confused about power & torque on a couple of cars
Discussion
HustleRussell said:
Danlightbulb- this is not a game of top trumps why are you always judging cars by numbers? It seems every time you post on here you're wittering on about statistics.
I guarantee that most of the time when you buy by numbers you'll end up with the wrong car.
If you're interested in a car, go and drive it. If you're interested in comparing two cars, drive both. It really is that simple.
Because i need to be happy with my choice on paper first and then ill go and find that car.I guarantee that most of the time when you buy by numbers you'll end up with the wrong car.
If you're interested in a car, go and drive it. If you're interested in comparing two cars, drive both. It really is that simple.
I am driving the vtec on sunday as i said, but its not possible to test drive a remapped 9-3. And i wont be able to tell the mpg of the car on a short test drive so the numbers on paper are involved in the decision.
danlightbulb said:
Because i need to be happy with my choice on paper first and then ill go and find that car.
This, I suspect, is the reason why you're limiting yourself to two specific models when there are probably a dosen alternatives which are better in a number of ways but you are overlooking because they didn't win your game of top trumps.Doesn't it bother you that there is no numerical metric for handling, or ride quality, or steering feel, or brake sensitivity, or gear change positiveness... What about gear ratios, final drive etc how do you propose to compare those on paper?
Pardon me but you are showing your inexperience and immaturity- everyone else grew out of top trumps when they started actually driving the cars.
I drive a Civic Type R everyday to work and back and have done for almost 10 years. It doesn't get driven over 3-3.5k rpm on my commute as i don't need to!
On a weekend... that's another story
Edit - After you have had a drive in the Honda im sure it will be pretty much night and day which you would rather have!
On a weekend... that's another story
Edit - After you have had a drive in the Honda im sure it will be pretty much night and day which you would rather have!
Edited by Martin_Hx on Friday 27th November 16:01
Martin_Hx said:
With 188hp the Honda wont be slow, i wouldn't get hung up about torque! You will not have to "rev the tits off it" to go 30mph to the shops 
As an owner of a 2.4 Accord Tourer I can confirm this is the case! It does go extremely well, even at lower revs. I rarely feel the need to go above 4,000 rpm in daily use which isn't even engaging the V-Tec, and that allows it to more than keep pace with most traffic. If you want to wind the revs all the way up it just gets even better. This also means it will sit in 6th gear at 70mph in cruise control barely doing 2,000rpm which is obviously fantastic for economy when you're sat on the motorway. I think it's an absolute peach of an engine.It depends what you want in terms of performance though- because if you are after outright acceleration you are better off looking for something other than a 2.4 Accord or a 2.0 Saab, re-maps or no re-maps!
Edit: And as an owner of an Accord Type R as well, and ex owner of a DC2 Integra Type R, the 2.4 feels livelier than either of the Type Rs up to 3,000/3,500 rpm. As Martin says above, most of the decent Honda engines will give more than sufficient performance at lower revs. It just depends what your reference points are- if you are used to high torque diesel engines then it might take a little bit of acclimatization, but don't think you will need to be constantly sitting at the red-line in order to go anywhere!
Edited by Squirrelofwoe on Friday 27th November 16:24
Squirrelofwoe said:
As an owner of a 2.4 Accord Tourer I can confirm this is the case! It does go extremely well, even at lower revs. I rarely feel the need to go above 4,000 rpm in daily use which isn't even engaging the V-Tec, and that allows it to more than keep pace with most traffic. If you want to wind the revs all the way up it just gets even better. This also means it will sit in 6th gear at 70mph in cruise control barely doing 2,000rpm which is obviously fantastic for economy when you're sat on the motorway. I think it's an absolute peach of an engine.
It depends what you want in terms of performance though- because if you are after outright acceleration you are better off looking for something other than a 2.4 Accord or a 2.0 Saab, re-maps or no re-maps!
Edit: And as an owner of an Accord Type R as well, and ex owner of a DC2 Integra Type R, the 2.4 feels livelier than either of the Type Rs up to 3,000/3,500 rpm. As Martin says above, most of the decent Honda engines will give more than sufficient performance at lower revs. It just depends what your reference points are- if you are used to high torque diesel engines then it might take a little bit of acclimatization, but don't think you will need to be constantly sitting at the red-line in order to go anywhere!
Thanks for this. Its hard to find reviews of this particular car. What mpg do you get?It depends what you want in terms of performance though- because if you are after outright acceleration you are better off looking for something other than a 2.4 Accord or a 2.0 Saab, re-maps or no re-maps!
Edit: And as an owner of an Accord Type R as well, and ex owner of a DC2 Integra Type R, the 2.4 feels livelier than either of the Type Rs up to 3,000/3,500 rpm. As Martin says above, most of the decent Honda engines will give more than sufficient performance at lower revs. It just depends what your reference points are- if you are used to high torque diesel engines then it might take a little bit of acclimatization, but don't think you will need to be constantly sitting at the red-line in order to go anywhere!
Edited by Squirrelofwoe on Friday 27th November 16:24
danlightbulb said:
Squirrelofwoe said:
As an owner of a 2.4 Accord Tourer I can confirm this is the case! It does go extremely well, even at lower revs. I rarely feel the need to go above 4,000 rpm in daily use which isn't even engaging the V-Tec, and that allows it to more than keep pace with most traffic. If you want to wind the revs all the way up it just gets even better. This also means it will sit in 6th gear at 70mph in cruise control barely doing 2,000rpm which is obviously fantastic for economy when you're sat on the motorway. I think it's an absolute peach of an engine.
It depends what you want in terms of performance though- because if you are after outright acceleration you are better off looking for something other than a 2.4 Accord or a 2.0 Saab, re-maps or no re-maps!
Edit: And as an owner of an Accord Type R as well, and ex owner of a DC2 Integra Type R, the 2.4 feels livelier than either of the Type Rs up to 3,000/3,500 rpm. As Martin says above, most of the decent Honda engines will give more than sufficient performance at lower revs. It just depends what your reference points are- if you are used to high torque diesel engines then it might take a little bit of acclimatization, but don't think you will need to be constantly sitting at the red-line in order to go anywhere!
Thanks for this. Its hard to find reviews of this particular car. What mpg do you get?It depends what you want in terms of performance though- because if you are after outright acceleration you are better off looking for something other than a 2.4 Accord or a 2.0 Saab, re-maps or no re-maps!
Edit: And as an owner of an Accord Type R as well, and ex owner of a DC2 Integra Type R, the 2.4 feels livelier than either of the Type Rs up to 3,000/3,500 rpm. As Martin says above, most of the decent Honda engines will give more than sufficient performance at lower revs. It just depends what your reference points are- if you are used to high torque diesel engines then it might take a little bit of acclimatization, but don't think you will need to be constantly sitting at the red-line in order to go anywhere!
Edited by Squirrelofwoe on Friday 27th November 16:24
I still manage to average 30mpg though, and the couple of motorway trips I've done since I had it I've seen mid 30s easily (although sticking religiously to cruise control). If you regularly ring the performance out of it you will see a few mpg lower, but I'd still expect high 20s even then.
The 2.0 is the probably the best balance performance/mpg of the range, but the 2.4 is such a good engine I reckon the extra performance is worth the slight sacrifice in mpg.
As an aside, one of the best petrol engines I've experienced as a balance of performance & economy was the 2.0 in my mate's old clio 182 cup. For general running about (work etc) it would always seem to manage mid/high 30's no problem whilst providing very respectable performance. There was a lot I didn't like about it, but the fuel efficiency always astounded me!
Gaz. said:
I can see why people don't respond with decent articulate answers on this site like we did 10 years ago. Most 4 valve NA engines make around 70 lbs.ft per litre at peak torque- whether it's a 5 litre Mercedes or a 2 litre Civic. Even a 7 litre Corvette wouldn't make 70lbs.ft per litre- but it obviously has lots of litres on its side.
My car makes as much torque as any other for its capacity, the vtec system allows it to make a lot more power WITHOUT sacrificing the bottom end.
Well I wouldn't know as I was only 10 at the time. Just look at the torque curve values for the ek9, dc5 or Corolla tsport. I've no idea why people are so butthurt when I clearly said that it was my opinion on the matter. My car makes as much torque as any other for its capacity, the vtec system allows it to make a lot more power WITHOUT sacrificing the bottom end.
You cannot accurately compare power/torque between two cars without taking into consideration their gearing/final drive & rev range.
I can honestly say that those who are concerned that a K24 is hard to drive or has no response below vtec are massively out of date with engine tech & fail to understand the influence that gearing has on performance.
In a straight line the Accord Type S (2.4 k24) 188hp can do a 15.3second 1/4 mile , Saab 9-3 T non Aero 15.6 seconds and a Saab 9-3 Aero in 14.8 seconds thus even with a remap to 220hp the Saab is hardly going to leave the Type S standing.
Squirrelofwoe said:
Edit: And as an owner of an Accord Type R as well, and ex owner of a DC2 Integra Type R, the 2.4 feels livelier than either of the Type Rs up to 3,000/3,500 rpm.
Agreed, having experienced the Accord Type R 2.2 H22 with a 5 speed gearbox , EP3 2.0 K20 6 speed, a CL7 Euro R K20A 6 speed and a UK Accord Type S 2.4 K24 - standard plus same car with larger throttle/inlet & remap.I can honestly say that those who are concerned that a K24 is hard to drive or has no response below vtec are massively out of date with engine tech & fail to understand the influence that gearing has on performance.
In a straight line the Accord Type S (2.4 k24) 188hp can do a 15.3second 1/4 mile , Saab 9-3 T non Aero 15.6 seconds and a Saab 9-3 Aero in 14.8 seconds thus even with a remap to 220hp the Saab is hardly going to leave the Type S standing.
griffin dai said:
alistairolsen said:
Ok, first of all, forget torque, power is ALL that matters, anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand.
Give me a car with more torque over power any day.
Dan, I have a remapped 2.0t. Its a stage 2 map with bigger turbo and injectors from the Aero and the map is the noobtune one (250hp, 375NM).
If you want to drive it I'm in the midlands near Northampton but you'll need to be quick as its for sale at present.
Regarding economy the map did seem to improve it over the pre-map state. It can get 40+ on the motorway and averages 32 or so mixed driving. In town it gets mid 20s.
Performance wise the 0-60 isn't great (no Saab is) due to torque limiting in the ECU in first and second. In third (the famous magic third) acceleration is very good.
Since the map was put on you spend much less time gear changing. Overtaking can often be accomplished in 5th instead of 3rd pre map.
If you want to drive it I'm in the midlands near Northampton but you'll need to be quick as its for sale at present.
Regarding economy the map did seem to improve it over the pre-map state. It can get 40+ on the motorway and averages 32 or so mixed driving. In town it gets mid 20s.
Performance wise the 0-60 isn't great (no Saab is) due to torque limiting in the ECU in first and second. In third (the famous magic third) acceleration is very good.
Since the map was put on you spend much less time gear changing. Overtaking can often be accomplished in 5th instead of 3rd pre map.
Wills2 said:
griffin dai said:
alistairolsen said:
Ok, first of all, forget torque, power is ALL that matters, anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand.
Give me a car with more torque over power any day.
HustleRussell said:
This, I suspect, is the reason why you're limiting yourself to two specific models when there are probably a dosen alternatives which are better in a number of ways but you are overlooking because they didn't win your game of top trumps.
Doesn't it bother you that there is no numerical metric for handling, or ride quality, or steering feel, or brake sensitivity, or gear change positiveness... What about gear ratios, final drive etc how do you propose to compare those on paper?
Totally agree with this - I went from an N/A petrol to a turbocharged petrol, and whilst the turbocharged petrol had a bit more power and a lot more torque, the N/A felt faster.Doesn't it bother you that there is no numerical metric for handling, or ride quality, or steering feel, or brake sensitivity, or gear change positiveness... What about gear ratios, final drive etc how do you propose to compare those on paper?
Why? Because the N/A happened to be a musical free-revver, whilst the turbocharged one complained at the slightest prod of the loud pedal. One of them got redlined ever day, I don't think I ever hit the redline on the other....
griffin dai said:
alistairolsen said:
Ok, first of all, forget torque, power is ALL that matters, anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand.
Give me a car with more torque over power any day.
Personally I'm more interested in the power figure as a means of comparing likely performance.
Ozzie Osmond said:
danlightbulb said:
Another car I'm looking at is a Saab 9-3, the 150bhp 2.0 litre turbo version.
I've driven a Saab 9-3 but the engine was a dog
Than go and drive a decent one. The Saab 2-litre turbo engine at 185 bhp is absolutely brilliant. (The 150 is far inferior)I've driven a Saab 9-3 but the engine was a dog
danlightbulb said:
aka_kerrly said:
7200rpm as standard, vtec from 6000rpm , remap allows revs to 7800 rpm an vtec from 4500
Which i have read is not worth doing as the vtec cam lobes are optimised for 6k revs so just changing the ecu setting doesnt help.I can't recall the exact details off hand but there is a chap on Accord forum (littlebro?) who will send you a "test ECU" with one his maps so you can experience it yourself without having to commit. A friend tried it and was very happy with the improvement. Also try Hond-R for sound advice on K24s.
As a test we took the Type S (188hp) against a standard Accord Euro R with the K20 engine (220hp) and a UK Accord type R 2.2 (212hp)
As standard there was little difference between the Type S and the UK Type R however the EURO R pulled away immediately. The Type S with the tweeked ECU outperformed the 2.2 and is far closer to the Euro R.
- by benchmark I mean the standard rolling start on a dual ( or should that be duel in this case) carriage way 30>X thus negating the LSDs in the UK & Euro but allowing for 5speed vs 6 speed.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff