hondas are for loosers

"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
...
>>> As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot
>>> pounds of torque at 5252 rpm.
>>
>>
>>this is a sign of a castrated engine.
>>I mean it needs some work to get the max. torque so late.
>
> So, let me get this straight...
>
> Any engine that develops horsepower equal to ft-lbs torque at 5252 rpm
> is a "castrated engine." You certainly are knowledgeable about the
> relationship of torque rpm and horsepower, aren't you.


any engine that gets the max. torque point at an RPM higher than 4000 is a
castrated engine
-- usually the lowested RPM point for which max. torque is available is
mentioned.
Of course it is helpful if this max. torque is available over as broad range
as possible.
E.g. the 2.0 Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops max. torque between
1800RPM and 4800RPM.
The 1.8 Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops max. torque betwen 1950RPM
and 5000RPM.
For both only the smaller values of the RPM are mentioned.

"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
...

>>> As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot
>>> pounds of torque at 5252 rpm.
>>
>>
>>this is a sign of a castrated engine.
>>I mean it needs some work to get the max. torque so late.
>
> So, let me get this straight...
>
> Any engine that develops horsepower equal to ft-lbs torque at 5252 rpm
> is a "castrated engine." You certainly are knowledgeable about the
> relationship of torque rpm and horsepower, aren't you.


I'm a Electrical Engineer -- I studied enough physics so I know about the
relationship between torque and HP.
Torque*RPM = power. Of course there is some fudgefactor to get from
pd*ft/min to HP.
Would be easier if we would deal with metric units like in europe
(Torque in Nm and Power in kW = 1000Nm/s).

"TWW" > wrote in message news:Z0zyf.750$oG.228@dukeread09...
> Let me see. I guess the ideal was my old 71 454 Vette I owned 35 years
> ago
> or so. With 365 hp at 4800 rpm and 500 ft lbs of torque at 3200 it was
> like
> a tractor. Heck, you could let the clutch out at idle without even giving
> it the gas and it would chug away. Lousy gas mileage, though. On the
> other
> hand, I guess my 01 Prelude with its 200 hp I4 is not made for driving --
> too peaky I suppose and not enough torque at 1500 rpm. Despite the
> advice -- I'll stick with my Prelude.


I prefer an engine where the gas-mileage depends on my driving behaviour.
I dislike an engine where the gas-mileage is kind of build in by being
castrated.
Gas-mileage ought to be measured with identical acceleration -- only then it
is a real comparision.

"Frank Puck" > wrote in message
m...
> I nether met a woman which would care much about the power of a car -- but
> there may be exceptions.
> I posted this mostly so that people pay attention to such issues.
> There are people buying a honda/acura as a sporty car.
> HP is not everything -- one can castrate the engine like Honda is usually
> doing it.

Correct. HP is meaningless without factoring in weight.

HP-to-weight ratio will give you an overall indication of a car's
performance. Look at car rag 0-60 and 1/4m times and see if they don't
reflect hp-to-weight ratio. I've also seen hp-to-weight ratios being used to
compare performance, but NEVER torque-to-weight ratios or any reference to
torque.

For example: http://www.ultimateresourceguides.co...ent/index.html)

And Honda doesn’t "castrate the engine", they just sometimes use a lower
displacement. Isn't torque output simply a factor of displacement (unless
it's force fed)?

For example, my '99 Civic Si...

http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20001.jpg
http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20004.jpg
http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20007.jpg
http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Picture%20010.jpg

....has the same torque output as say...a base MINI (both 1.6L, both 111
ft-lbs.).

Now I don't know the mechanics of any of this, but I do know from personal
experience having driven a lot of rentals the past few years while traveling
for work, that a nice torquey engine (especially a V6 [usually a 3.4L or
3.8L in my case]) will pull extra weight easier than my Civic. That is, I'd
rather drive a new 4-clyinder Malibu (yes, I really like GM's current line
of Ecotec 4-clyinder engines) over my Civic if I had to regularly haul a
carload of passengers. And that's with an automatic transmission vs. my
Civic's 5-speed.

But I hardly ever have a carload of passengers, usually just my skinny wife
of 18 years. I also don't have a lot of heavy stereo equipment (added only a
small amp and replaced speakers with after-market). Thus I personally have
no problem with low torque output nor my torque-to-weight ratio.

I'm not saying that I could do 0-60 in the low 7's nor the 1/4m in the high
15's as did all of the professional magazine drivers with a new '99 Si, but
it's still quick enough for me. And practical as well, provided I'm not
using it to car pool.

My Civic (purchased new, VERY well maintained and never modified) is about
to be semi-retired though, as we're about to buy a new Saturn VUE (with the
Honda 3.5L). Then one day, when I can afford to, I'll replace my Civic with
a new Mustang GT - 320 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm! Now THAT'S torque worth bragging
about, and for only ~25k!

P.S. If you want more torque in a 4-cylinder Honda engine, the CR-V has 160
ft-lbs. @ 3600 rpm (more torque than the S2000). But I'll keep my 111
ft-lbs. @ 7000 rpm for my application. And I'm sure you're not going to see
many original S2000 owners (153 ft-lbs. @ 7500 rpm) swapping their out their
engines for the CR-V's 2.4L power plant either. ;-)
--


Mark
'99 Civic Si

"Mark Gonzales" > wrote in message
...
> "Frank Puck" > wrote in message
> m...


> Correct. HP is meaningless without factoring in weight.
>
> HP-to-weight ratio will give you an overall indication of a car's
> performance. Look at car rag 0-60 and 1/4m times and see if they don't
> reflect hp-to-weight ratio. I've also seen hp-to-weight ratios being used
> to
> compare performance, but NEVER torque-to-weight ratios or any reference to
> torque.


I think that HP-to-weight ratio is meaningless -- when are you actually
driving at such RPMs?
It is more important how much HP are available at 2000-4000RPM -- this is
where I use my engine every day.
Power=torque*rotary-speed
This is the reason why I'm looking at the torque description of the car
(including the weight of course).

> And Honda doesn't "castrate the engine", they just sometimes use a lower
> displacement. Isn't torque output simply a factor of displacement (unless
> it's force fed)?


Honda produces castrated engines.
Look at the 244HP V6 engine:
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/honda...v_Crf9c6p1eb8F
It has max. torque only at 5000RPM -- and the max. torque is only 211ft-pd
-- this is nearly the same amount like the 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW
and Audi.
Who knows how much is avilable at 2000RPM -- certainly less.
Thus this 240HP engine is less agile than the 200HP 2.0 Turbo Engine from VW
and Audi.
The 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops 207ft-pd between
1800RPM and 4800RPM
-- this engine is made for driving.

"Frank Puck" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Mark Gonzales" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Frank Puck" > wrote in message
> > m...
>
>
> > Correct. HP is meaningless without factoring in weight.
> >
> > HP-to-weight ratio will give you an overall indication of a car's
> > performance. Look at car rag 0-60 and 1/4m times and see if they don't
> > reflect hp-to-weight ratio. I've also seen hp-to-weight ratios being
used
> > to
> > compare performance, but NEVER torque-to-weight ratios or any reference
to
> > torque.
>
>
> I think that HP-to-weight ratio is meaningless...

Then I guess it's you against the rest of world. ;-)


> -- when are you actually
> driving at such RPMs?

Let's be specific. What RPMs?

Judging by the rentals I've driven which included a tach, I'd say I'm
turning around 1k-2k more rpms in my Civic in normal traffic. Is this a
problem for you? It might be a problem for me if I constantly had to turn
these higher rpms with those other engines. But you must consider that my
1.6L was DESIGNED to rev all the way to 8k rpms (limiter at 8,200 rpms) and
it does so quickly and willingly. As I like to say, my 1.6L is as smooth as
Crown Royal but with less kick. ;-)

So those higher rpms aren't even noticeable to me unless I'm looking at my
tach. 6,500+ rpms is noticeable though due to a deeper and louder exhaust
note. But I only rev that high when I want to have fun, which admittedly is
far less today as I’m nearing 40 than it was when I owned a brand new '89
CRX Si in my early 20's.

I have one fault with my car, which I'm assuming has been resolved with new
Civic Si since it has a 6-speed...

And that is that I'm turning 4,400 rpms at 80 mph (usually my maximum hwy
speed [~10 mph over the given limit]). Why do I have a problem turning 4,400
rpms at 80 mph? Noise? Nope. I have a bone stock car (compliments to Honda
for keeping it quiet - not even audible at idle) plus an interior Dynamat
job (mainly for better low-power stereo efficiency). The problem is that my
hwy mileage is hardly any better than my city mileage, about 26 - 28 mpg
(according to my wife). Another gear would certainly get me better hwy
mileage, yes?

Consider that my Civics’ top gear acceleration times are actually lower than
the 6-speed C5 Corvette...

C5 Corvette:
top gear acceleration times
----------------------------------
30-50 mph: 11.6 secs
50-70 mph: 11.7 secs

'99 Civic Si:
top gear acceleration times
----------------------------------
30-50 mph: 10.3 secs
50-70 mph: 11.3 secs

<Note: these numbers were taken from a thread on this newsgroup dated March
16, 2001 entitled "Some real world facts about Vtec". The links from this
thread no longer work but the numbers are not disputed.>

While these numbers have no value whatsoever regarding overall performance,
it does indicate how GM gets 30 mpg hwy from the LS1 AND that Honda could
have probably lowered cruising rpms in my Si (by using another gear?).

Am I understanding this correctly?

But again, I assume this problem is fixed with the new 6-speed Civic Si
(along with the new Si having a better hp and torque-to-weight ratio).

If you have a problem turning a few more rpms than what you consider to be
normal, then I assume your engine isn't designed to do it.


> It is more important how much HP are available at 2000-4000RPM -- this is
> where I use my engine every day.

And I'm sure this is where *your* engine was designed to be used every day.
;-)


> Power=torque*rotary-speed
> This is the reason why I'm looking at the torque description of the car
> (including the weight of course).

You're looking at what's on paper, right? Why not forget what's on paper and
take test drives? When I test drove my Civic, I had both my wife and a
salesman in the car. I can't say that I was overly impressed with
acceleration (compared to an earlier '99 Mustang GT test drive) but it was
certainly adequate, especially for an ~$18k loaded Civic.

Here's something else for you to consider...

I test drove the other '99 Civic coupe models. I certainly felt a difference
in power and acceleration along the Civic line, although the only real
difference with each car was hp, not torque. In fact, the Si had the worse
torque-to-weight ratio of any of the '99 Civic coupes I test drove, yet it
felt the quickest to me. No doubt this was due to having a higher hp (as is
reflected in published 0-60 and 1/4m times for different Civic models).

BTW, the '02 Civic Si received a nice bump in torque over the '99-'00. The
result? A poorer performing car with dismal sales.


> > And Honda doesn't "castrate the engine", they just sometimes use a lower
> > displacement. Isn't torque output simply a factor of displacement
(unless
> > it's force fed)?
>
>
> Honda produces castrated engines.
> Look at the 244HP V6 engine:
>
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/honda...v_Crf9c6p1eb8F
> It has max. torque only at 5000RPM -- and the max. torque is only 211ft-pd

Let's compare, say...the Accord and the Pontiac G6...

According to Edmunds...

2006 Pontiac G6
============
3.5L
201 hp @ 5600 rpm 222 ft-lbs. @ 3200 rpm
Curb Weight: 3415 lbs.

2006 Honda Accord
==============
3.0L
244 hp @ 6250 rpm 211 ft-lbs. @ 5000 rpm
Curb Weight: 3364 lbs.

Find some 0-60 and 1/4m times for these cars and see if they don't reflect
hp-to-weight ratios (not counting Accord's 6-speed manual).

But I'll give you this. Having an automatic in both while carrying 5
passengers might be easier for the G6 in everyday traffic. But even under
these conditions, I don't think it would be enough to negate the extra 43 hp
in the Accord in a race, although you could argue that under these
conditions the G6 might be more practical.

I'd still bet my hard earned cash on the extra 43 hp though.


> -- this is nearly the same amount like the 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW
> and Audi.

So you want to compare a force-fed engine? Nothing against VW but how much
would a turbo VW cost? Wouldn't you be much better off with a new ~$25k
Mustang GT for some torque worth bragging about (if that's your thing)? That
new Mustang sure is sweet looking IMO, inside and out. Awesome interior in
the GT, IMO. I've gone from hating Mustangs to loving them with the '05.


> Who knows how much is avilable at 2000RPM -- certainly less.
> Thus this 240HP engine is less agile than the 200HP 2.0 Turbo Engine from
VW
> and Audi.

An engine being agile? I don't understand what you mean.

When I think of agility I think of handling, something the GTI couldn't
match against the Civic Si when R&T compared the '99 Civic Si vs. the '99
Golf GTI GLX(?). The Golf whipped the Civic in 0-60 and 1/4m though, but
that's what two more cylinders and at least 5 extra grand will get you
(wasn't really a fair comparison, IMO). So I wouldn't call the GTI a great
bang-for-the-buck performer. Very nice car (I've always liked VWs, except
for the new Jetta/Toyota styling) but the GTI has become a soft pig over the
years. Has this been rectified since '99?

If you want more info, I'll dig up that 1999 R&T article. I wonder if the
'06 Civic Si and '06 Golf GTI will be in a new shootout?


> The 200HP 2.0l Turbo Engine from VW and Audi develops 207ft-pd between
> 1800RPM and 4800RPM
> -- this engine is made for driving.

You don't drive an engine, you drive a car. ;-) You need to be a little more
specific. For starters, what's the car's weight and price?
--


Mark
'99 Civic Si

Frank, you know what I love best about my Honda? With the exception of an O2
sensor which had to be replaced recently, along with relatively expensive
regular maintenance (i.e. just had the 90k mile servicing done at Honda),
it's been a GREAT car and I haven't had a car note in a couple of years!

I hope I have the same success with my upcoming Saturn and Ford, and that
you do as well with your VW. ;-)
--


Mark
'99 Civic Si

>
> The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of torque
> at 1800RPM
> -- this is an engine made for driving.
> Comparing these two engines the 200HP engine of the VW compares to 295HP
> on the Acura (207/140*200)
> -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi
> knows what is available at 2000RPM.

also keep in mind, your compairing a turbo engine (that needs premium gas I
might add) to a N/A engine that uses regular. If torque is all your going to
talk about, why didn't you get a TDI?

| don't tell me you're ignoring the amounts of HP a given car has.

HP is often irrelevant to *cars with auto gearboxes, e.g. in a speed
limit of 110 kph ( radar detectors are illegal here ), an SM4 ( on
205/65R15 tyres with axle height of 30.2 cm, combined gear ratio
of 3.1323 )'s engine in top gear must not spin >3025 rpm. Only on
germany's autobahn will HP be relevant to *.

VW's 2ws is inferior to japanese ( incl honda )'s 4ws. Looks like
you never expereinced 4ws.
[i] 1 can corner hard without a nose-dive ; only a slight sideward tilt
towards outer edge of road curve will happen, because all 4
tyres can turn to change car's direction, i.e. nearly twice as much
tyre grip. 1 needs not slow down as much, & lose / waste
momentum.
[ii] esp useful in a city like Sydney ( australia ) whose city centre's
road lanes are just 7' wide ( approx, I could not stop to measure
them ) : over curves all 2ws cars ( trucks are worse )' tails
inevitably cut into other lanes, 1's car will be scratched / dented
unless 1 carefully avoids these cutting-in`s, i.e. 1 must not drive
into busy curves. 4ws vehicles need not cut into other lanes (
their tails can follow road curves ), should be charged lower rd
tax for their tighter use of narrow lanes ( enable fstr traffic flow
).
[iii] a narrow gap ( on a curve rd / path ) impassable to a 2ws car can
be passable to a 4ws car of similar size. The same with a short
parking space, or a 3 point turn to reverse car's direction.
4ws saves time, this is what cars are for in the 1st place.

Frank Puck wrote:

> I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake.

<snipped>

Hi, Prank, thanks for contributing.