Some of you Honda boys Confuse me...

[911GT2]

Originally posted by hybridsol

angular speed is obtained by measuring the angle in radians through which an object rotates in a certain number of seconds, and then dividing the total angle by the time. Those two engines or automotives would have to be exactly the same since even slight time integrals would set your torque curve differently. Two motor's one using a long stroke and the other a short stroke, would have completely different torque/ force. Yes its very specific to a long stroke engine. I'm going try this one more time. Lets use a door knob this time. If you turn the doorknob one full revolution, you will have moved the weight 6.2832 feet. It's all physics, the circumference equals 3.1416 * the diameter, in this case two feet. By turning the knob with the one pound weight attached to the ruler, it translates to an 6.2832 ft-lbs of work. Now, we divide 33,000 ft-lbs by 6.2832 feet, we come up with 5252 revolutions per minute (RPM). Simply put, one ft-lb of work at 5252 RPM equals 33,000 ft-lbs of total work, or 1 HP. So, HP = (Torque * RPM) / 5252. Whomever told you torque had nothing to do with time was wrong. Force is applied to work, force as you know works in conjunction with torque. Basically torque is the force applied over time. Horsepower is the ability to do work over time. Ok the point I tried to get across was lost so lets try again, take the example of the Honda S2000 2.0L motor (rated at 240 HP) versus the E36 M3 motor (3.2L, rated at 240 HP) since you seem to be so fond of geman engineering. The S2000 motor produces 240 HP at it's peak of 8300 RPM ok. The E36 M3 motor produces an identical 240 HP at it's peak of 6000 RPM. However, the BMW motor produces 236 lb-ft of torque at a relatively low 3800 RPM, while the S2000 motor produces a mere 150 lb-ft of torque at 7500 RPM. Yet if one compares 1/4 mile times and 0-60 MPH times, they are nearly identical. How can this be, given the vast difference in torque output of each motor right? A car accelerates hardest at it's torque peak. In the case of the M3, this occurs at a low 3800 RPM. On the Honda, peak acceleration doesn't occur until 7500 RPM, and peak HP is achieved at 8300 RPM. Where the BMW is forced to shift at 6000 RPM (it's HP peak), the Honda is still pulling towards it's torque peak, and eventually it's HP peak. So while the Honda motor doesn't pull harder than the BMW, it's (high torque peak) allows it to pull longer understand? The next principle of physics that applies to torque and horsepower that I'd like to point out, is that torque can be multiplied through gearing, while horsepower remains unchanged. The Honda can be geared to produce sufficient torque in the low RPM range to allow it to accelerate strongly right up until it hits it's own torque peak. This also allows the Honda to accelerate strongly up to it's HP peak at 8300 RPM prior to shifting. As each car shifts gears, you are effectively reducing the torque available to the rear wheels in exchange for speed. This is what allows a car with significantly less torque, but equal HP, to accelerate at a nearly equivalent pace.
Ok simplified think of it this way. Take a standard, 12-speed mountain bike. Put it in 12th gear, and try to pedal up a moderate hill. Pretty tough, isn't it? Now put the bike in 1st gear, and pedal down that same hill. Pretty soon, your legs will be moving so fast that you are the limiting factor in how fast your bike can travel. It is at this point that you would shift gears, and exchange available torque for more speed. I hope this more adequately shows my point.

But you're missing my original point. Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same.

It travels a longer distance yes, but torque has nothing to do with distance traveled.

And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.

And if you're gonna use the E36 M3 motor, use the Euro (320hp) version. The US version is muffled and restricted to no end. And Hondas can emphasize torque by gearing, you can never get torque out of the S2000's 2.0 liter. That's a no-no.


And a car accelerates best at its power peak. There's a reason F1 cars never drop below 14K RPM. Their torque peak is around 10-12, but they never touch that. No race cars EVER hit their peak torque during all-out racing. That's an indicator.

And while it shows A point, it doesn't really show much pertinent to the argument. Read over my last post and take a good long think. And while you think, remember that torque is independent of time. That's a given fact.

[911GT2]

Originally posted by hybridsol

Honda's are cheaper to modify than most auto's. But that is relative to your location. NSX.....cmon now. (he's talking about forced induction, not fuel injection.)

My bad....

And Hondas are much more expensive to mod than other cars such as Fox Mustangs or F-bodies. They're much cheaper and give much more power for the money and despite what some of you all-out anti-live rear axle people think, they can be made to handle very well.

And I maintain my statement. Give a GSX a 20G and 720cc injectors along with the exhaust required to put that much air through it and it will outaccelerate an NSX. My statement stands.

And BTW, if he's talking about the Mitsu having a turbo being a bad thing it's an even dumber statement. Riddle me this: what's more difficult on an engine, 9K rpm redlines with a high CR or boost with a low CR?

[SilverY2KCivic]

Originally posted by 911GT2

And BTW, if he's talking about the Mitsu having a turbo being a bad thing it's an even dumber statement. Riddle me this: what's more difficult on an engine, 9K rpm redlines with a high CR or boost with a low CR?

Maybe so, but Honda as well as people that own and have driven them will tell you the motor in an S2000 is most comfortable at anything above 5000 RPMs. That's the nature of that motor, if it was so difficult on it, they wouldn't have designed it to rev that high.

[DblOvrhedCamron]

Originally posted by AirAllen01
Who knows, I'm a newbie myself, and I only mouth off to the people who don't know what they're saying or they're mouthing off and complaining about something stupid.

well then its good your not mouthing off now.

[DblOvrhedCamron]

Originally posted by 911GT2



And if I'm the "Porsche Nazi", so be it.

And BTW dream team: bring it.

Your not Cbass is, I woulden't reffer to you as knowledgable. Stubborn is a better word.

[DblOvrhedCamron]

Originally posted by 911GT2


But you're missing my original point.

It travels a longer distance yes, but torque has nothing to do with distance traveled.

And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.

And if you're gonna use the E36 M3 motor, use the Euro (320hp) version. The US version is muffled and restricted to no end. And Hondas can emphasize torque by gearing, you can never get torque out of the S2000's 2.0 liter. That's a no-no.


And a car accelerates best at its power peak. There's a reason F1 cars never drop below 14K RPM. Their torque peak is around 10-12, but they never touch that. No race cars EVER hit their peak torque during all-out racing. That's an indicator.

And while it shows A point, it doesn't really show much pertinent to the argument. Read over my last post and take a good long think. And while you think, remember that torque is independent of time. That's a given fact.

-Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same.-

aren't seconds a measurement of time? What are radians measured into genius?

-And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.-

Backing ourself into a corner aren't we? Torque is primarly based on mathmatics, involving integrals......how do you think angular power is measured?

-Force is applied to work, force as you know works in conjunction with torque. Basically torque is the force applied over time. Horsepower is the ability to do work over time. Ok the point I tried to get across was lost so lets try again, take the example of the Honda S2000 2.0L motor (rated at 240 HP) versus the E36 M3 motor (3.2L, rated at 240 HP) since you seem to be so fond of geman engineering. The S2000 motor produces 240 HP at it's peak of 8300 RPM ok. The E36 M3 motor produces an identical 240 HP at it's peak of 6000 RPM. However, the BMW motor produces 236 lb-ft of torque at a relatively low 3800 RPM, while the S2000 motor produces a mere 150 lb-ft of torque at 7500 RPM. Yet if one compares 1/4 mile times and 0-60 MPH times, they are nearly identical. How can this be, given the vast difference in torque output of each motor right? A car accelerates hardest at it's torque peak. In the case of the M3, this occurs at a low 3800 RPM. On the Honda, peak acceleration doesn't occur until 7500 RPM, and peak HP is achieved at 8300 RPM. Where the BMW is forced to shift at 6000 RPM (it's HP peak), the Honda is still pulling towards it's torque peak, and eventually it's HP peak. So while the Honda motor doesn't pull harder than the BMW, it's (high torque peak) allows it to pull longer understand?-

This comparison part of hybridsol's argument is all he needs to prove the first post you made to contradict him wrong.
I suggest you lose the attitude, it says in your profile you were born in 84. Meaning your probably still attending high school, by all means find one of your teacher's who is farmiliar with there principals and read them each post. See who they side with, let me add that hybrid is a mechanical engineer who is currently on the path to a masters, and could be more qualified then most of your teachers.

I must be honest about the whole ricer situation though, they piss me off too. I have to say wings the most, you know the big ones that serve no downforce purpose whatsoever.

[DblOvrhedCamron]

Originally posted by 911GT2


My bad....

And Hondas are much more expensive to mod than other cars such as Fox Mustangs or F-bodies. They're much cheaper and give much more power for the money and despite what some of you all-out anti-live rear axle people think, they can be made to handle very well.

And I maintain my statement. Give a GSX a 20G and 720cc injectors along with the exhaust required to put that much air through it and it will outaccelerate an NSX. My statement stands.

And BTW, if he's talking about the Mitsu having a turbo being a bad thing it's an even dumber statement. Riddle me this: what's more difficult on an engine, 9K rpm redlines with a high CR or boost with a low CR?

First of all niether of us are anti "live rear axle". I'm a bowtie man and hybrid likes his piece of shit ford mustangs (jp) you'll run into more problems with the stang than a honda any day, and lets see you find a Fox body thats not rusting and one that you can make into a 10 sec marvel for 4 grand. You said yourself there's no such thing as a 4 g 10 sec car. All of sudden you think you can build one?

Check out how many problems you run into with any mitsubish product, I have to ask have you actually really ever worked with an eclipse or other mitsubishi product? If you had you would realize you run into a million problems with even trying to raise boost. NSX would smoke the gsx don't believe me? look up the stats on both cars.

Boost with a lower CR b/c lets be realistic you always want to raise the boost. You see more cars detonating with turbo's than with a high redline.

[DblOvrhedCamron]

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g


Do you see the first quote, you said civic you dumb fuck, not NSX.
Also you named DSM's in general not a specific one. That means you said any DSM can't do anything better than a civic. You should watch your mouth.

You want even comparisons, then for the same amout of money needed to turbo a type-r, an EVO or Eclipse will put it to shame.

You failed to provide an equal comparison, so I did.

Prove it......

[DblOvrhedCamron]

Originally posted by KrNxRaCer00
damn...i missed out on all the fun

just when you thought it was over, it appear your just in time, lol.

[KrNxRaCer00]

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

just when you thought it was over, it appear your just in time, lol.

:hehehe: all this physics is over my head. i should have stayed awake in that class. but this is good entertainment to read an also its quite informative.

yes...i think EVERYONE agrees ricers are weak, but cars can be done tastefully an be dressed up nicely.

[BLU CIVIC]

Originally posted by KrNxRaCer00


:hehehe: all this physics is over my head. i should have stayed awake in that class. but this is good entertainment to read an also its quite informative.

yes...i think EVERYONE agrees ricers are weak, but cars can be done tastefully an be dressed up nicely.

ricers aren't week...just uninformed....like they were making a master piece and somewhere along the line lost focus.....:hehehe:

[-The Stig-]

Now.. I'm no Physics major...

But I think I can clearly see that 911GT2 just got Ka-smacked in the knowledge department.

Now I'm not saying you're a dip. You obviously know alot of stuff... But.. you've got somethings flipped around in your head. The number one example of this is...

And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.

That right there tells me you're grasping the concept but just dont see it yet.

And since t'is the season for Matrix quotes... Free your mind. HA HA...

[911GT2]

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

-Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same.-

aren't seconds a measurement of time? What are radians measured into genius?

Man, stay informed or shut up. Angular velocity, radians per second has nothing to do with stroke if the engines are operating at the same rpm (which is incidentally a measure of angular velocity)

-And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.-

Backing ourself into a corner aren't we? Torque is primarly based on mathmatics, involving integrals......how do you think angular power is measured?

Angular Power is what you would think of as horsepower. Which is an integral of torque. I'm not backing myself into any corner. Again, be informed or don't try and sound like a smartass. I don't mind explaining, but if you're trying so sound cocky proving me wrong you'll be put in your place

-Force is applied to work, force as you know works in conjunction with torque. Basically torque is the force applied over time. Horsepower is the ability to do work over time. Ok the point I tried to get across was lost so lets try again, take the example of the Honda S2000 2.0L motor (rated at 240 HP) versus the E36 M3 motor (3.2L, rated at 240 HP) since you seem to be so fond of geman engineering. The S2000 motor produces 240 HP at it's peak of 8300 RPM ok. The E36 M3 motor produces an identical 240 HP at it's peak of 6000 RPM. However, the BMW motor produces 236 lb-ft of torque at a relatively low 3800 RPM, while the S2000 motor produces a mere 150 lb-ft of torque at 7500 RPM. Yet if one compares 1/4 mile times and 0-60 MPH times, they are nearly identical. How can this be, given the vast difference in torque output of each motor right? A car accelerates hardest at it's torque peak. In the case of the M3, this occurs at a low 3800 RPM. On the Honda, peak acceleration doesn't occur until 7500 RPM, and peak HP is achieved at 8300 RPM. Where the BMW is forced to shift at 6000 RPM (it's HP peak), the Honda is still pulling towards it's torque peak, and eventually it's HP peak. So while the Honda motor doesn't pull harder than the BMW, it's (high torque peak) allows it to pull longer understand?-

This comparison part of hybridsol's argument is all he needs to prove the first post you made to contradict him wrong.
I suggest you lose the attitude, it says in your profile you were born in 84. Meaning your probably still attending high school, by all means find one of your teacher's who is farmiliar with there principals and read them each post. See who they side with, let me add that hybrid is a mechanical engineer who is currently on the path to a masters, and could be more qualified then most of your teachers.

I'm finished first year Mech. Engineering myself. So yeah, he's more qualified than I am, but that doesn't matter. If a man with a PhD tells you gravity pulls up do you blindly listen and believe?

And that's like me, instead of using the older SiR in comparison, using the new one. It's clearly deficient, and my point is shown by the Euro E36 M3 which produced 320 healthy horsepower.
I must be honest about the whole ricer situation though, they piss me off too. I have to say wings the most, you know the big ones that serve no downforce purpose whatsoever.

[911GT2]

Originally posted by RedNeck383
Now.. I'm no Physics major...

But I think I can clearly see that 911GT2 just got Ka-smacked in the knowledge department.

Now I'm not saying you're a dip. You obviously know alot of stuff... But.. you've got somethings flipped around in your head. The number one example of this is...

And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.

That right there tells me you're grasping the concept but just dont see it yet.

And since t'is the season for Matrix quotes... Free your mind. HA HA...

I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but Power is. This angular version of power is what you would best relate to as horsepower.

Power is the integral of torque.

[crankwalk 2g]

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

You failed to provide an equal comparison, so I did.

Prove it......

So you did?!? You think that a $125 000(CDN) exotic cars like the NSX is an equal comparison to a $ 45 000(CDN) EVO 8, you have problems.

You really belive that if the EVO completly out performs the Civic -R from factory and an equal amount of money is put into both that it won't out perform it again. You have serious problems.