The type r motor has 200 flywheel horsepower. I play with these engines everyday. They dyno around 160 whp, not 200 whp. Also my car is naturally aspirated. If you have two identical engines making the exact same power, the one with turbo will always lose to the naturally aspirated one.

Look at this: http://www.ericksracing.com/racecar.htm Heres his specs:

Specifications:

• 1995 Civic coupe body.
• 1997 Integra GSR B18C1 engine.

Engine:

• Bore: 85 mm
• Stroke: 95 mm
• 300 bhp (equates to around 240 whp)
• 10,800 rpm redline
• Engine management: Hondata
• Ignition system: stock
• Head: Erick's Racing Engines full competition
• Intake manifold: modified GSR
• Injectors: RC 440 cc
• Throttle body: Erick's Racing 76 mm
• Header: Erick's Racing custom 4-1 side exit.

Transmission:

• Erick's Racing close ratio 5 speed
• 4.7:1 final drive

Chassis:

• Builder: Nick Tierno (NRS) Las Vegas NV
• Firewall back chromoly tube.
• 1600 lbs including driver.

 

Well first of all the comment about 2 stroke engines is Edited by Admin are alot of reasons 2 strokes aren't used in auto's.

Torque can be increased by gearing that is something all you torque touters forget.

 

My car does not weigh 2200 lbs. I said that is the stock weight of the car. The car weighs in at 1670 lbs

 

Okay, that makes me happier, I thought you were talking about a 2200lb race weight. You have to understand, I'm quite skeptical about people who claim their Honda or Eclipse can beat Cobra because their underdrive pullies gave them 4 whp (that's an actual quote from a guy who also said that it was impossible to outrun a Crown Vic cop car). Or there's also the guy that said his 3000GT N/A could go over 200 mph in stock form if he just took out the back seat. I'm glad to see that you're not one of them.

Connecting Rodd, please have some proof when you post, torque is a measure of force, normally a Newton meter or a ft-lb. Torque is equal to force times the lever arm. Horsepower is the rate at which torque is applied. An engine produces power by applying torque.

http://www.epi-eng.com/BAS-PwrTrq.htm

Torque is usually a good measure of engine size. As an experiment, you can try and take off a lugnut using a 1/4 drive ratchet, which would have little torque due to the relatively small lever arm and then try to take one off with a breaker bar. Guess which one will be easier to turn? The one with more torque, which is why bigger torque engines have an easier time turning the wheels on a car.

 

In my short life span of only 53 years, I have yet to see that changing gearing will increase torque. Changing gearing lets you change the way in which you use available torque. Or increase useable torque at the rear wheels. It in no way changes the torque rating of the engine. There are many other mods that can change/add torque, but they are usually done to the engine. If I'm wrong, I'll happily stand corrected.

 

No, you're right. Gears are torque MULTIPLIERS, not torque creaters.

 

Gearing is exactly that, a torque multiplier. It exchanges speed for power (or if it's an O.D. ratio, it exchanges power for speed). If I have a 4,000 lb car with an engine that produces 400 lb/ft of torque at 3,000 rpm, and I have a 1st gear ratio of 3:1, and a final drive of 3:1, I'd multiply 400 lb/ft by 3, and get 1,200 lb/ft coming out of the transmission. Then I'd multiply that by 3, and get 3,600 lb/ft of torque at the drive axle flange. Likewise, I'd divide my RPM by 3 at the transmission, so my output shaft speed would be 1,000 rpm.

Then at the rear axle, we'd divide 1,000 by 3 and get 333.3 rpm. In total, torque was multiplied 9 times (not taking driveline friction into account), and we divided speed by 9 times as well. So lets say, we have the same 4,000 lb car, but we want to use an engine which produces only 225 lb/ft of torque at 5,300 rpm, but it makes equal horsepower as the torque engine (it just revs higher). Say we use a transmission with a 4:1 first gear ratio, and a final drive ratio of 4:1. At the engine's peak torque rpm of 5,300, where we are making 225 lb/ft of torque, we multiply torque by 4 for the transmission ratio, and get 1,000 lb/ft of torque, with an RPM drop to 1,325.

We then go to the final drive and multiply transmission output torque by 4 and get 4,000 lb/ft of torque at the drive flange, and another rpm drop to 331.25 rpm. So due to gearing, this "weak, high strung" engine will actually deliver more torque at a lower vehicle speed than the torque motor with the milder gearset. So yes, gearing is a major factor in determining how well a certain amount of torque will perform in a given vehicle. So why could the torque motor actually win from stoplight to stoplight? Torquey engines tend to have a flat, broad torque curve, and the peakier, rev happy motors tend to have sharp, narrow torque curves. So at 1,000 rpm, where the torque motor is putting out 325 lb/ft of torque, and the high rev engine is making 50 lb/ft of torque, the torque motor is pulling like a champ,and the rev engine is trying to build up a head of steam. But Honda found a way around that with V-TEC, as did Toyota with VVT-I, and even Ford with the new 3 valve Mustang engine.

The downside to gearing deep and using revs is increased wear. I will say though, that Honda and Toyota build engines that run with Swiss Watch precision, and love to rev. They also last forever with reasonable maintenance, so perhaps the fact that they rev doesn't mean it won't last. Do I prefer low reving torque? Of course... in my truck, or a family car. But in my hot rod, I'll dump low end torque for high revs and horsepower. Then again, I don't intend to pull a trailer with my rod either.

 

as i recall the first honda odessy was a one cylinder, two stoke.

 

That's an ATV, not a car.

 

It was also rear wheel drive and alot more fun to drive than the other (less fortunate) Odessys to come along afterwards.

 

I agree. I'm a Ford fan but I do own a 1990 Honda Civic. It has been THE best vehicle I have ever owned. It is all original including the clutch and it has 328,000 miles on it.

 

See this is what I am upset at GM and Ford and Chrysler for. THEY CAN DO THIS!!! Why were they able to do it in the 60's and (early)70's, but can't do it now? The 60's cars would rot because the metal wasn't as good, but still, why can't they do it now? Quality sells! If I could get comparable quality, not even better, just similar, I'd buy one over a Honda or Toyota any day. But I'm not going to buy a domestic car because it's the "American thing to do" if it's a load of garbage, when I can buy an imported car that will last. The problem isn't that the domestics can't do it, it's that they won't. It would sacrifice short term profits and stock values in favor of long term growth and strenth in the market. In America, the business ethic is such that corporations worry about getting our money today, instead of getting alot more tomorrow. Corporate greed drives the manufacturers to swindle the money from their customers instead of earning it. Why did the Japaneese get a toe hold in our market to begin with? Because folks woke up to the fact that Detroit was ripping them off. They have the technology and the resources to send Honda and Toyota and all the others packing across the Pacific faster than a supersonic jet, but the near term drop in profits that would result in the change of philosophy won't allow it, because the accountants won't let it happen.

 

Very true....good post.

 

<dl> <dt>Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.</dt><dd>-- George Santayana</dd> </dl> This brings to mind a conversation I had in the late 1980s. I was working for a company which was a supplier to...a large US car company. It was a late evening in February. He was worried...there were rumors in the automotive press that Honda was looking at building a pickup truck.

"Not a problem", I said.

But how can you say that? Honda has great quality and engineering. They can introduce a car whenever they want that grabs market share. They can start a whole separate company [Acura] in an entirely new segment and take share away from traditional leaders like Mercedes and BMW. How can this not be a problem?"

"Well, imagine this. A company which has made its name with small cars...which has millions of loyal customers...a ready-made dealer base...introducing a pickup truck and failing miserably."

He didn't make the connection. "Who did that?"

"...remember the VW pickup?"

We went through the same predictions of a new pickup seizing a big part of the market in the late 1970s with the VW. But it didn't happen, and the VW pickup disappeared from sight after poor sales. Why? All the elements for success were there. The problem was that VW buyers were not pickup buyers. And the VW pickup did not appeal to regular pickup buyers.

How many Honda owners trade in their car on an F-150? Not too many. While there are probably a lot of FTE members whose spouses own Civics, I don't think that connection will lead to them buying Honda pickups.

The more likely buyer is an SUV driver. But I think the market is smaller than Honda expects, and that they will shelve it in a few years.

Think back. How many people predicted that the new full-size Toyota and Nissan pickups would take market share from Ford? And yet, even with competition from these vaunted car makers, Ford was able to set a new F-series sales record.

Hank Murphy

 

I see your point. This vehicle is not aimed at the traditional pickup buyer at all. If Honda ever does decide to do a real 1/2 ton truck to compete against the domestics I'd be concerned if I were Ford/GM/Dodge. Honda does their homework and does a pretty good job when they bring out a new vehicle.

As far as Japanese trucks go though, the part that *should* make Ford/GM/Dodge wake up is that Nissan's first real full size truck has been a very credible effort. Toyota hasn't yet delivered a real full size truck...yet. Both Toyota and Nissan are quite capable of producing a good product. In the end though, the winner is the customer. With fresh competition, the domestics are going to be forced to move more quickly to improve their trucks and keep their marketshare. Until just recently I had been seeing more new Titans on the road than new F-150's. After seeing the new F-150's in person though I find it to be a more appealing truck than the Titan.

ps - I liked those old VW pickups. My uncle had one with 200k miles on it and it served really well as a (very) light duty truck.