American muscle or Honda?

[PhilM]

to be fair to PaulRS, he does appreciate other manufacturers other than ford, he really just responded to comments and in response said some things that may not be entirely true like "honda couldnt extract more power for their k20 in the mega money civicR or they would have" when ofcourse they could, why they didnt i dont know.

meh.. we all dislike certain things, its not going to change lol

Phil

[houdini]

Yes please................

[NineK]

Just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO hard to beat the aesthetic appeal and aural pleasure a classic yank tank would provide.

[houdini]

Old School...........



More modern if you like..............

American muscle cars get my vote.

[56oval]

Originally Posted by Maxwell

you need to brush up on the oul francais mon ami . you said "are we comparing apples and potatoes" lmfao! pommes are apples, pomme de terres are spuds!

lol read my quote properly, theres an "err" in there, sarcasm, its the lowest form of wit lol. (and the highest form of inteligence)

my point is that its is completely like comparing an apple with err a spud

this is one of those which will run and run, the compsrison could have been between two completely different car makes.

[da.murf]

spanner in works lol

[davecoupe]

in my simple mind.........

When i picture a honda there is a smicky mc smick at the wheel, its decked, screaming its head off, spinning one wheel everywhere and all his mates are following in cars that look exactly the same

When i picture a yank tank there is smoke everywhere, a v8 sound like the world is going to end and there is two big black tyre lines following it everywhere lol

[DaddyC]

Originally Posted by davecoupe

When i picture a honda there is a smicky mc smick at the wheel, its decked, screaming its head off, spinning one wheel everywhere and all his mates are following in cars that look exactly the same

You must be thinking of James in his LSI with no diff then

[Paul RS]

For those that think i love ford and only ford - how about opening your eyes and reading my sig?????
I appreciate lots of other cars, i just hate vtec. I think it's overhyped. In the 'real world' as everyone likes to quote, the higher bhp figures of vtec mean nothing when combined with the crap torque (for engine cc) they produce. Suppose i'm not allowed that opinion as this is uber honda loving heaven?

Originally Posted by NineK

What you are actually doing is ensuring all those non-ford lovers actually hate ford even more. Reason being - cos over opinionated, under educated mouths like yours come with that scene.

What have you done thats soo different? POT KETTLE BLACK

I see i've been given the age old Skiman status. I don't really care what you think of me, but don't tar all the ford men with the same brush.

Have you ever been to a proper Ford show? Ever walked round and talked to the guys there? As a matter of fact, any of the ford haters should go to the next one and see how all the guys are. It'd soon open your eyes to how a proper club gets on.

If disagreeing with you and putting my points across make me an idiot, then so be it. Just because what i think differs from what you think doesn't make it wrong. Calling me undereducated is like being back in primary school and it shows you've no better, meaningful points to put across.

Originally Posted by NineK

However, they also come in every other scene, at least if i am putting a point across i will show respect towards what any other company has managed to do. Such as the RS Turbo, ****ing great car, handles like **** all, goes like stink when played with, but still the only enjoyment from driving them is the complete lack of sense of control.

So back into your box sir, Ford are just one more manufacturer out there spooling out poorly built cars and trying to make money from it. Henry is not God, nor is he any relation to God. Your opinion is not Gospel and as such you should not try to push it on the world when the world seems to know better already.

Ford are soo crap they've consistantly been producing top selling cars - Suppose that makes all the people who bought them idiots like me for liking Ford? Honda are no better or different.

Again, i've never said Ford are the best marque out there have i? Stop assuming i am. I've said to many people i hate fords and i'm not lying - if there's something i don't like about them, i'll say it, not cover it up. RS turbos for example - i hate them, i think they are ****e in every way. They rust, are slow, handling/braking is usually crap due to their age... I could go on and on. I also know how to make them better and its knowledge i share when and where i can.

I'll show respect to Hondas i actually like. Unfortunately for me one of them is now owned by you... I love Marks crx, its soo much fun. In fact i'd considered making him an offer and using it as a track car.

As for my opinion, i'll fuc king well like and dislike what i want chum, no amount of you internet 'superiority' you seem to think you'll have will change that.



*Disclaimer* Some of that may be spelt wrong, but i'm tired, hungry and can't type very well, so lick the back of them

[Gaz]

Why doesn't Ninek come along on Sat night, I would love to hear this discussion

[Paul RS]

I'm too thick to talk apparantly

[Gaz]

That's that out the window then lol

Although I've been a Honda nut for years, it's not like supporting football teams - we don't have to stop liking other brands of cars.

Personally there are some Ford models I love. My bro's old Cossie (Terry's old one) is now in my dad's possession and I took it out for a few runs over the summer, still blows me away every time - has a cracking engine. Similarly I was very impressed with the Focus RS Mk1 I owned and also the Mk2 model which I drove recently.

I don't actually think there are many manufacturers I actually dislike, save maybe for Daewoo and Sang Yong etc. At the end of the day, they all make cars which cater for different tastes and different markets, and without that variety, we probably wouldn't even be on a site like this discussing it as enthusiasts.

[NineK]

i didnt say you were thick, and perhaps its my lack of ability to put points across that meant i wasnt "hating" on you as such, more hating the fanboy way in which one or two of your points were put. Which i agree, i am probably identical to you in that manner just my likes are not the same as yours.

Either way we are enthusiasts of our own cars, we are able to see fault with them, and as such from experience we both know what needs done to make them "acceptable" cars. Unfortunately I am a stuborn **** and dont overly enjoy seeing my passion being put down by those with absolutely minimum experience on the same subject. Which is where this entire post by post reply has stemmed from - basically you are as much of a ****

I guess it must be unfortunate for you to see me then owning the one honda you did appreciate, as opposed to some schmicky mcschmick taking it and essentially destroying what is a fantastic little car.

P.S Ford are still pap

Gaz - cos im skint

[Crimson]

I feel an epic thread coming on here

US Muscle cars FTW...pity it costs a fortune to run them

[Paul RS]

Originally Posted by NineK

Either way we are enthusiasts of our own cars, we are able to see fault with them, and as such from experience we both know what needs done to make them "acceptable" cars. Unfortunately I am a stuborn **** and dont overly enjoy seeing my passion being put down by those with absolutely minimum experience on the same subject. Which is where this entire post by post reply has stemmed from - basically you are as much of a ****

I guess it must be unfortunate for you to see me then owning the one honda you did appreciate, as opposed to some schmicky mcschmick taking it and essentially destroying what is a fantastic little car.

Try being a Ford owner on here, then you'll know all about having you marque put down! (Not aimed at you) Any ford related post always has people on, saying things like it'll blow up/rust/break down. It gets annoying after a while.

I genuinely love your crx, its the only one i've seen that looks right. Plus it was the first quick car i was ever in.

I know ford are ****e, my sig says so!

[NineK]

I know fannys fart, i still love them

my sig says so!!!

lol

I cant imagine being a ford owner in this day and age, sorry

[bob]

Originally Posted by Paul RS

In the 'real world' as everyone likes to quote, the higher bhp figures of vtec mean nothing when combined with the crap torque (for engine cc) they produce. Suppose i'm not allowed that opinion as this is uber honda loving heaven?

I think this quote should be directed at all N/A engines instead of Honda's, a K20a produces practically the same torque as any other 2.0 engine, c20xe, zetec etc. Just as the Crx made similar if not more torque than the 205 1.6gti, corolla gti and other hatchs of that era. In the real world I've seen alot of honda's beating cars with more power and torque, there's alot to be said for bhp/revs even though everyone likes to talk about torque these days.

[jbw]

Paul you're so funny. I see you haven't changed either!!
I used to love our Ford v Honda nights!!!!
Oh back in the days..........

[NineK]

Originally Posted by bob

I think this quote should be directed at all N/A engines instead of Honda's, a K20a produces practically the same torque as any other 2.0 engine, c20xe, zetec etc. Just as the Crx made similar if not more torque than the 205 1.6gti, corolla gti and other hatchs of that era. In the real world I've seen alot of honda's beating cars with more power and torque, there's alot to be said for bhp/revs even though everyone likes to talk about torque these days.

Shamelessly robbed from CRX-UK

Torque is only half the story. While torque is the force created, it doesn't account for the importance of revs.
Imagine trying to remove a wheel nut from a car with a standard wheelbrace and all the torque you could produce can't loosen the "Kwik fit special" airgunned super tightened wheel bolts. You apply lots of force, i.e. torque, but you still can't generate any rpm. Therefore nothing is accomplished, no power generated despite your cursing and kicking. So - Without rpm, torque is useless!

[PhilM]

a quide to horsepower versus Torque:

Some people say horsepower is how long you can
continue to make torque. That's sorta true, but it's "long" in terms of higher rpms, not time directly.

Think of it in this old fashioned way. Put a pulley on the crankshaft
of the engine with a 1 ft radius (2 ft diameter). Attach a long rope to that pulley.

Dangle it over a 6283 ft cliff, (I chose that distance because the pulley diameter is 2 ft and the circumference is 6.283 ft and I want to move it for one minute at 1000 revolutions per minute.) add a 200 lb weight to the end.
If the engine can develop 200 ft-lbs of torque it can lift that 200 lb weight directly.

If it does it at only 1000 rpms then it takes 1 minute to lift 200 lbs, 6283 ft up. (incidentally for those wonder where the acceleration is.. It's gravity acting on the weight at 1G)

But let's say it can't rev any faster than 1000 rpms (like a big cruise boat diesel engine), then the max hp is only 200 ft-lbs * 1000 rpms / 5252 = 38hp. Pitiful.

We don't want to wait a full minute, so we need to lift the weight faster.
So now we use an engine that can make 200 ft-lbs of torque but at 2000 rpms, it can lift that same 200 ft-lbs weight twice as fast, pulling it 6283 ft up the cliff in only 30 seconds. max HP = 200 ft-lbs * 2000 rpms / 5252 = 76 hp.

Ok.. So let's give this engine some serious guts, better breathing, higher revving, larger displacement. Rev it all the way up to 5252rpms, and get it to still make 200 ft-lbs of torque (no mean feat). Now it takes only 11.4 seconds to lift a 200 lb weight up a 6283 ft cliff. And of course HP = 200 ft-lbs * 5252 rpms / 5252 = 200 hp.

There's the basics of hp versus torque as measured at the crank for any
given fixed rpm. When the concept of horsepower was dreamed up,
these are the sorts of applications the steam engines it applied to, were used for. Lifting big weights, pulling things through or over the ground, or turning the entire contents of some factory at a constant rpm.

So what happens when a Honda engine manages to make 150 hp but
only 100 ft-lbs of torque at 8000 rpms? (I didn't choose VTEC numbers because I want round numbers)

Well.. For one it simply won't be able to lift the 200 lb weight with a crank pulley that has a 1 ft radius. It can't. It's only generating 100 ft-lbs of lifting force.

What you need now is gears. Let's put a 2 to 1 gearset between the engine crank and rope pulley. Now the engine is still turning at 8000 rpms, but the pulley is turning at 4000 rpms, and we've effectively doubled its leverage so torque measured at the pulley is 200 ft-lbs again.

Torque at pulley = 200 ft-lbs @ 4000 rpms. So it now can actually lift the 200 lb weight directly, and at 4000 rpms, thats 4 times faster than our original engine. So 15 seconds to lift the 200 lb weight up 6283 ft. Not bad. Moving a 200 lb weight up over 1 vertical mile in only 15 seconds. (Note, 100 ft-lbs * 8000 / 5252 = 200 ft-lbs * 4000 / 5252)

One interesting side note. It's possible for an engine or motor to make torque at 0 rpms.

A steam train engine, for instance has a direct drive from pistons to wheels so when it needs to get moving it can actually generate some ungodly number like 10000 ft-lbs of torque at 0 rpms and thus by our formula HP = 1000 ft-lbs * 0 / 5252 = 0 hp. Cute eh?

Electric motors also can do this. That's why diesel train engines drive use electric motors to turn the wheels, and a big nearly constant rpm engine to power the generator that powers the motors.

Summary so far.
So torque lifts the weight. We can convert low engine torque (Honda engine)
into high usable torque through gearing, but at the cost of speed.
Horspower tells you how fast the weight can be lifted at a constant angular velocity.

Ok.. In the next post I'll explain how this relates to acceleration.

Horsepower, Torque and how you use it to accelerate through gearing
So what's the whole deal with the "torque curve" and why's it important to acceleration?

Well.. only being able to make good torque at a single rpm is not very useful for a road going vehicle.

It's ok for a train engine driving a generator, or factory motor, but no sense for a car. If you only make useful torque at the crank in a very narrow range of rpms then you need lots and lots of gears to keep the torque at the wheels in a useable range as your vehicle's speed
increases.

Maximum acceleration of a car is made possible by maximizing your output torque at the wheels at ALL times. Let's say the torque curve for our original engine that made 200 ft-lbs of torque at 1000 rpms can actually do it between 500 and 1000 rpms (absolutely flat curve) and falls off sharply on either side. (below 500 and above 1000).

It can still accellerate, but it'd need maybe a 2:1 gear to get started, then 1:1 to keep going, and then about 2 overdrive gears to go fast. like 1:2.. 1:4
So here's our gears. 1st: 2:1 2nd: 1:1 3rd: 1:2 4th: 1:4
In first gear at the output wheesl, it'd make 400 ft-lbs of torque to the ground between 250-500 rpms. Second gear.. 200 ft-lbs at 500 to 1000 rpms.. 3rd.. 100 ft-lbs at 1000 to 2000 rpms 4th 50 ft-lbs between 2000 to 4000 rpms.. This engine makes 200 ft-lbs * 1000 / 5252 = 38hp.

By the time you hit the top of 4th gear you're only putting 50 ft-lbs of torque to the ground, but you're moving right along. If you only had to lift only a 50 lb-weight up our cliff you could get there in 15 seconds (not counting acceleration though the gears).

Works the other way around too. A higher revving engine that makes a little torque up high. Let's try a flat torque curve between 2000 and 4000 rpms of only 100 ft-lbs. Let's try to match the torque to the ground of our other engine with gearing. 1st: 4:1 2nd: 2:1 3rd: 1:1 4th: 1:2

So at the ground. 1st gear makes 400 ft-lbs of torque between 500 and 1000 rpms
2nd: 200 ft-lbs between 1000 and 2000 rpms
3rd: 100 ft-lbs between 2000 and 4000 rpms..
and 4th: 50 ft-lbs between 4000 and 8000 rpms.

Oops.. I accidentally made a more powerful engine. I was making the same
torque to the ground at the top of 3rd gear and still have 50 ft-lbs
usable for the next 4000 rpms in 4th. Want to see something cute.
At the crank. 100 ft-lbs * 4000 rpms / 5252 = 76 hp.
At the wheels.. 50ft-lbs * 8000 rpms / 5252 = 76 hp..
(assuming zero drivetrain loss here). You see why it doesn't
matter if you make your dyno pull in 3rd or 4th gear?

So yes. Torque is what does the actual work. With our weight, any
output torque less than 200 ft-lbs will NOT lift it at all. But horsepower
is how FAST we we do the work. And acceleration depends on the engine's
ability to generate torque at more than just one rpm. The fatter
the torque curve is (no matter how small the max torque value), the faster
you can accelerate because the more rpms you have to work with, the
higher the gear ratios and thus the higher your torque at the ground.
You maximize torque to the ground through gearing keeping the engine in the rpm
range where the engine generates the most ground speed for a given torque value.

A car that only generates 50 ft-lbs of torque, but but can do it between 10,0000 and 20,000 rpms will still make 190 hp. You're saying "But Ian, I still need raw TORQUE to accelerateright?" True. But the tires don't need to turn at 20,000 rpms, so there's where I'm going to get my torque. Let's design a single gear. The tires only need to turn at 880 rpms to go 60mph at
the top of 2nd gear. So let's experiment with an effective gear ratio from crank to tires of 20:1. That'd give me 50 * 20 = 1000 ft-lbs of torque at the ground between the engine rpms of 10k and 20k. That'd certainly get you moving just fine. Does it work speedwise? 10,000 rpms / 20 = 500.. 20,000 rpms / 20 = 1000. with 205/50-15 tires that's a speed range of 34mph to 68mph.

Cool.. An engine that generates only 50ft-lbs of torque between 10k and 20k rpms manages to put down 1000 ft-lbs of torque to the ground between 34mph and 68mph in my imaginary 2nd gear. Now just design another half dozen gears and you're good to go. And it'll *feel* like 1000 ft-lbs of torque the entire time too.

An old turbo formula 1 car that makes 1100 hp at 14 thousand rpms.. Lesee.. 412 ft-lbs of torque up there in the stratospheric rpms. Whew. Try a 10:1 effective gearing, that's still like 4000 ft-lbs of torque to the ground at 95mph. Not bad.

So yes, you *feel* torque, but it's torque at the ground, not at the engine. If you can rev high enough, then gearing will increase your effective torque to the ground for a longer period of time. Torque you feel.. torque applied for a large range of rpms equates to faster acceleration, and the highest rpm that you can maintain useful torque will be your peak horsepower number.

The horsepower @ rpm value
gives you some idea of how long the torque curve extends into the rpms.
That's how you use it.

So there it is. Everything you never needed to know about torque and horsepower.

hope that was worth reading, ive read that little articule four or five times now and its good stuff!!

Phil

this was also shameless robbed from a previous thread of mine, in which i pasted this info, i cant remember its true origin.

[DaddyC]

[NineK]

good read that phil

i did find this one much less taxing though

Obvious bias towards the hondas as his audience was of sound mind

Originally Posted by Mark - CRX-UK

The first thing to remember is that BHP is not measured on a dyno - only torque, BHP is a factor of torque and engine speed - its just a theoretical calculation!

First, power, what do we mean by that?

Well, we usually express power in terms of the amount of time it takes to do a certain amount of work... for example, one horsepower is measured as the amount of work required to lift 33,000 lbs over 1 foot in 1 minute (huh -that's obvious, Very Happy ). As this is such an obviously Scottish measurement (as James Watt first devised the calculation) , we have a metric equivalent... the metric horse could lift 4,500Kg a metre in a minute... 98.6% of a good British horse. The Europeans decided to call it a PS (Pferde Starke - German for Horse power!)instead of an HP to cover their shame. Also, in the newfangled metric system, 1hp is the equivalent of 746 Watts of electrical power. So, to recap briefly:

1 HP = Roughly the amount of work a horse can do lifting coal up a mineshaft, assuming his heart was really in it = 1.014 PS = 0.746 KW - easy huh

Now we need a way to measure this output - so we use a defined force or "brake" to see how much energy we need to apply to stop it - Hence "Brake Horsepower" - and is defined as it's maximum performance at a certain rpm.


The other thing we babble on about is Torque... Torque is the amount of force applied to turn something multiplied by the distance from the axis of it's rotation... sounds all weird, until you realise that we use the engine to rotate the front wheel, so torque is something that would be nice to calculate. Something interesting is that 1hp is 550ft/lbs of torque per second.

Now, it's fairly easy to measure torque... this is where the dyno comes in, and we calculate horsepower from an engine's torque output multiplied by the revs...


A dynomometer is just a heavy drum (brake), an accelerometer and a computer... if you know the weight of the drum, and you know how fast it's being accelerated, you can calculate the torque that must be being applied to the drum. What you also want to take into account are the frictional losses on the drum, and the air temperature at the time (which is why you'll see air temperature, pressure and a correction factor calculated by the software... as air temperature goes up, so the effective power output goes down, so the correction factor has to go up to normalise this).

Taking a Dyno Run
( As used today at PTS - differs slightly if they use an inductive loop)

So, to measure torque, we strap the car to the dyno, start it up and run it up in the gears to 3000RPM the dyno operator holds the car at a steady 3000 for 6-7 seconds and the dyno learns the road speed for that car at 3k. ( Some dynos use an inductive loop to accurately measure RPM - but the rev counter method works fine for most modern cars) - now with a given road speed the RPM can be calculated.
... cars tend to do their power runs in 4th gear, as it's the best gear for acceleration at speed and less chance of the wheels slipping, as the calculation errors get smaller the bigger the numbers are. 4th is used because on cars these days 5th gear tend to be a bit of an overdrive.
The throttle is gently floored, and the dyno slowly allows the speed of the engine to increase - this measures the torque of the engine. When the engine reaches maximum RPM, the operator puts the car in neutral, and allows the wheels to decelerate of their own accord - this measures the losses of the transmission,driveshafts,bearings brakes (if they are sticking!) and tyres

Now here comes the maths

BHP = Torque (lbft) x RPM
-------------------
5252

This means that BHP is always equal to torque at 5252rpm Smile - if its not then there is something wrong!

Now using Pauls results from today we get max power of 169.3BHp @ 7869RPM but 115.0lbft of Torque. The important factor here is that it makes its maximum power at nearly 8000rpm!

Andy Blower made more torque 123.5lb/ft - therefore it must be quite a bit more powerful right? - WRONG ! - he made his max figure at 7309rpm - and as BHP is proportional to speed and his engine was making its torque at a lower RPM value - he gets 169.4 BHP - a whole 0.1bhp more

Shirish made 129.8lb/ft at 7466rpm - which equates to 170.4BHP

So now we have 115, 123.5 and 129lb/ft of torque - all at different engine speeds - All giving an output of 170BHP give or take a little bit

The moral of this essay is - it is better to make torque at high RPM for a screamer! - and thats why beause Hondas rev so high they produce the power!

If anyone got this far - class dismissed


Where did the 5252 figure come from ?

As discussed what we actually measure is torque, expressed in ft/lb, and then we calculate actual horsepower by converting the twisting force of torque into the work units of horsepower.

Visualize a one pound weight, one foot from a fulcrum on an "invisible weightless" bar. If we rotate that weight for one full revolution against a one pound resistance, we have moved it a total of 6.2832 feet (pi times a two foot circle), and, we have done 6.2832 foot pounds of work.

OK. Remember Watt? He said that 33,000 foot pounds of work per minute was equivalent to one horsepower. If we divide the 6.2832 foot pounds of work we've done per revolution of the weight into 33,000 foot pounds, we come up with the fact that we have to rotate that weight at the rate of 5,252 revolutions per minute in order to do 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work, and thus do work at the equivalent rate of one horsepower.
Therefore, the following formula applies for calculating horsepower from a torque measurement:

Horsepower = ( Torque * RPM ) / 5252

Thats where the 5252 comes from Very Happy Very Happy


Torque is only half the story. While torque is the force created, it doesn't account for the importance of revs.
Imagine trying to remove a wheel nut from a car with a standard wheelbrace and all the torque you could produce can't loosen the "Kwik fit special" airgunned super tightened wheel bolts. You apply lots of force, i.e. torque, but you still can't generate any rpm. Therefore nothing is accomplished, no power generated despite your cursing and kicking. So - Without rpm, torque is useless!

Two engines may make 125 foot/pounds of torque, but if one is a ford turning at 5,000 rpm and another is a Honda turning at 10,000 rpm, the Honda is doing more work than the ford, therefore generating more power.

HP = Torque x RPM / 5252

so the ford makes 125*5000 / 5252 = 119HP,
but the Honda makes 125*10000 / 5252 = 238HP - must have been an S2000

Nicked from here: Redirect

Makes me gutted i dont have the ability to put things down into words

[Ben P]

Originally Posted by NineK

Ah, That has been my desktop for a while now, i want it so bad.

[big_pete]

lol how did random muscle vs honda bring all the ford haters out??

I've had many cars, of many different marques and quite a few of them have been fords and really can't complain about them. I too don't get the whole vtec thing?

It's an effort to drive it quickly rather than involving IMO. Though the chassis in a DC2 is superb.

If honda made a turbo'd version of it with an interior that is of a decent quality it would be a winner