RE: Honda Civic Type R
Discussion
Don't forget though that torque/power curves cross at 5252 rpm, so peak torque in a small high-revving engine is not at 7000 rpm but much lower, call it 5000 rpm therefore 5000/500 = 10:1 so 174*10 = 1740 Nm, still less than car B.
At the end of the day it is about preference, I prefer a 'lazy' big engine to a peaky small engine, but, each person can make their own choice, it makes the world a less boring place.
At the end of the day it is about preference, I prefer a 'lazy' big engine to a peaky small engine, but, each person can make their own choice, it makes the world a less boring place.
quote:
the forthcoming Seat Ibiza
TDI Sport, with 130bhp and 220+ lb/ft of torque (at around 1900rpm), I genuinely
believe this car would give any car of a comparable price a run for its money.
Good Call Sir. When my Impreza was written-off (not my fault
) in May 2000 I had an Ibiza TDi (90bhp) as a hire car for a couple of weeks, and it was a cracker. The only thing which let it down was it only had soft 'shopping car' suspension. In Europe they've done GTi versions of the diesel Ibiza for a while, and if such a model was available in the UK a couple of years back I would have bought one there and then. It has loads of real world performance and could make swift progress with ease and returned 55mpg. I replaced the Impreza with a '93 Civic Vti (1600cc 154bhp, £3500) which for the money was a stormer, bastard quick once in the VTEC zone etc. I sold it after ten weeks because I was bored with it, its all-or-nothing character became tiring. I part-exed it for a Saab 9000 (230 bhp&lb/ft!) which although not as chuckable around the twisties, feels fast all the time and is no less economical which is surely one of the only reasons to have a smaller but more highly tuned engine.
For my next car, I'm lined up for a Cooper S which should again be a car with plenty of torque, but I'm open minded enough to get a test drive of the CTR and give it the benefit of the doubt.
quote:
say you have 2 cars that are travelling at a speed that means the wheels are turning at 500rpm (30ish mph on 17" wheels). Car A has 300lbft@3000rpm, Car B has 140ftlb @7000 rpm both drop down to the perfect gear (only theoretical, i know gears arent that simple its only a demonstration) so that thay are at peak torque. This means
Car A
3000rpm/500rpm = 6:1 reduction
6x300lbft = 1800Nm at the wheels
Car B
7000rpm/500rpm = 14:1 reduction
14x140lbft = 1960Nm at the wheels
so in this case the punny high revving small torque engine has MORE TORQUE AT THE WHEELS!
All true, but you don't want to keep your engine at peak engine torque, which is useless for maximising acceleration, but at peak power.
So, to bring some real figures into things, lets compare a Golf GT TDI150 (peak torque a massive 236) with a CTR (peak torque 145).
Golf hits peak power at 4000rpm, CTR at 7400rpm. I can calculate engine torque at these speeds from the power figures:
Golf: Engine torque = 150bhp * 5252 / 4000 = 197lbft
8:1 reduction gives 1576ish at the wheels
CTR: Engine torque = 197bhp * 5252 / 7400 = 140lbft
14.8:1 reduction gives 2069ish at the wheels
Which explains why the much much lower peak torque CTR whips the massively torquey Golf.
Obviously this assumes that both cars have a gear that puts them at peak power at 30mph, which they don't.
Now, the advantage of a "torquey" car is that you have a proportionally wider power band. In the CTR the difference between being in the right gear or the one above could easily be 40% acceleration. In the Golf, it may only make 5 or 10% difference to be one gear out.
The point about CVT was well made. In a CVT car you could theoretically keep the engine at peak power the whole time, and you would have acceleration proportional to (peak bhp) / (speed * car mass)
(I won't work out the exact factor in the calculation). From this I think you could rearrange and integrate and create a theoretical speed/time graph, and integrate again to get a distance/time graph, allowing you to read off a theoretical 1/4 mile time. I think distance would work out proportional to time^3/2 and proportial to the square root of the peak power, but don't quote me on that.
Anyway, I'll stop this now - I've got a maths degree and find this stuff mildly interesting. Others won't...
Tom
quote:
I think you could rearrange and integrate and create a theoretical speed/time graph, and integrate again to get a distance/time graph, allowing you to read off a theoretical 1/4 mile time. I think distance would work out proportional to time^3/2 and proportial to the square root of the peak power.
I was just about to say that.
quote:
All true, but you don't want to keep your engine at peak engine torque, which is useless for maximising acceleration, but at peak power.
Long time since I did me degree (no I wont tell ya how long ago!), but...... I think I'd disagree with this statement. Don't CVT's operate best at peak torque??(and if I'm wrong, well, I'll pop down the pub for a
and kill a few more brain cells)It depends on what you want from a car and how much you are willing to pay for a bit of oomph.
I am a trendy, young girl-about-town
and when the Type-R came out I thought "oooh that looks fun" and I think thats what they are meant to be - fun. They are not claiming to be a supercar or have the performance of a Cerby "Everywhere is local in a Cerbera" Pikey©
I had a look at a Type-R as a replacement for my Suzuki GV2000 because I want something that is realatively cheap to buy and run, isn't going to be as nickable as a Scooby but has the power there should I ever need it. The only offputting thing was the 10 month waiting list.
I would Love to have a TVR and even with my connections they are still too expensive to maintain. I would never ever get a Lotus or a Porsche (I couldn't bring myself to buy one and I don't think PW or my Dad would be too impressed either) so something like the Type-R would be perfect.
I could never see me in a Honda especially a Civic due to the image but the Civic Type-R really does appeal.
It all boils down to personal taste and finances.
Perhaps I am wrong but thats the way I see it.
I am a trendy, young girl-about-town
and when the Type-R came out I thought "oooh that looks fun" and I think thats what they are meant to be - fun. They are not claiming to be a supercar or have the performance of a Cerby "Everywhere is local in a Cerbera" Pikey© I had a look at a Type-R as a replacement for my Suzuki GV2000 because I want something that is realatively cheap to buy and run, isn't going to be as nickable as a Scooby but has the power there should I ever need it. The only offputting thing was the 10 month waiting list.
I would Love to have a TVR and even with my connections they are still too expensive to maintain. I would never ever get a Lotus or a Porsche (I couldn't bring myself to buy one and I don't think PW or my Dad would be too impressed either) so something like the Type-R would be perfect.
I could never see me in a Honda especially a Civic due to the image but the Civic Type-R really does appeal.
It all boils down to personal taste and finances.
Perhaps I am wrong but thats the way I see it.
quote:
Long time since I did me degree (no I wont tell ya how long ago!), but...... I think I'd disagree with this statement. Don't CVT's operate best at peak torque??(and if I'm wrong, well, I'll pop down the pub for a and kill a few more brain cells)
I recommend the pub! Peak wheel torque for a particular speed is achieved if the engine is at peak power, not peak torque. More maths!
Golf. Peak torque 236 at 1900rpm, so lossless wheel torque with CVT if they are spinning at 500rpm is:
236 * 1900 / 500 = only 897 which is much less than the figure of 1600 or so if at peak power.
This explains why people talk about the "power band" and not the "torque band".
I'm off down the pub. If only.
Tom
quote:
I quite agree, torque at the wheels gives you acceleration, that is precisely my point. If the engine has little torque, there can only be little torque at the wheels.
not true at all.
adjust the gearing and you improve the torque at the wheels. its counter productive on a car that does not rev high. But do it on a car that can rev to 8k+ and you can lower the gearing and make sure that all the engines revs are used up.
Match the engine and gearbox right and you will have a very fast car despite not that much torque.
On another note:
To critise the CTR for being noisy is to completely miss the point. The whole concept of a Type R is to have a car with LESS than a noremal hot hatch. I am of the opinion that Honda did not go far enough with the CTR. Look at the Integra Type R, more stripped than the CTR is.
man, 20 pages of posts! chill out guys, its not good to get so passionate over an inanimate object.
aren't people here a little old for a civic type R anyway - i mean, it's really a car for under 25 year olds. 25-35 go for an ITR and over 35 an accord type R.
Hondas make great cars, glad to here the chassis' are getting good which always used to be their weak point.
aren't people here a little old for a civic type R anyway - i mean, it's really a car for under 25 year olds. 25-35 go for an ITR and over 35 an accord type R.
Hondas make great cars, glad to here the chassis' are getting good which always used to be their weak point.
quote:
aren't people here a little old for a civic type R anyway - i mean, it's really a car for under 25 year olds. 25-35 go for an ITR and over 35 an accord type R.
Errr no. I am knocking on 27 and I want one. My Dad is ummm nearly 60 and he was looking at one to replace the Chim when the Company Car tax thingy came in but for various reasons went for an X-Trail instead.
Edited because it didn't make sense due to one too many Ultimate Woo Woo's.
>> Edited by Gaffer on Saturday 6th April 12:53
quote:
aren't people here a little old for a civic type R anyway - i mean, it's really a car for under 25 year olds. 25-35 go for an ITR and over 35 an accord type R.
I am only 22 and I doubt I could afford the insurance on one of these, we're not all born with a silver spoon in our gobs!
Gassing Station | Honda | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff