, that's how the
engine was designed to be used. And it's purely a personal
preference whether or not someone likes reving an engine. Race
car drivers like to rev their engines. Buick drivers do not.
>
> Ryan
>
> --
> Fight Road-Rage....Slower Traffic Keep Right
--
Lee Cao
Ryan Rahim wrote:
>
> Atalan (ata...@home.com) wrote:
>
> : At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly every other
> : engine of that displacement.
>
> Uhm, yeah, but none of the competition to the DOHC VTECs are "of the same
> displacement."
I am glad you agree that VTEC allows the smaller displacement
Honda motors to compete with much larger displacement ones. =)
A while ago, you insisted that VTEC does not offer any
tangible benefits over a non VTEC engine of similar design.
> The DOHC VTECs, have _BY FAR_ the lowest peak torque in its class.
Without considering gearing, the above statement means absolutely
nil.
> : You've been hanging out here long enough to
> : know that, I'm sure. The high-rpm ranges are where the excitement stats,
> : yes. But, that's the entire reason for existence of the VTEC system.
> : Surely this is known to you?
>
> The competition has comparable hp, and far more torque. Surely this is
> known to you?
More torque, but shorter usable RPM range.
The VTEC engines compete very favorably with other engines of
similar power rating. Surely this is known to you?
Lee Cao
Ryan Rahim wrote:
>
> Dave Feltenberger (rond...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
> : damaged by revving them...
>
> But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
> driven less aggressively, no?
Yes... When you take two exact same engines... both engineered with
a 8000RPM red line, the one that is reved higher has arguagly a
shorter life span. But if a Honda engine is desgined to be used
aggressively and still give stellar reliability, then why not use
it as the engine was designed to be used?
> It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
> experience its *narrow* powerband.
Liar. narrow powerband my ass. VTEC engines have one of the
flattest torque curves of any engine. There is nothing narrow
about a 8000RPM red line. For the 1.6L DOHC VTEC engine in
the Si, acceleration in any one gear is within 15% of max
acceleration from 2000 to 8000RPM. Can you say the same for
the peaky engines found in the VWs?
Lee Cao
ralph wrote:
> Yes, what would constitute a nice broad power band? An engine that has
> peak torque at 2000 rpm and falls off proportionally with rpm after that
> is the only way. Oh yeah, gimme one of those.
But hey! the acceleration will be the same regardless of what gear
you are in as long as you are above 2000 RPM! Now you don't even
have to down-shift! ;)
Hmmmm Kind of describes the grand prix I drove the other day...
Crusing in 4th gear, need to pass, press gas pedal hard, little
acceleration, press gas pedal harder, transmission down shifts,
lots more noise, just *slightly* better acceleration. I was
suprised. Droping from 4th into 3rd in my Accord EX V6 presses
me back into the seat.
> --
> Fast as lightning, slick as glass.
> Out from Hell on a three day pass.
--
Lee Cao
Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> (hint: I shift past redline most of the time). The fact is that I do not
> have to shift my 735i @ redline to make it move quickly while you NEED
> that in a Honda - how sad.
"The fact is that while my car is green, your car is red - how sad".
Driving habbits are purely dependent on personal preference. Don't
knock it just because *you* don't personally like it. There is no
technical basis for your "how sad" comment.
>
> Stilian
Lee Cao
Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> Rpm range and powerband are very different terms
We all know what RPM range is. So why don't you enlighten us with
the definition of powerband?
> The DOHC VTEC low displacement engines have very wide rpm range and
> narrow power band (steep power curve), which is fine for certain
> application but sucks in others.
Name a few situations where a smooth long flat torque curve and
the resultant power curve sucks.
> That is why people also call these
> engines "peaky". Not torque, but hp "peaky".
What are the effects of a peaky HP curve? BTW, if you take a look
at the HP curve plots on Crush's web site, you'd see that the
actual slope of the curves between the 2.5L V6 in the Probe GT
is similar to that of the 1.6L I4 in the Civic Si. The Si's
curve is shifted higher in the RPM range, but the slope is similar.
Does the Probe GT have a peaky HP curve as well then?
In fact, browsing through most of the HP plots that I see, with
very few exceptions, most of the HP curves I see have general
slopes that are very similar to that of a VTEC engine. VTEC
engine's HP curves tend to be shifted towards the higher RPM
range, and somewhat smoother, but the general slope is similar.
> The torque curve is fairly
> flat and extends for wide rpm range but the actual torque in not a lot.
> The hp curve is too rpm dependent
Silly. The Si's HP curve is as RPM dependent as any other engine.
Show me an engine with a HP curve that isn't 100% dependent on the
RPM. There is a reason why HP is plotted against the engine RPM
you know.
On the other hand, if you mean that the VTEC's HP curve is not as
flat as another engine's HP curve... why that's a superior quality!
A flat HP curve indicates a torque curve that is proportionally
decreasing with increasing RPM. Such a HP curve produces
identical acceleration regardless of which gear you are in. What's
the use of that?
> and shifting a 5 sp loses you a lot
> of power on every shift.
Yet the VTEC engines out there give similar performance as
other engines with similar power output figures.
> The solution is more torque (less steep power
> curve)
More torque? LOL More torque where? Face it, the ideal case
is a long flat torque curve. And the VTEC engines come closer
to it than most of the other engines on the market. Having a
lot of torque down low but not much torque up high produces a
flatter HP curve, but that only causes exasperation when your
acceleration decreases as the RPM climbs, and downshifting
doesn't do much more than creating additional noise. More
torque in the high RPM ranges and not much down low is great
for race cars, and produces a very steep HP curve, but consumers
in general need a more laid back automobile. VTEC strikes a
balance between high and low RPM torque and offers a flat smooth
torque curve.
> or more gears and better driving skills. Unfortunately Honda does
> not offer any of these.
Driving skills you'll have to get on your own. More torque across
the RPM would be great, but the shape of the HP curve will remain
exactly the same. As for more gears, the 5spd is adequate for the
GS-R, Type-R, Civic Si and Preludes out there. For the 9000RPM
S2000, there is the 6 speed. =) Note that unlike the C5, which
uses the 6th gear purely for economy, the 6th speed in the S2000
actually serves up useful acceleration.
Pars
the cars handling.
Pars
Justin Van Aulen wrote:
> Hello Ryan,
>
> I don't understand your point. Honda engines aren't designed to have the
> low end torque of a V6 or V8 engine, weather that engine is European, or
> Japanese, or American. There are many ways for producing more horsepower.
> Higher rev's, or a bigger displacement are a few. VW goes to the
> displacement side, producing the 2.0 (I-4 8v) and 2.8 liter VR6 (narrow
> angle V6 12v) engine's for it's American market. Honda goes the other way,
> high revving, small displacement engines (1.6 VTEC 1.8 VTEC) for it's. More
> power is produced though either method. This is just and example of two
> different car companies using different technology's to our benefit. One
> isn't better then the other.
>
> What reviewers think the 1.8L VTEC engine is an "anemic" power-plant?
> What do they say about handling? Do you think the Integra is simply a "All
> Engine" car? Many racers I know think less of an engine when everything else
> performs well on the car, such as the braking, skidpad load shift, adhesion
> though apex, and handling in general. Granted, It needs to be revved high
> for major power, but I still don't understand why that is a bad thing in
> your opinion. The engine is designed that way, so it shouldn't it be used
> that way? Gobs of torque is a great thing, however, it's not EVERYTHING.
> Perhaps if Honda would use the 3.2L 24v V6 in the Integra, you would have
> nothing to complain about, however, that's not the way there design practice
> works. Just because it doesn't agree with your logic, does it make sense to
> think it's wrong? If you think your logic is best, perhaps your should take
> a step back and look at the big picture, automakers think different, just
> like You and I.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Justin
Atalan
> > Or do we have different definitions of the term "peaky" and "power band"?
> > My definition of power band is really a "torque band," but that's how
> > people seem to use it. Otherwise, saying an engine has a narrow power
> > band is pretty meaningless (see my first paragraph.)
>
> Not exactly. There is rpms range and power band the rpm range where for
> e.g 90 % of the power is.
> Compare the torque/power curves of of similar power output one using the
> high rpm approach to achieve it (VTEC) the other one using the
> displacement (including forced induction which de facto increases
> displacement) to achieve the hp (the traditional method), and you will
> see what I am talking about.
Okay, check this out - hypothetical VTEC engine makes 200hp at 8000rpm.
That's about 25 hp per 1000 rpm. Now, hypothetical large
displacement/forced induction engine makes 200hp at 5000rpm. You seem to
be implying that it has a less steep power curve. However, it in fact
has 40 hp per 1000 rpm. So it's quite a lot STEEPER!!! All I can see is
that what you're talking about doesn't seem to fit the facts. Am I
missing something?
> > When I hear people talk about a "narrow power band," I hear them talking
> > about the acceleration behavior in a single gear. The '86 911 I've
> > driver/raced (it has a 3.2l flat-six) is a truly "peaky" engine. Floor
> > it, and you'll notice a *significant* increase in acceleration at around
> > 5000rpm. Floor a VTEC engine at cruising speeds, and you'll feel an
> > increase of acceleration around torque peak, sure, but it's remarkably
> > smooth. The '97 911 (3.6l flat-six) I test drove was like this, too. It
> > has nothing to do with the displacement.
> >
>
> The narrow power band is the slope of the power curve ie how steep it
> is. Steeper curve - peaky engine regardless how linear the power
> delivery is. If a 1000 rpms drop results in a 25hp drop - the power
> curve is too steep therefor the engine is peaky.
>
> Stilian
So if 25 hp drop per 1000 rpm is too much, what do you call 40hp?
-=[ Poena ]=-
it will last
Max Power wrote in message <6lTm3.45239$5a.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>......when it is driven like it is supposed to. This question goes for all
>cars but since Honda's peak at crazy revs it applies to them in particular.
>Driving at >7k rpm has got to take it's toll on an engine no matter who
>makes it.
>
>I dont want to buy an Si and then find out that it has to be driven easy.
>
>
gre...@my-deja.com
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
> gre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : In article <7nlu0c$ami$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
> : > Atalan (ata...@home.com) wrote:
> : >
> : > : At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly
every
> : other
> : > : engine of that displacement.
> : >
> : > Uhm, yeah, but none of the competition to the DOHC VTECs are "of
the
> : same
> : > displacement."
>
>
> The 318Ti had a carry-over engine to save costs.
Are you trying to excuse the 318ti? It was a DOHC 4cylinder engine of
the same displacement as the Integra GSR, like it or not. The Integra's
motor offers far better performance.
>
> : > The DOHC VTECs, have _BY FAR_ the lowest peak torque in its class.
>
> : Yet they're still competitive, with engines that have _By FAR_ more
> : displacement.
>
> Absolute rubbish. The peak hp numbers are mid-pack, and the torque
> numbers are the poorest.
Yet, they're able to accelerate nearly as fast (or faster in some
cases), and provide better economy. That's competitive IMO.
>
> For those who like to rev, this is a good thing. I
> : suppose you would prefer to drive a Viper over a Ferrari 360M by the
> : same token.
>
> Either car has sufficient torque.
'sufficient' is a relative term right? The Ferrari has a powerband
which is very similar to a Honda, while the Viper's is similer to the
Carmaro z28 or VR6. Just look at the numbers (peak torque @rpm, peak
HP @ RPM, amount of peak torque available vs amount of peak HP, etc).
>
> : > The competition has comparable hp, and far more torque. Surely
this
> : is
> : > known to you?
>
> : Really? Since when did the v6 Passat have more torque than an
Acura TL?
>
> Although this discussion was about the DOHC VTECs, the Passat makes
more
> torque at its peak rpm than the TL. The difference in peak torque is
> marginal eventhough the TL has 0.4L more displacement.
In any event, the TL offers MORE TORQUE and MORE HORSEPOWER than its
direct competitor, the Passat, like it or not.
Greg
>
> Ryan
>
> --
> Fight Road-Rage....Slower Traffic Keep Right
>
mike
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
> Atalan (ata...@home.com) wrote:
>
> : At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly every
other
> : engine of that displacement.
>
> Uhm, yeah, but none of the competition to the DOHC VTECs are "of the
same
> displacement."
>
>
> : know that, I'm sure. The high-rpm ranges are where the excitement
stats,
> : yes. But, that's the entire reason for existence of the VTEC
system.
>
> The competition has comparable hp, and far more torque. Surely this
is
> known to you?
>
>
ryan, you are the most clueless being ive ever read.
mike
mike
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
> gre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : In article <7nlu0c$ami$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
> : rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
> : > Atalan (ata...@home.com) wrote:
> : >
> : > : At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly
every
> : other
> : > : engine of that displacement.
> : >
> : > Uhm, yeah, but none of the competition to the DOHC VTECs are "of
the
> : same
> : > displacement."
>
>
> The 318Ti had a carry-over engine to save costs.
>
>
> : Yet they're still competitive, with engines that have _By FAR_ more
> : displacement.
>
> Absolute rubbish. The peak hp numbers are mid-pack, and the torque
> numbers are the poorest.
<sarcasm> and we all know that peak hp numbers is directly
related to how fast a car goes right? </sarcasm>
gesh, ryan, do you know anything??? you *do* realize that
the rated hp may or may not mean similar hp at the wheels
right? and i hope you *do* know that although one car's
peak hp may be more than another (or peak torque for that
mater), that it doesn't mean squat unless that peak torque
is sustained throughout the rpm band?
and im just laughing at another previous post you mentioned.
in stop and go traffic, even my dink Civic EX is fine in
such, the argument that one needs a car with gobs of torque
in stop and go traffic is a joke, unless you plan on going
so fast and slamming into the car ahead of you. Also I'd
like to mention that a Hummer has gobs of torque, but that
doesn't necessarily mean that it is *fast*. A hummer is
SLOW, if you didn't already know.
ryan, give it up; you are as clueless as crush.
mike
>
> For those who like to rev, this is a good thing. I
> : suppose you would prefer to drive a Viper over a Ferrari 360M by the
> : same token.
>
> Either car has sufficient torque.
>
> : > The competition has comparable hp, and far more torque. Surely
this
> : is
> : > known to you?
>
> : Really? Since when did the v6 Passat have more torque than an Acura
TL?
>
> Although this discussion was about the DOHC VTECs, the Passat makes
more
> torque at its peak rpm than the TL. The difference in peak torque is
> marginal eventhough the TL has 0.4L more displacement.
>
> Ryan
mike
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
> BRG1500 (brg...@aol.com) wrote:
> : >......when it is driven like it is supposed to. This question goes
for all
> : >cars but since Honda's peak at crazy revs it applies to them in
particular.
> : >Driving at >7k rpm has got to take it's toll on an engine no matter
who
> : >makes it.
> : >
> : >I dont want to buy an Si and then find out that it has to be driven
easy.
>
> : any honda will last forever if it has been maintained well,
especially frequent
> : oil changes.
>
> Since my friend needed an engine rebuild for his '92 Integra at
115,000
> miles, I doubt this is true. He opted for a whole new engine.
>
well, tell your friend to start maintaining his car well
and stop beating on it.
mike
Stilian Elenkov
Mike Kohlbrenner wrote:
>
> Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> >
> > ... The GS-R. Si need more gears to
> > perform as well as a a similar output much heavier 323i, 320i (with 2.5
> > 170 and 2.0 150hp I6s and less steep power curves)
>
> What about the response I personally received here when
> I tried using BMW's power "ratings" for the current 2.5l
> "Baby Six"? Several folks pointed out that the 170 HP
> rating was significantly understated based upon actual
> chassis dyno results.
>
Look at www.hartage.de for some dyno (crank) graphs.
I doubt that the 170 (171) hp is underrated. Wheel hp could appear more
than the typical 170 due to the beefy torque curve 181 lbft @ 3500
(3200) and fairly flat too from a 2.5 is very good. Then again the 2.5
I6 24v had 189hp @ 5800 and 184lbft @ 4500 in the 1990 - 1995 525i and
that was without the VANOS system.
> I don't disagree with your point -- that the "area under
> the power curve" tends to be smaller with Honda's engines
> than with other engines with similar peak power. I just
> want to make sure that we don't use acceleration times of
> cars with understated power outputs to prove the point.
even if the I6s are underrated their 3200lb weight disadvantage should
make them slower or at best equal to the
similar output Hondas that weigh 2700lbs. Then again FWD vs RWD
acceleration dynamics....
> > 6speed is a must with an engine with ultra high rpm dependent power.
>
> You mean like those Camaros that come equipped with a
> 6-speed? Just kidding -- if ever there was an engine
> that did NOT need a 6 speed...
They need the 6 sp due to the narrow rpm range and improve on the
mileage. A 5sp Camaro geared right would probable have 15MPG rating.
> A 6-speed would certainly help as would a CVT. Just
> look at the surprisingly good performance of the Civic
> HX with the CVT. If you plant the pedal, that engine
> zeroes in on the power peak and lets the CVT keep it
> right there. Pretty effective for an economy engine.
The CVT is a great idea (in my opinion better than the manumatics). I
hope Honda continues its development and offer it more vehicles. The CVT
could make the small high revving Honda engines a tough competitor to
beat even with a 6sp.
> I actually agree that the DOHC VTEC engines from Honda
> would benefit from 6-speed transmissions. Too bad it
> would probably fall outside the cost structure of cars
> like the Civic Si and GS-R to equip them as such...
VW/Audi is offering it in the Jetta (Bora), Golf with 4Motion S4, A6,
S3, S6, S8, Passat TDI,A6 TDI, A8 TDI.
Honda had it in the Legend coupe 6sp (the best sporty sedan Honda ever
build).
Pegout has been offering in in the 205, 306 GTI for a long time.
Honda will have it in the S2k.
>
> > That is where you are wrong the 3.5 I6 has power at both the low and
> > high end the 209hp @ 5800 is not low is it? and the 224lbft @ 3200 is
> > not high is it? In fact it is pretty much the same as the RL's brand new
> > engine - shame.
> > The 3.3 - 3.5 I6 is regarded as a very free revving engine despite being
> > SOHC with 2v per cyl. It was used in the M1, M5 with 24vDOHC head. It
> > also offers very smooth power delivery, excellent torque, bulletproof
> > design, and excellent sound.
>
> I have to agree with you here! I'll let Ryan explain
> how I know this. I guess it's probably about time to
> spill the beans...
Those old I6 are still cranking...
> --
> Mike Kohlbrenner
> <kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com> sorry!
Stilian
Stilian Elenkov
Atalan wrote:
>
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
> > Atalan wrote:
> > > Or do we have different definitions of the term "peaky" and "power band"?
> > > My definition of power band is really a "torque band," but that's how
> > > people seem to use it. Otherwise, saying an engine has a narrow power
> > > band is pretty meaningless (see my first paragraph.)
> >
> > Not exactly. There is rpms range and power band the rpm range where for
> > e.g 90 % of the power is.
> > Compare the torque/power curves of of similar power output one using the
> > high rpm approach to achieve it (VTEC) the other one using the
> > displacement (including forced induction which de facto increases
> > displacement) to achieve the hp (the traditional method), and you will
> > see what I am talking about.
>
> Okay, check this out - hypothetical VTEC engine makes 200hp at 8000rpm.
> That's about 25 hp per 1000 rpm. Now, hypothetical large
> displacement/forced induction engine makes 200hp at 5000rpm.
I DO NOT WANT TO CHECK HYPOTHETICAL ENGINES! I gave you torque/power
graphs from a variety of REAL production engines.
The graphs prove you wrong for the Mustang example that you pulled out
of your behind.
There was a graph of the 1.8T making 193 ( close to 200hp) with forced
induction.
NOW LOOK AT IT. For a 1000 rpms drop (6000 - 5000) the engine loses 8hp
< 25hp (Civic R). You are wrong again.
The real world data proves you wrong yet you keep babbling about
HYPOTHETICAL engines...
> You seem to
> be implying that it has a less steep power curve. However, it in fact
> has 40 hp per 1000 rpm. So it's quite a lot STEEPER!!!
I am not implying it. I gave you FACTS that PROVE it...
>All I can see is
> that what you're talking about doesn't seem to fit the facts. Am I
> missing something?
You are missing basic comprehension skills, or maybe you can't use a
calculator, or can't read a torque/power curve or all of the above. This
is for you to determine...
>
> > > When I hear people talk about a "narrow power band," I hear them talking
> > > about the acceleration behavior in a single gear. The '86 911 I've
> > > driver/raced (it has a 3.2l flat-six) is a truly "peaky" engine. Floor
> > > it, and you'll notice a *significant* increase in acceleration at around
> > > 5000rpm. Floor a VTEC engine at cruising speeds, and you'll feel an
> > > increase of acceleration around torque peak, sure, but it's remarkably
> > > smooth. The '97 911 (3.6l flat-six) I test drove was like this, too. It
> > > has nothing to do with the displacement.
> > >
> >
> > The narrow power band is the slope of the power curve ie how steep it
> > is. Steeper curve - peaky engine regardless how linear the power
> > delivery is. If a 1000 rpms drop results in a 25hp drop - the power
> > curve is too steep therefor the engine is peaky.
> >
> > Stilian
>
> So if 25 hp drop per 1000 rpm is too much, what do you call 40hp?
Could you please show the REAL graph of a REAL engine that does that in
the specified rpm range.
Stilian
John Baker
>
> John Baker wrote:
> >
> > Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> >
> > > curve is too steep therefor the engine is peaky.
> >
> > show a greater hp drop (upon shifting) than engines with
> > falling torque curves. Simple arithmetic shows that to be
> > true. But if you think this somehow means that falling
> > torque curves are better, your understanding of the situation
> > is lacking.
>
> Why is it?
In a given gear, a car's acceleration (in Gs) simply
follows the torque curve (ignoring drag). In other words,
if you plotted G vs. rpm and torque vs. rpm (in a given gear
at wide open throttle) the two plots have the same shape.
So if torque falls off at high rpm, so do Gs. There is no
way that this can be construed to be a good thing.
Your assertion that a certain size hp drop is bad when
shifting is just mathematical noodling when applied to
discussions of torque and horsepower. It has no reality
as a practical problem.
The one area in which you *could* make a somewhat similar
(and much more practical) claim would be if you were
discussing gear spacing and drops in *wheel* torque
upon up-shifts.
John Baker
Ryan Rahim
: Ryan Rahim wrote:
: >
: > Dave Feltenberger (rond...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: > : the engines are engineered to be revved that high, hence, they won't be
: > : damaged by revving them...
: >
: > But its life will be shortened compared to a similar engine that is
: > driven less aggressively, no?
: Yes... When you take two exact same engines... both engineered with
: a 8000RPM red line, the one that is reved higher has arguagly a
: shorter life span. But if a Honda engine is desgined to be used
: aggressively and still give stellar reliability, then why not use
: it as the engine was designed to be used?
Because the DOHC VTECs haven't aged enough to make any claims about long
term durability. My friend's Integra motor suffered a burnt exhaust
valve after 115,000 miles and he replaced the whole engine.
: > It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
: > experience its *narrow* powerband.
: Liar. narrow powerband my ass. VTEC engines have one of the
: flattest torque curves of any engine.
And the lowest.
There is nothing narrow
: about a 8000RPM red line.
All reviewers state that it is anemic in low rpms. This is what I was
referring to. The hp is less accessible because the car has to be revved
high, and the engine has to be kept on the boil.
For the 1.6L DOHC VTEC engine in
: the Si, acceleration in any one gear is within 15% of max
: acceleration from 2000 to 8000RPM. Can you say the same for
: the peaky engines found in the VWs?
Look at the torque curve in the 1.8T and come back to me.
Ryan
: Lee Cao - www.leecao.com
: BlueText Development
--
Ryan Rahim
: Ryan Rahim wrote:
: > Shouldn't performance oriented engines have good low-end as well?
: On the other hand, performance-oriented engines that must
: satisfy the needs of a daily driver must also have good
: low end torque in combination with good high end. That's
: what a VTEC motor is: a balanced, smooth, flat torque
: curve that spans from 2000 to 8000 RPM.
Flat torque curve is one factor. Anemically low torque curve is the
other. Go brag about the ant being able to lift 6 times its body weight.
: I don't understand the purpose of engines with good low
: end torque but a steadily falling top end torque. But
: Buick and VW drivers seem to like them a lot.
Which torque curve plots of VW engines have you looked at.
: I am sure the crank torque, in combination with a properly selected
: set of transmission gears, is more than adequate for good performance.
: Performance figures for the Civic Si is on-par with other engines of
: similar power ratings mounted in cars with smilar weight.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And what cars are these?
: As to keeping the enging in the high RPM range, that's how the
: engine was designed to be used. And it's purely a personal
: preference whether or not someone likes reving an engine. Race
: car drivers like to rev their engines. Buick drivers do not.
Don't get me wrong. I like revving engines. But I also like to have the
feel of power right from the get-go. I don't give a sh*t how flat the
torque curve is if it does not have enough torque.
Ryan
: Lee Cao - www.leecao.com
--
Ryan Rahim
: Ryan Rahim wrote:
: >
: > Atalan (ata...@home.com) wrote:
: >
: > : At low rpms, a VTEC engine is just as good (or bad) as nearly every other
: > : engine of that displacement.
: >
: > Uhm, yeah, but none of the competition to the DOHC VTECs are "of the same
: > displacement."
: I am glad you agree that VTEC allows the smaller displacement
: Honda motors to compete with much larger displacement ones. =)
No they don't. They lose to the V8s, V6s and FI 4s.
: A while ago, you insisted that VTEC does not offer any
: tangible benefits over a non VTEC engine of similar design.
Reference?
: > The DOHC VTECs, have _BY FAR_ the lowest peak torque in its class.
: Without considering gearing, the above statement means absolutely
: nil.
Even considering gearing they have the lowest torque. Do you really
think the gearing is going to make up for the torque deficit compared to
the V6s and V8s?
: > : You've been hanging out here long enough to
: > : know that, I'm sure. The high-rpm ranges are where the excitement stats,
: > : yes. But, that's the entire reason for existence of the VTEC system.
: > : Surely this is known to you?
: >
: > The competition has comparable hp, and far more torque. Surely this is
: > known to you?
: More torque, but shorter usable RPM range.
Semantics. As I start revving the engine I prefer the excitement to
start immediately rather than yawn till the VTEC switchover.
: The VTEC engines compete very favorably with other engines of
: similar power rating. Surely this is known to you?
No they don't. Compare the GSR motor to the VR6. Look at top-gear
acceleration figures. Plot the hp/torque curves of the 2 motors on the
same chart. Which engine would you prefer?
Ryan
: --
: Lee Cao - www.leecao.com
: BlueText Development
--
Ryan Rahim
: > : What about the BMW 318ti? It was 1.8L at one point right?
: >
: > The 318Ti had a carry-over engine to save costs.
: Are you trying to excuse the 318ti? It was a DOHC 4cylinder engine of
: the same displacement as the Integra GSR, like it or not. The Integra's
: motor offers far better performance.
But not the regular Integra motors, which were very comparable to the
1.8L BMW motor which actually makes more torque. Isn't it fairer to
compare Honda's NON-VVT motor?
: > : > The DOHC VTECs, have _BY FAR_ the lowest peak torque in its class.
: >
: > : Yet they're still competitive, with engines that have _By FAR_ more
: > : displacement.
: >
: > Absolute rubbish. The peak hp numbers are mid-pack, and the torque
: > numbers are the poorest.
: Yet, they're able to accelerate nearly as fast (or faster in some
: cases), and provide better economy. That's competitive IMO.
That's building cars like a tin-can IMO. Hardly the feel a premium-made
car is supposed to give. HP/Weight is Hondas' core advantage.
: > For those who like to rev, this is a good thing. I
: > : suppose you would prefer to drive a Viper over a Ferrari 360M by the
: > : same token.
: >
: > Either car has sufficient torque.
: 'sufficient' is a relative term right?
Right. And very few people complain about torque from an engine with more
than 2.5L of displacement.
: > torque at its peak rpm than the TL. The difference in peak torque is
: > marginal eventhough the TL has 0.4L more displacement.
: In any event, the TL offers MORE TORQUE and MORE HORSEPOWER than its
: direct competitor, the Passat, like it or not.
2 lb/ft difference can easily be made up through gearing. From 0.4L more
displacement, that's pathetic. And how about Accord 3.0L vs. Audi 2.8L?
Even more pathetic.
Ryan
Ryan Rahim
: is
: > known to you?
: >
: >
: ryan, you are the most clueless being ive ever read.
Coming from someone who isn't able to dispute my points, I'll take that
as a compliment.
Ryan
: mike
Ryan Rahim
: > : >Driving at >7k rpm has got to take it's toll on an engine no matter
: who
: > : any honda will last forever if it has been maintained well,
: especially frequent
: > : oil changes.
: >
: > Since my friend needed an engine rebuild for his '92 Integra at
: 115,000
: > miles, I doubt this is true. He opted for a whole new engine.
: well, tell your friend to start maintaining his car well
: and stop beating on it.
I thought Hondas were designed to get "beat on"? Kinda disputes the notion
that Hondas will "last forever" doesn't it.
Ryan
Ryan Rahim
: In article <7nnnnr$n92$5...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
: rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
: >
: > : Yet they're still competitive, with engines that have _By FAR_ more
: > : displacement.
: >
: > Absolute rubbish. The peak hp numbers are mid-pack, and the torque
: > numbers are the poorest.
: <sarcasm> and we all know that peak hp numbers is directly
: related to how fast a car goes right? </sarcasm>
Yes, look at top gear acceleration. The Hondas are SLOW due to their
meagre torque compared to the competition. This is a simulated test of
drivability.
: gesh, ryan, do you know anything??? you *do* realize that
: the rated hp may or may not mean similar hp at the wheels
: right?
I'm having difficulty finding a point here.
and i hope you *do* know that although one car's
: peak hp may be more than another (or peak torque for that
: mater), that it doesn't mean squat unless that peak torque
: is sustained throughout the rpm band?
How, precisely, is "peak torque" sustained throughout the rpm band?
I gather you mean, a "flat torque curve." But what good is a flat torque
curve when you don't have much torque to start with? Most of the
competition, also have relatively flat torque curves like the VR6 and 1.8T.
: and im just laughing at another previous post you mentioned.
: in stop and go traffic, even my dink Civic EX is fine in
: such,
Learn to read attributes, dumbass, I said no such thing.
the argument that one needs a car with gobs of torque
: in stop and go traffic is a joke, unless you plan on going
: so fast and slamming into the car ahead of you.
I will say that the DOHC VTECs have a drivability penalty compared to the
competition's V6s and V8s.
Also I'd
: like to mention that a Hummer has gobs of torque, but that
: doesn't necessarily mean that it is *fast*. A hummer is
: SLOW, if you didn't already know.
And if it had less torque, it would be even slower accelerating. What's
your point?
: ryan, give it up; you are as clueless as crush.
And you are a Honduh apologist. This newsgroup would have a few thousand
fewer posts if Honduh apologists would admit that the competition has a
torque advantage.
Atalan
> > graph - hp increases, peaks, then falls off. Classic "peaky-ness."
>
> Not really. Typical (even newer VVT ones like BMW, Audi Lexus) engines
> have the torque peak occur Q low rpms and level off or slightly decline
> with rpms inserting therefore creating a plato zone for the high end hp
> and - LOOK at torque/power curves and only from Honda engines.
If I read this correctly, you are saying that an engine having toque fall
off as rpms increase is a good thing. Uhh... Torque is the force that
causes acceleration. Having it fall off is bad. In fact, in order to
have a perfectly flat hp curve, torque would have to be inversely
proportional to rpms.
That is, if hp = torque * rpm / constant_one, and torque = constant_two /
rpm, we end up with hp = constant_two / constant_one. You're saying this
is desireable?
> I am including some graphs for you to look at and please take VERy good
> look and then hit you might not have to just hit the reply button.
That's a wonderful idea - I just wish I could decode it. What'd you use
to attach the gif? Do you have a webpage where I can look at it?
> > Well, considering that for every engine out there, hp equals torque times
> > rpm, all their curves are quite rpm dependent. :-)
>
> Yes , but some more than others.
Uhh, it's a mathematical formula. It applies equally to all engines.
> Not according to the real data. A drop from 6000 to 5000 (the Mustang GT
> top portion if the power band)
> results in a 260hp - 250hp - 10 hp drop nowhere near the 23hp the Civic
> R experiences.
> How about that?
Uhh, I won't argue your numbers. I will argue that that's a bad thing,
not a good thing. I's pretty sad for the Mustang, really. At 6000 rpm
it makes 260, which is 228 lb-ft. At 5000 rpm it makes 250 hp, which is
262 lb-ft. That's a 34 lb-ft DROP in torque!!! In other words, the
Mustang is accelerating 13% LESS at 6000 than it was at 5000. You call
this a good thing? Imagine if the Mustang still made 262 lb-ft at 6000 -
that would work out to 299 hp!!! That would ROCK!
So please explain to me again why a decreasing torque curve is a good
thing.
> PLAESE LOOK at the real torque /power graphs and stop making thing up.
I don't think "making things up" in this sense is a bad thing.
Mathematical models have helped people understand the things going on
around them for quite a long while. It makes me giggle to think what
sort of repsonse you'd get from physicists if you told them to "stop
making things up."
Once we understand we basic underlying principle, we can go out and start
checking out specifics.
(And seriously, I would like to look at the graphs - technical
difficulties are getting in the way, though.)
> > Connect the dots and - isn't the power curve of the large displacement,
> > high torque engine quite a bit steeper than the small displacement, high
> > rpm engine?
>
> Any proof for that?
>
> Grab you calculator and measure and calculate the slope from the graphs
> provided....
> Now admit that you were wrong...
Uhhh... Okay. Here's from a different post of mine:
"Okay, check this out - hypothetical VTEC engine makes 200hp at 8000rpm.
That's about 25 hp per 1000 rpm. Now, hypothetical large
displacement/forced induction engine makes 200hp at 5000rpm. You seem to
be implying that it has a less steep power curve. However, it in fact
has 40 hp per 1000 rpm. So it's quite a lot STEEPER!!! All I can see
ist hat what you're talking about doesn't seem to fit the facts. Am I
missing something?"
So....... The math supports my claim. A slope of 40 is greater than a
slope of 25.
BTW - did you actually do your own calculations? What numbers did you
come up with?
John Baker
> redline in
> Civic R vs a car with similar output and bigger engine (e.g. 323i) and
> 5sp only.
> Her is a good pic of the problem:
It's an interesting graph I guess, but I think it
obfuscates more than it illuminates. Better would
be wheel-torque versus speed, and I'm not sure we
can work this graph backwards to get there. HP is
really only good for comparing things in the abstract.
Once the gearing is settled (or at least under discussion)
wheel torque is where it's at.
John Baker
.............................................................
.............................................................
.............................................................
.............................................................
.............................................................
Cognitive Dragon
Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:7nqgcd$mq0$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca...
> Lee Cao (lig...@leecao.com) wrote:
> : > It's sad that the 4 cyl VTECs need to be revved to redline in order to
> : > experience its *narrow* powerband.
>
> : Liar. narrow powerband my ass. VTEC engines have one of the
> : flattest torque curves of any engine.
>
> And the lowest.
You sound like Crush arguing about peak numbers. I order you to drive the
car.
> There is nothing narrow
> : about a 8000RPM red line.
>
> All reviewers state that it is anemic in low rpms. This is what I was
> referring to. The hp is less accessible because the car has to be revved
> high, and the engine has to be kept on the boil.
My Civic Si has plenty of torque at 2000 RPM for relaxed city driving. I
don't know why this is so hard to understand. I do it every day. On
purpose. For the 499th time, drive the car. Only then will you be
qualified to comment on its city drivability. And, please, do not drive it
immediately after driving your co-worker's Camaro SS.
Jason
ralph
> Fight Road-Rage....Slower Traffic Keep Right
advise them on their Honda.
ralph
> Fight Road-Rage....Slower Traffic Keep Right
done. We have all been convinced. No need to invest so much time here
any more. We'll take it from here while you can rest.
Atalan
>
> Atalan wrote:
> >
> > In rec.autos.makers.honda, Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
> > > (183hp) from any gear you are down to 7000 (160hp) which translates into
> > > 23hp LOSS on an upshift.
> >
> > <nitpick> I think you mean "downshift." I'd hope you don't go
> > upshifting at reline... </nitpick>
> >
> > Now, tell me, how much power is lost in, say, a Mustang V8 when the revs
> > drop 1000 rpm? My guess would be a lot more than 23hp. Refer back to my
> > previous post with the theoretical dynochart as to why I think it'll be
> > more.
> >
>
> See my reply to your previous post in the "...usually do not like Honda
> ... " thread and see the a similar 1000 drop in the Mustang GT result
> in 10hp LOSS, the VR6 - 12hp, the 3.8 M5 - 13hp, the 1.8T - 4.5hp vs
> 23hp in the Civic R
> Would you care to reconsider your statement?
<nitpick> I've only posted two articles in that thread - one was a
question asking for info, and one was about racing VTEC engines and VTEC
cam switch points. I think you meant this particular thread. </nitpick>
In another post in this thread, I've described my views on the Mustang's
10 hp loss.
> I am angry that people like you pull stuff from places (typically back
> orifices) and make bold statements without any reasonable research and
> data to back them. And when corrected are still stubborn and think they
> know it all, and I am forced to spend time and do the research for them
> and they still refuse to accept the data and its analysis. I can think
> of many more interesting things to discuss on the these forums rather
> than bicker about make superiority in way too long threads twice a
> month.
We've had, what, half a dozen exchanges? Hardly enough time to truly
develop our points enough to convince eachother of anything. If we were
talking face-to-face, we could have had this hashed out in an hour or so,
probably. So far as exists in my mind, I've had a well thought out
response to each of your points. *shrug* I could just as easily say
that YOU are the one being stubborn. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with
the numbers you're posting. I'm disagreeing with what they mean.
(BTW, we're not talking about make superiority. We're talking about
performance characteristcs of various engines given their different
torque curves. It doesn't matter to me who makes which engine.)
> > > Look at the power torque/curves,
> >
> > Yes! They show a *steeper* power curve for high hp, low rpm engines, as
> > compared to high hp, high rpm engines.
> >
> > > gear ratios and final drive and think before you make a fool of
> > > yourself.
>
> So you admit that the Si would benefit more from a 6sp than the EX for
> e.g.?
Uh, I was commenting on hp curve slopes, not gearing.
> Again look at the shift points graph in the previous post of the Integra
> R vs SE-R
> and you will understand the problem. The GS-R. Si need more gears to
> perform as well as a a similar output much heavier 323i, 320i (with 2.5
> 170 and 2.0 150hp I6s and less steep power curves)
Hmm, I'll comment on this once I can figure out how to read your MIME
message. How about posting it in that "begin filename.ext 666" format,
whatever it's called?
Plus, we have to deal with Mike Kohlbrenner's assertion that the 170hp is
very understated.
> > *shrug* I personally find high-rpm engines much much much more exciting
> > than a lower rpm but higher torque engines. I'm sad for you.
>
> That is where you are wrong
Uhh, are you saying I'm wrong when I say I like high-rpm engines?
> the 3.5 I6 has power at both the low and
> high end the 209hp @ 5800 is not low is it? and the 224lbft @ 3200 is
> not high is it?
You seem to think I'm looking down on BMW engines. This is not the case
at all. When did I ever say the I6 makes its hp down low? When did I
ever say the I6 makes its torque up high? In fact, when did I ever say
ANYTHING about a BMW engine? My points are along the lines of 1) VTEC
engines aren't peaky, 2) having a flat torque curve is good, 3) having a
torque curve that falls off is bad, 4) engines making peak hosepower at
low rpms have a steeper hp curve than engines making peak horsepower at
high rpms, 5) the phrase "broad power band" to me means that there is a
large range of rpms in which an engine makes torque close to it's max
torque, even though the word "power" is in that phrase.
> In fact it is pretty much the same as the RL's brand new
> engine - shame.
And this matters why?
> The 3.3 - 3.5 I6 is regarded as a very free revving engine despite being
> SOHC with 2v per cyl. It was used in the M1, M5 with 24vDOHC head. It
> also offers very smooth power delivery, excellent torque, bulletproof
> design, and excellent sound.
Awesome. Sounds like a great engine.
> I also have an 86 GTI, which despite its low redline (6800) and 1/2 the
> size of the 3.5, offers all the benefits of the 3.5 I6 (scaled down),
> but in a light car that can still outperform many newer Hondas and
> Acuras.
How much hp does it have?
> BTW my 735i still outperforms the new Honda Acura competition (EX V6,
> RL, TL, CL) in every respect and does so with a class.
You must feel very proud, to boast so. And that's fine, it's good for
people to like the cars they drive. I just don't understand what it has
to do with our discussion.
> Stilian
>
Atalan
> >
> > Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> >
> > > If a 1000 rpms drop results in a 25hp drop - the power
> > > curve is too steep therefor the engine is peaky.
> >
> > All you are saying is that engines with flat torque curves
> > show a greater hp drop (upon shifting) than engines with
> > falling torque curves. Simple arithmetic shows that to be
> > true. But if you think this somehow means that falling
> > torque curves are better, your understanding of the situation
> > is lacking.
>
> Why is it?
>
> Stilian
> > John Baker
Whoa. So having a falling torque curve is good because it gives you
"easier access to more power"? How is that "more" power? Torque going
down makes hp go down, so having torque go down will certainly not give
you more power.
Atalan
> gre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : > : What about the BMW 318ti? It was 1.8L at one point right?
> : >
> : > The 318Ti had a carry-over engine to save costs.
>
> : Are you trying to excuse the 318ti? It was a DOHC 4cylinder engine of
> : the same displacement as the Integra GSR, like it or not. The Integra's
> : motor offers far better performance.
>
> But not the regular Integra motors, which were very comparable to the
> 1.8L BMW motor which actually makes more torque. Isn't it fairer to
> compare Honda's NON-VVT motor?
It depends on what your goal is. In this conversation, the goal is to
discuss what ramifications there are of the VTEC system extending the
GSR's 1.8l engine's usable range to 8000rpm. It's therefore fair to
compare the 1.8 VTEC engine to a 1.8 non-vvt engine.
We're not talking about what's "fair", we're not talking about which
engine is better, were talking about what 8000rpm redlines are all about.
Atalan
> : peak hp may be more than another (or peak torque for that
> : mater), that it doesn't mean squat unless that peak torque
> : is sustained throughout the rpm band?
>
> How, precisely, is "peak torque" sustained throughout the rpm band?
(Actually, this can be done with electric motors. They have torque
curves as flat as a anything can be flat. Not that it means anything,
but it's a little bit of trivia I think is neat.)
> I gather you mean, a "flat torque curve." But what good is a flat torque
> curve when you don't have much torque to start with? Most of the
> competition, also have relatively flat torque curves like the VR6 and 1.8T.
It's good when you can stretch it out into high rpm ranges and therefore
run lower gear ratios. And some would say that high rpms is good in and
of itself. I remember reading a post recently from somebody in
California complaining that the CA edition of the YZF R6 "only" has a
14,000 rpm redline, not the the 49-states' 15,200rpm redline. (I'm not
sure about the exact numbers.) For some people, that's important.
I think it's safe to say "*for it's rpm range* the VTEC engines have
torque curves with some of the flattest torque curves out there."
> I will say that the DOHC VTECs have a drivability penalty compared to the
> competition's V6s and V8s.
Penalty? Okay, that's true. It that a problem? Well, no. It might not
satisfy some people, but that's just personal preference.
It's just as valid to say that the competition's V6s and V8s have an rpm
penalty compared to these VTEC engines. Is that a problem? Well, no.
It might not yadda yadda yadda.
> And you are a Honduh apologist. This newsgroup would have a few thousand
> fewer posts if Honduh apologists would admit that the competition has a
> torque advantage.
I think nearly every Honda fan will admit that. After all, 200 generally
is larger than 120, right? However, I think very few Honda enthusiasts
will admit that that MATTERS to them.
Atalan
> >
> > Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> > >
> > > perform as well as a a similar output much heavier 323i, 320i (with 2.5
> > > 170 and 2.0 150hp I6s and less steep power curves)
> >
> > I tried using BMW's power "ratings" for the current 2.5l
> > "Baby Six"? Several folks pointed out that the 170 HP
> > rating was significantly understated based upon actual
> > chassis dyno results.
> >
>
> Look at www.hartage.de for some dyno (crank) graphs.
Yay! A web page!
<checking...>
Uh oh...
C:\>ping www.hartage.de
Bad IP address www.hartage.de.
Any other suggestions?
Atalan
> > > > Or do we have different definitions of the term "peaky" and "power band"?
> > > > My definition of power band is really a "torque band," but that's how
> > > > people seem to use it. Otherwise, saying an engine has a narrow power
> > > > band is pretty meaningless (see my first paragraph.)
> > >
> > > Not exactly. There is rpms range and power band the rpm range where for
> > > e.g 90 % of the power is.
> > > Compare the torque/power curves of of similar power output one using the
> > > high rpm approach to achieve it (VTEC) the other one using the
> > > displacement (including forced induction which de facto increases
> > > displacement) to achieve the hp (the traditional method), and you will
> > > see what I am talking about.
> >
> > That's about 25 hp per 1000 rpm. Now, hypothetical large
> > displacement/forced induction engine makes 200hp at 5000rpm.
>
Oh my, you're a lively one all right. Sigh. I think the possibility of
us having a respectful, rational conversation are fast dwindling. No
doubt you think this is because I'm being "boneheaded." So be it. Sigh.
Anyway, although it's not germane to the discussion at hand, I think that
a great deal can be learned from hypothetical thought experiments.
Einstein loved to use them, too. He came up with many of his theories
before there was any hard proof. That's just the way things work,
sometimes.
My generalized cases of the hypothetical engines aren't contradicted by
the graphs you've posted. My hypothesis is simply too narrow in that it
assumes a perfectly flat torque curve, so it doesn't explain all of the
observed behavior. It's quite acurate in specific cases, though. Just
like special relativity is acurate in specific cases, but doesn't explain
everything like general relativity does. (The difference being, IIRC,
general relativity includes moving frames of reference.) However, I and
a couple others have already stated that a declining torque curve, which
maintains a flat power curve, is a Very Bad Thing(tm).
> I gave you torque/power
> graphs from a variety of REAL production engines.
> The graphs prove you wrong for the Mustang example that you pulled out
> of your behind.
> There was a graph of the 1.8T making 193 ( close to 200hp) with forced
> induction.
>
> NOW LOOK AT IT. For a 1000 rpms drop (6000 - 5000) the engine loses 8hp
> < 25hp (Civic R). You are wrong again.
> The real world data proves you wrong yet you keep babbling about
> HYPOTHETICAL engines...
>
> > You seem to
> > be implying that it has a less steep power curve. However, it in fact
> > has 40 hp per 1000 rpm. So it's quite a lot STEEPER!!!
>
> I am not implying it. I gave you FACTS that PROVE it...
Woohoo! I decoded the gif. Life is good. Okay, let's see... The
first graph: Max HP for the Cobra is 255 at 6000 rpm. (I'm
interpolating, the graph isn't particularly specific.) That's about 42.5
hp per 1000 rpm. (That's pretty close to my theoretical engine,
conincidentally enough.) Max hp for the GSR is 155 at 7500rpm. That's
about 20.6 hp per 1000 rpm. (Golly gee, pretty close to my other
theoretical engine.) Fankly, you can't use that graph to show that the
engines with smaller rpm ranges have less steep power curves.
Now, let's look at the Probe/Civic graph.
At 1000 rpm, there's about a 10 hp difference between the two. At 5000
rpm, there's about 40 hp difference. See, the Probe's hp is going up
faster per rpm than the Civics. That's the definition of a steeper line.
Rise over run, and all that gradeschool jazz.
Please tell me how you got it the other way around.
> >All I can see is
> > that what you're talking about doesn't seem to fit the facts. Am I
> > missing something?
>
> You are missing basic comprehension skills, or maybe you can't use a
> calculator, or can't read a torque/power curve or all of the above. This
> is for you to determine...
Just did. Tada! I don't see how you find it otherwise, when you post
proof that directly contradicts what you're saying.
Here's the general rule: Take two engines. If the have the same rpm
range and different hp, the one with more will have a steeper hp curve.
If the have the same hp and different rpm rangers, the one with less will
have a steeper hp curve. You can pick and choose a small 1000 rpm band
that is otherwise, (say, 6500 to 6000 rpm for the Cobra, in which hp
INCREASES, not just drops more slowly than the GSR) but the overal
average rate of rise will be as I just said.
> > So if 25 hp drop per 1000 rpm is too much, what do you call 40hp?
>
> Could you please show the REAL graph of a REAL engine that does that in
> the specified rpm range.
Hey, you already did! Check out the Cobra vs the GSR. 42 vs 20 hp per
1000 rpm.
Funj
match the performance of the Dohc Vtec engine.
Driven the same way, the Dohc Vtec should still outlast engines of
comparable displacement because its engineered to take higher stress levels
than most normal engines are (e.g. 8200-8500rpm redline).
--
Funj
96 JDM Civic SiR EK4
Pearl Black, sunroof, go fast mods...
http://www.escalix.com/freepage/funj
Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:7niig9$p8m$5...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca...
Ryan Rahim
: Ryan Rahim wrote:
: > Don't get me wrong. I like revving engines. But I also like to have the
: > feel of power right from the get-go. I don't give a sh*t how flat the
: > torque curve is if it does not have enough torque.
: >
: > Ryan
: So go buy a V8 and leave us alone. I don't remember anyone asking you to
: advise them on their Honda.
Already have a 32V DOHC V8. :-)
Ryan Rahim
: You sound like Crush arguing about peak numbers. I order you to drive the
: car.
: My Civic Si has plenty of torque at 2000 RPM for relaxed city driving. I
: don't know why this is so hard to understand. I do it every day. On
: purpose. For the 499th time, drive the car. Only then will you be
: qualified to comment on its city drivability. And, please, do not drive it
: immediately after driving your co-worker's Camaro SS.
Ok, I'll drive the '99 Civic Si if you drive the '99 Golf GTI GLX. Deal?
Ryan
: Jason
Ryan Rahim
: In rec.autos.makers.honda, Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
Yes, Honda makes the most powerful DOHC NA 4 cyl engines in North
America. This is not a point under dispute. However, the design goals
of BMW's 1.8L is the same as the regular 1.8L in the Integra, not the GSR
motor.
Ryan
gre...@my-deja.com
The 318ti was a direct competitor to the Integra GSR. In fact, one of
the car magazines did a direct comparison of the two (C&D I think).
Your argument was that Honda's DOHC 4 cyl engine competitors all use
more displacement, and thus offer you more performance. I disputed the
claim, and now you're claiming that the GSR isn't a direct competitor.
Look at the prices. The GSR and 319ti are both priced nearly the same,
the base model Integra costs less than the 318Ti.
Greg
>
> Ryan
>
> --
> Fight Road-Rage....Slower Traffic Keep Right
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
gre...@my-deja.com
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
> gre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : > : What about the BMW 318ti? It was 1.8L at one point right?
> : >
> : > The 318Ti had a carry-over engine to save costs.
>
> : Are you trying to excuse the 318ti? It was a DOHC 4cylinder engine
of
> : the same displacement as the Integra GSR, like it or not. The
Integra's
> : motor offers far better performance.
>
> But not the regular Integra motors, which were very comparable to the
> 1.8L BMW motor which actually makes more torque. Isn't it fairer to
> compare Honda's NON-VVT motor?
No, the price of the GSR is much closer to the price of the 318ti.
>
> : Yet, they're able to accelerate nearly as fast (or faster in some
> : cases), and provide better economy. That's competitive IMO.
>
> That's building cars like a tin-can IMO. Hardly the feel a premium-
made
> car is supposed to give. HP/Weight is Hondas' core advantage.
Really? The Accord and Passat weigh nearly the same, yet the Accord is
significantly faster 0-60, when comparing automatic tranny's.
>
> : > For those who like to rev, this is a good thing. I
> : > : suppose you would prefer to drive a Viper over a Ferrari 360M
by the
> : > : same token.
> : >
> : > Either car has sufficient torque.
>
> : 'sufficient' is a relative term right?
>
> Right. And very few people complain about torque from an engine with
more
> than 2.5L of displacement.
How subjective of you. I argue that most consumers of engines less
than 2.5L aren't looking for robust low RPM torque anyway. They're
looking for cars that are inexpensive, and efficient.
>
> : > torque at its peak rpm than the TL. The difference in peak
torque is
> : > marginal eventhough the TL has 0.4L more displacement.
>
> : In any event, the TL offers MORE TORQUE and MORE HORSEPOWER than its
> : direct competitor, the Passat, like it or not.
>
> 2 lb/ft difference can easily be made up through gearing. From 0.4L
more
> displacement, that's pathetic. And how about Accord 3.0L vs. Audi
2.8L?
> Even more pathetic.
Pathetic is a term one should use to describe VW's ancient 2.0L 8v
motor in the GTI. The Acura TL's engine is far from pathetic. In fact
it has received excellent ratings. BOTH cars (TL and Accord)
outperform the Passat's V6 (auto vs auto). From what I've read, there
have been no criticism's about the Accord or TL's engines. I have read
complaints about the Passat's poor low RPM power. According to both
the perf. numbers and the professional reviews, the Honda V6's are
clearly superior.
gre...@my-deja.com
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
> I will say that the DOHC VTECs have a drivability penalty compared to
the
> competition's V6s and V8s.
And they make up for this by offering better efficiency, and less
weight, which can contribute to better handling. Life is full of
tradeoffs.
>
> : ryan, give it up; you are as clueless as crush.
>
> And you are a Honduh apologist. This newsgroup would have a few
thousand
> fewer posts if Honduh apologists would admit that the competition has
a
> torque advantage.
And the VW apologists like yourself have an easy time admitting to VW's
shortcomings? Such hipocracy.
Atalan
> : It depends on what your goal is. In this conversation, the goal is to
> : discuss what ramifications there are of the VTEC system extending the
> : GSR's 1.8l engine's usable range to 8000rpm. It's therefore fair to
> : compare the 1.8 VTEC engine to a 1.8 non-vvt engine.
>
> : We're not talking about what's "fair", we're not talking about which
> : engine is better, were talking about what 8000rpm redlines are all about.
>
> America. This is not a point under dispute. However, the design goals
> of BMW's 1.8L is the same as the regular 1.8L in the Integra, not the GSR
> motor.
Exactly. So it's also fair to compare the Honda 1.8 VTEC to the Honda
1.8 non-VTEC. In fact, Stilian recently posted an HP graph showing a
regular Civic right next to a Civic Si. Pretty interesting, IMO.
Marshall Willenholley
displacement engines, just have a few thoughts...
Atalan wrote in message ...
>In rec.autos.makers.honda, Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
>>
>> Atalan wrote:
>> >
>> > All engines are hp peaky though, aren't they? Just look at any
dyno
>> > graph - hp increases, peaks, then falls off. Classic
"peaky-ness."
I know there has been great discussions about this (and I know I'm
going to be flamed for this), but I think if you were to ask a
competition driver, they would refer to a flat torqued engine as
"peaky" and a more usual, lower end torque car as not (as wierd as it
may sound being put that way). The reason being that you have to keep
the revs in the upper band so you shift a lot. Larger displacement
engines give you more flexibility.
(Who was the one who posted here that maximum acceleration in any gear
occurs at the torque peak, but maximum acceleration at any speed
occurs at the HP peak?)
>> Not really. Typical (even newer VVT ones like BMW, Audi Lexus)
engines
>> have the torque peak occur Q low rpms and level off or slightly
decline
>> with rpms inserting therefore creating a plato zone for the high
end hp
>> and - LOOK at torque/power curves and only from Honda engines.
>
>If I read this correctly, you are saying that an engine having toque
fall
>off as rpms increase is a good thing.
Having torque fall off is not that bad when comparing it to an engine
that doesn't have very far to fall. Comparing the VR6 to the 1.6l
VTEC for example, the VR6's torque curve falls off, but it never falls
as low as the VTEC's flat curve. Until it red lines, that is, in
which case the VTEC continues its flat torque curve for an extra 1500
RPM which is a big advantage.
So just cause it is *falling*, doesn't equal bad. It be better if it
stayed up but where is it falling from and where is it falling too?
I think the point a lot of people make here that gets stone-walled is
that WOT red-line acceleration is similar between a VTEC and a larger
displacement engine, but it is pretty clear from looking at Dyno
charts that if you were to graph acceleration shifting at 2500, 3500,
4500, and 5500 the larger displacement engine would do better.
Whether someone cares about this or not is up to them.
(And I know, Lloyd, the VTEC gets better mileage and has more
all-natural goodness)
--
Marshall Willenholley
To reply, shorten network to net.
John Baker
>
> I will say that the DOHC VTECs have a drivability penalty compared to the
> competition's V6s and V8s.
You are absolutely right. Assuming you have a Buick
mentality that is. Apparently you do. Why keep
arguing about it ?
John Baker
John Baker
>
> I know there has been great discussions about this (and I know I'm
> going to be flamed for this), but I think if you were to ask a
> competition driver, they would refer to a flat torqued engine as
> "peaky" and a more usual, lower end torque car as not (as wierd as it
> may sound being put that way). The reason being that you have to keep
> the revs in the upper band so you shift a lot.
I'm pretty sure that this is incorrect. Truly racy engines (like say
formula one) are called peaky when they produce *torque* over just
a narrow band. Torque is what the driver feels as acceleration.
Remember that the acceleration (Gs vs. rpm) in any given gear
has the same shape as the *torque* curve, not the hp curve. So
race drivers don't really feel HP as such, and therefore would
have no opinion on its relation to "peakiness". When drivers
complain about an engine being peaky, the engineers look for
ways around it -- re-tuning, more gears, or in Honda's case, VTEC.
When the engineers say they have found some more HP, this is really
just shorthand for saying they found some more torque (which would
translate directly to more HP) or they pushed the torque higher up
the rev band which allows more advantageous gearing.
John Baker
Stilian Elenkov
Atalan wrote:
>
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
> >
> > Atalan wrote:
> > >
> > > All engines are hp peaky though, aren't they? Just look at any dyno
> > > graph - hp increases, peaks, then falls off. Classic "peaky-ness."
> >
> > Not really. Typical (even newer VVT ones like BMW, Audi Lexus) engines
> > have the torque peak occur Q low rpms and level off or slightly decline
> > with rpms inserting therefore creating a plato zone for the high end hp
> > and - LOOK at torque/power curves and only from Honda engines.
>
> If I read this correctly, you are saying that an engine having toque fall
> off as rpms increase is a good thing. Uhh... Torque is the force that
> causes acceleration. Having it fall off is bad. In fact, in order to
> have a perfectly flat hp curve, torque would have to be inversely
> proportional to rpms.
>
> That is, if hp = torque * rpm / constant_one, and torque = constant_two /
> rpm, we end up with hp = constant_two / constant_one. You're saying this
> is desireable?
Not always, but in the case of a 5sp car it offers easier way to utilize
the power of the engine.
>
> > I am including some graphs for you to look at and please take VERy good
> > look and then hit you might not have to just hit the reply button.
>
> That's a wonderful idea - I just wish I could decode it. What'd you use
> to attach the gif? Do you have a webpage where I can look at it?
Netscape 4.51. I will post them @ elenkovs.vtls.com but only for a few
days (due to security issues).
An then we will continue the discussion.
>
> > > Well, considering that for every engine out there, hp equals torque times
> > > rpm, all their curves are quite rpm dependent. :-)
> >
> > Yes , but some more than others.
>
> Uhh, it's a mathematical formula. It applies equally to all engines.
Please look at the graphs first.
>
> > Not according to the real data. A drop from 6000 to 5000 (the Mustang GT
> > top portion if the power band)
> > results in a 260hp - 250hp - 10 hp drop nowhere near the 23hp the Civic
> > R experiences.
> > How about that?
>
> Uhh, I won't argue your numbers. I will argue that that's a bad thing,
> not a good thing. I's pretty sad for the Mustang, really. At 6000 rpm
> it makes 260, which is 228 lb-ft. At 5000 rpm it makes 250 hp, which is
> 262 lb-ft. That's a 34 lb-ft DROP in torque!!! In other words, the
> Mustang is accelerating 13% LESS at 6000 than it was at 5000. You call
> this a good thing? Imagine if the Mustang still made 262 lb-ft at 6000 -
> that would work out to 299 hp!!! That would ROCK!
That is why you just upshifted and landed @ 5000 rpms and have more
torque.
>
> So please explain to me again why a decreasing torque curve is a good
> thing.
>
> > PLAESE LOOK at the real torque /power graphs and stop making thing up.
>
> I don't think "making things up" in this sense is a bad thing.
> Mathematical models have helped people understand the things going on
> around them for quite a long while. It makes me giggle to think what
> sort of repsonse you'd get from physicists if you told them to "stop
> making things up."
>
> Once we understand we basic underlying principle, we can go out and start
> checking out specifics.
>
> (And seriously, I would like to look at the graphs - technical
> difficulties are getting in the way, though.)
>
> > > Connect the dots and - isn't the power curve of the large displacement,
> > > high torque engine quite a bit steeper than the small displacement, high
> > > rpm engine?
> >
> > Any proof for that?
> >
> > Grab you calculator and measure and calculate the slope from the graphs
> > provided....
> > Now admit that you were wrong...
>
> Uhhh... Okay. Here's from a different post of mine:
>
> "Okay, check this out - hypothetical VTEC engine makes 200hp at 8000rpm.
> That's about 25 hp per 1000 rpm. Now, hypothetical large
> displacement/forced induction engine makes 200hp at 5000rpm. You seem to
> be implying that it has a less steep power curve. However, it in fact
> has 40 hp per 1000 rpm. So it's quite a lot STEEPER!!! All I can see
> ist hat what you're talking about doesn't seem to fit the facts. Am I
> missing something?"
>
> So....... The math supports my claim. A slope of 40 is greater than a
> slope of 25.
>
> BTW - did you actually do your own calculations? What numbers did you
> come up with?
Also look @ the Integra R 1.8 vs NIssan SE-R shift points for the
prfect description of the priblem -
a ultra high revving dependant for power engine with a 5sp tranny.
Stilian Elenkov
John Baker wrote:
>
> Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> >
> > John Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > The one area in which you *could* make a somewhat similar
> > > (and much more practical) claim would be if you were
> > > discussing gear spacing and drops in *wheel* torque
> > > upon up-shifts.
> > >
> >
> > That is exactly the point of debate here - hp lost on an upshift @
> > redline in
> > Civic R vs a car with similar output and bigger engine (e.g. 323i) and
> > 5sp only.
> > Her is a good pic of the problem:
>
> It's an interesting graph I guess, but I think it
> obfuscates more than it illuminates. Better would
> be wheel-torque versus speed, and I'm not sure we
> can work this graph backwards to get there. HP is
> really only good for comparing things in the abstract.
> Once the gearing is settled (or at least under discussion)
> wheel torque is where it's at.
>
> John Baker
One can easily derive the torque graph from the given graph. In fact the
dyno measured the wheel torque and converted it to
hp - therefore proving the point perfectly since it already takes the
the gearing into consideration. What seems to be the problem?
Stilian
Stilian Elenkov
Atalan wrote:
>
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
> >
> > Atalan wrote:
> > >
> > > In rec.autos.makers.honda, Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
> > > > Dude look at the hp/torque curve - in a B16A if you upshift @ 8000 rpms
> > > > (183hp) from any gear you are down to 7000 (160hp) which translates into
> > > > 23hp LOSS on an upshift.
> > >
> > > <nitpick> I think you mean "downshift." I'd hope you don't go
> > > upshifting at reline... </nitpick>
> > >
> > > Now, tell me, how much power is lost in, say, a Mustang V8 when the revs
> > > drop 1000 rpm? My guess would be a lot more than 23hp. Refer back to my
> > > previous post with the theoretical dynochart as to why I think it'll be
> > > more.
> > >
> >
> > See my reply to your previous post in the "...usually do not like Honda
> > ... " thread and see the a similar 1000 drop in the Mustang GT result
> > in 10hp LOSS, the VR6 - 12hp, the 3.8 M5 - 13hp, the 1.8T - 4.5hp vs
> > 23hp in the Civic R
> > Would you care to reconsider your statement?
>
> <nitpick> I've only posted two articles in that thread - one was a
> question asking for info, and one was about racing VTEC engines and VTEC
> cam switch points. I think you meant this particular thread. </nitpick>
>
> In another post in this thread, I've described my views on the Mustang's
> 10 hp loss.
Sorry. I am following a few very hot debates and getting a little
distracted.
> > I am angry that people like you pull stuff from places (typically back
> > orifices) and make bold statements without any reasonable research and
> > data to back them. And when corrected are still stubborn and think they
> > know it all, and I am forced to spend time and do the research for them
> > and they still refuse to accept the data and its analysis. I can think
> > of many more interesting things to discuss on the these forums rather
> > than bicker about make superiority in way too long threads twice a
> > month.
>
> We've had, what, half a dozen exchanges? Hardly enough time to truly
> develop our points enough to convince eachother of anything. If we were
> talking face-to-face, we could have had this hashed out in an hour or so,
> probably. So far as exists in my mind, I've had a well thought out
> response to each of your points. *shrug* I could just as easily say
> that YOU are the one being stubborn. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with
> the numbers you're posting. I'm disagreeing with what they mean.
>
You can thank Mr. Parker for that.
> (BTW, we're not talking about make superiority. We're talking about
> performance characteristcs of various engines given their different
> torque curves. It doesn't matter to me who makes which engine.)
>
> > > > Look at the power torque/curves,
> > >
> > > Yes! They show a *steeper* power curve for high hp, low rpm engines, as
> > > compared to high hp, high rpm engines.
> > >
> > > > gear ratios and final drive and think before you make a fool of
> > > > yourself.
> >
> > So you admit that the Si would benefit more from a 6sp than the EX for
> > e.g.?
>
> Uh, I was commenting on hp curve slopes, not gearing.
>
But the the entire argument here revolves around the notion of a high
strung low displacement engine mated to a 5sp tranny vs the engine of
the same output and more torque and narrower rpm range with another 5sp
tranny.
From a purely engine point of view thing are different. You have a
tranny though and ONLY 5sp.
> > Again look at the shift points graph in the previous post of the Integra
> > R vs SE-R
> > and you will understand the problem. The GS-R. Si need more gears to
> > perform as well as a a similar output much heavier 323i, 320i (with 2.5
> > 170 and 2.0 150hp I6s and less steep power curves)
>
> Hmm, I'll comment on this once I can figure out how to read your MIME
> message. How about posting it in that "begin filename.ext 666" format,
> whatever it's called?
look @ elenkovs.vtls.com
>
> Plus, we have to deal with Mike Kohlbrenner's assertion that the 170hp is
> very understated.
>
> > > *shrug* I personally find high-rpm engines much much much more exciting
> > > than a lower rpm but higher torque engines. I'm sad for you.
> >
> > That is where you are wrong
>
> Uhh, are you saying I'm wrong when I say I like high-rpm engines?
No. I say you are wrong that a 5sp tranny can utilize the power/torque
of a high rpm engine better than the same output engine with more torque
and narrower rpm range.
>
> > the 3.5 I6 has power at both the low and
> > high end the 209hp @ 5800 is not low is it? and the 224lbft @ 3200 is
> > not high is it?
>
> You seem to think I'm looking down on BMW engines. This is not the case
> at all. When did I ever say the I6 makes its hp down low? When did I
> ever say the I6 makes its torque up high? In fact, when did I ever say
> ANYTHING about a BMW engine? My points are along the lines of 1) VTEC
> engines aren't peaky, 2) having a flat torque curve is good, 3) having a
> torque curve that falls off is bad, 4) engines making peak hosepower at
> low rpms have a steeper hp curve than engines making peak horsepower at
> high rpms, 5) the phrase "broad power band" to me means that there is a
> large range of rpms in which an engine makes torque close to it's max
> torque, even though the word "power" is in that phrase.
Power band usually means POWER band - the where the engine makes
most of its POWER (NOT TORQUE) e.g. the rpm range that has 90% of the
power and this why I make
the comment about "peaky engines"
Rpm range <> Power band <> torque band.
> > In fact it is pretty much the same as the RL's brand new
> > engine - shame.
>
> And this matters why?
>
> > The 3.3 - 3.5 I6 is regarded as a very free revving engine despite being
> > SOHC with 2v per cyl. It was used in the M1, M5 with 24vDOHC head. It
> > also offers very smooth power delivery, excellent torque, bulletproof
> > design, and excellent sound.
>
> Awesome. Sounds like a great engine.
Especially when you consider it is 15 years old...
> > I also have an 86 GTI, which despite its low redline (6800) and 1/2 the
> > size of the 3.5, offers all the benefits of the 3.5 I6 (scaled down),
> > but in a light car that can still outperform many newer Hondas and
> > Acuras.
> How much hp does it have?
It has 105hp @ 5800 and 117lbft @ 4250, a fairly flat torque curve,
close ratio tranny (low top speed 117mph), but
excellent acceleration and through the the gears and rpms and weighs
2000lbs.
>
> > BTW my 735i still outperforms the new Honda Acura competition (EX V6,
> > RL, TL, CL) in every respect and does so with a class.
>
> You must feel very proud, to boast so. And that's fine, it's good for
> people to like the cars they drive. I just don't understand what it has
> to do with our discussion.
The fact that a 15 year old car can keep or outperform brand new ones in
every category while still looking as good has and having all amenities.
That is why I keep it. That and the fact that there is no A8Q with 5sp
manual tranny (or 6sp S8) in the US.
Stilian
Stilian Elenkov
Atalan wrote:
>
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > John Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> > >
> > > > If a 1000 rpms drop results in a 25hp drop - the power
> > > > curve is too steep therefor the engine is peaky.
> > >
> > > All you are saying is that engines with flat torque curves
> > > show a greater hp drop (upon shifting) than engines with
> > > falling torque curves. Simple arithmetic shows that to be
> > > true. But if you think this somehow means that falling
> > > torque curves are better, your understanding of the situation
> > > is lacking.
> >
> > Why is it?
> > You have easier access to more power? I do not see a problem with that.
> >
> > Stilian
> > > John Baker
>
> Whoa. So having a falling torque curve is good because it gives you
> "easier access to more power"? How is that "more" power? Torque going
> down makes hp go down, so having torque go down will certainly not give
> you more power.
When you shift a 5sp tranny @ redline you have easier access to more
power with the larger displacement engine.
Stilian
John Baker
>
> One can easily derive the torque graph from the given graph. In fact the
> dyno measured the wheel torque and converted it to
> hp - therefore proving the point perfectly since it already takes the
> the gearing into consideration. What seems to be the problem?
The problem is that hp is rpm * torque. What you are
saying is analogous to saying that given the equation
A * B = C and C = 10, solve for A and B. Can't be done.
I think the raw dyno measurements would be clearer and
more revealing, and might lead to conclusions that aren't
obvious given the graph you posted.
John Baker
Stilian Elenkov
Atalan wrote:
>
> In rec.autos.makers.honda, Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mike Kohlbrenner wrote:
> > >
> > > Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ... The GS-R. Si need more gears to
> > > > perform as well as a a similar output much heavier 323i, 320i (with 2.5
> > > > 170 and 2.0 150hp I6s and less steep power curves)
> > >
> > > What about the response I personally received here when
> > > I tried using BMW's power "ratings" for the current 2.5l
> > > "Baby Six"? Several folks pointed out that the 170 HP
> > > rating was significantly understated based upon actual
> > > chassis dyno results.
> > >
> >
> > Look at www.hartage.de for some dyno (crank) graphs.
>
> Yay! A web page!
>
> <checking...>
>
> Uh oh...
>
> C:\>ping www.hartage.de
> Bad IP address www.hartage.de.
>
> Any other suggestions?
Stilian
John Baker
>
> Atalan wrote:
> >
> > If I read this correctly, you are saying that an engine having toque fall
> > off as rpms increase is a good thing. Uhh... Torque is the force that
> > causes acceleration. Having it fall off is bad.
This is absolutely correct.
> >
> > That is, if hp = torque * rpm / constant_one, and torque = constant_two /
> > rpm, we end up with hp = constant_two / constant_one. You're saying this
> > is desireable?
>
> Not always, but in the case of a 5sp car it offers easier way to utilize
> the power of the engine.
This statement makes no sense. Let's take two cars. Same weight, same
displacement, same peak torque, same gearing, same redline. One has a
flat
torque curve right up to the redline, the other has a torque curve that
falls
off (which you say is a good thing). The two cars exit a corner side by
side
accelerating for the next corner. Which one gets there first ?
John Baker
Stilian Elenkov
I thought we are discussing power drop while upshifting @ redline with
5sp manuals ( since we want the max power - right?) in which case the
Honda engines do 8000 -> 7000 or 7000 ->6000 and the rest 6000 -> 5000.
Was that not my original statement and the beginning of this debate.
That is what I stated im my posts and I still stay behind my statements.
Stilian
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> > ...
>
> It's an interesting graph I guess, but I think it
> obfuscates more than it illuminates. Better would
> be wheel-torque versus speed, and I'm not sure we
> can work this graph backwards to get there. HP is
> really only good for comparing things in the abstract.
> Once the gearing is settled (or at least under discussion)
> wheel torque is where it's at.
Ah, but with a power vs. speed graph such as the one in
question, it is extremely easy to go a step better than
a wheel torque graph. Remember that power is also equal
to force X velocity. A power vs. speed graph easily
becomes an "accelerating force" vs. speed graph by simply
changing the scale on the vertical axis. What could be
more direct?
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
<kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com> sorry!
Marshall Willenholley
John Baker wrote in message <37A1D4F...@ccgate.hac.com>...
>Marshall Willenholley wrote:
>>
>> I know there has been great discussions about this (and I know I'm
>> going to be flamed for this), but I think if you were to ask a
>> competition driver, they would refer to a flat torqued engine as
>> "peaky" and a more usual, lower end torque car as not (as wierd as
it
>> may sound being put that way). The reason being that you have to
keep
>> the revs in the upper band so you shift a lot.
>
>I'm pretty sure that this is incorrect. Truly racy engines (like say
>formula one) are called peaky when they produce *torque* over just
>a narrow band. Torque is what the driver feels as acceleration.
>Remember that the acceleration (Gs vs. rpm) in any given gear
>has the same shape as the *torque* curve, not the hp curve.
The key there being "in any given gear." In the real world, where you
have five or six gears to choose from, you will generally be in the HP
peak while accelerating, not the torque peak.
On an engine with a torque curve like the 1.6l VTEC, this means you
will be shifting a lot to stay in the very upper RPM bands. With
larger displacement engines often you don't have to shift as much.
You have a much wider useable band of RPM.
So when you factor in gearing, the HP curve is what makes a car peaky.
Mike Kohlbrenner
> ...
> That is exactly the point of debate here - hp lost on an
> upshift @ redline in Civic R vs a car with similar output
> and bigger engine (e.g. 323i) and 5sp only.
...
I know this image well and it really drives home the whole
concept of why it is really "the area under the power curve"
that determines overall acceleration rather than just peak
power.
With that said, I think the root of this whole discussion
comes down to the "rules" that are chosen to compare the
engines in question.
Stilian seems to be coming from the perspective of comparing
engines of equivalent PEAK power with displacement and
valvetrain design (and therefore the size and shape of the
torque curve) being free. This is entirely valid when it
comes to dealing with the "peak power/weight ratio" argument.
With "conventional" normally aspirated engines (i.e. with no
fancy valvetrain gizmos, etc.), peak power/weight ratio does,
indeed, provide a decent first order guide to acceleration
times. However, as soon as you do things like add VVT and
high rpm operation, or LP turbos and electronically controlled
boost, you have to go further than this first order view and
that brings you to the graph Stilian has provided.
The "Honda folks" tend to come at this from the perspective
of displacement and specific output. This perspective is
just as valid, in spite of the arguments to the contrary,
as long as this is acknowledged. Many don't give a hoot
about specific output outside the Honda community, however...
In fact, since preferences of "race car drivers" gets tossed
around so much in these threads, it should be pointed out
that most race classes tend to have competing engines of
equivalent displacement and if they don't, they have weight
to displacement scales used to equalize based upon
displacement.
In these cases, the approach is simply to get the most power
possible out of as wide an rpm range as possible. No one
in such a scenario would want an engine with a torque curve
that peaks low and drops off, since that would mean they
would be giving up free power.
In fact, the contention that someone who is racing would
prefer low end torque over peak HP is simply ridiculous
except in that small number of production based classes
where vehicles of widely varying engine sizes are pitted
against one another and their classification is loosely
based upon stock power and relatively few mods are allowed.
As a contrary example, there is actually a motorcycle race
class that has two very simple rules for the engines:
displacement
rear wheel peak power
Every bike that races is put onto a chassis dyno and it
must not generate a peak power over a certain value. This
value is chosen such that it is relatively easy to achieve
without resorting to expensive technology or materials. It
also offers the nice advantage that there can be no engine
protests once the dyno has been run. In this case, it
would clearly seem that the low-torque-peak-with-falling-
torque-curve approach would be the superior combination.
This would maximize acceleration force over the usable
rpm range while keeping within the peak power maximum.
You see, it all depends on how one wants to compare things...
The problem with many of these discussions is not the
technical facts being discussed, but the basis upon
which things are compared. The technical facts are
usually sussed out fairly quickly, but then the discussion
continues on and on and on for the simple reason that the
participants are coming at it from different perspectives...
John Baker
>
> John Baker wrote:
> >
> > Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Her is a good pic of the problem:
> >
> > It's an interesting graph I guess, but I think it
> > obfuscates more than it illuminates.
>
> question, it is extremely easy to go a step better than
> a wheel torque graph. Remember that power is also equal
> to force X velocity. A power vs. speed graph easily
> becomes an "accelerating force" vs. speed graph by simply
> changing the scale on the vertical axis. What could be
> more direct?
Intuitively it seemed as though the graph had some
validity, but I wasn't sure without doing some head-
scratching. So I finally took the time and arrived
at basically the same conclusion (via different
arithmetic).
But does this one example really mean anything ? I
doubt it. For one thing, it's a sample of one.
And drawing conclusions about DOHC VTECs based on the
Type R engine is weak since it really does not have
the flat torque curve of a GS-R or one of the other
dual-runner VTECs.
John Baker
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................