I dont want to get flamed or anything... Most of you know i already posted that i was planning to do a swap. The major problem is that i really dont know what i want. Do i want speed power or pulling power.

When i look up the stats about the honda engines i see that most of its engines have poor torque compared to other companies. Sure making 160hp on a b16 has it limits of torque since it a 1.6l. But a ls makes 145hp and +or- 134 lbs of torque
and this one is a 1.8l

So with some reasoning i figured...hell more gas =more torque? no???

yet then again...d16a6 with a turbo has a almost a 1-1 hp/torque ratio...(taking in consideration that there was no fuel/ injector mod)
which throws me again off balance.

if someone could enlighten me on these 2 things....i would really appreciate it..

-RockWolf

 

has alot to do with the rod/stroke ratios of engines..

why dont you do both speed power and pulling power? ls turbo!!! or ls vtec or b20vtec ,etcetc

 

its because i still care about the mpg of the car... that is why

...i dont want to spend more money to lose more money

If someone could still take their time and explain it to me ^^

 

Solution = Type R (B18C5)

Good HP good TQ, worth the money.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ludesrv &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Solution = Type R (B18C5)

Good HP good TQ, worth the money.</TD></TR></TABLE>


TQ isnt really all that good and i wouldnt say its worth the money.....ls bottom has more tq easily

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RockWolf &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">its because i still care about the mpg of the car... that is why

...i dont want to spend more money to lose more money

If someone could still take their time and explain it to me ^^</TD></TR></TABLE>

if you dont want to spend any money then you shouldnt even have made this thread..cause you're gonna have to spend money to get both tq and hp with a honda 4 cylinder.......

but to answer your question the b16 makes less tq because 1st of all its only 1.6 ltr and also has a rod stroker ratio not made for tq but more made for revving.......But it makes power because of the head....

the ls makes more tq because of the higher displacement and also the different rod stroke ratio (these motors make more tq then the itr) but it doesnt have that much power because of the head,,,,,,so what to do? lsvtec and be done with it

 

vtec-e (economy) d15z1 turbo great gas mileage and still smashes

 

Just remember that you feel torque when you floor the gas pedal. You don't really feel the HP. So if you want to feel it kick you in the rear when you floor it, get something with torque.
Or just put a Jackson Racing Supercharger on it. They are super simple to install, maint free and have good torque from off idle to redline. $0.02





Modified by Speed--Freak at 8:44 AM 8/11/2006


Modified by Speed--Freak at 10:22 AM 8/11/2006

 

Build a poor mans type-r, Gsr block, pr3 pistons, and a b16 head. You'll get great compression wich will lead to good hp and tq numbers.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Speed--Freak &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Just remember that you feel torque when you floor the gas pedal. You don't really feel the HP. So if you want to feel it kick you in the rear when you floor it, get something with torque.
Or just put a Jackson Racing Supercharger on it. They are super simple to install, maint free and have good torque from off idle to redline. $0.02
</TD></TR></TABLE>

hmm ls supercharged....anyway i will keep on dreaming.

So a car with tons of horsys and no torque.....you will be going very fast but will not feel a thing?

yeah well i wont be boosting this engine...it burning oil so i wont make it worst..

 

You need to understand the two terms better in order to know what you want. Horsepower is the amount of work that can be done over a period of time. 1 HP = 33,000 ft pounds of force over one minute. Meaning that a 1 HP motor can move 33,000 pounds 1 foot over in 1 minute. What the hell does that have to do with engines you ask?

To see how much HP an engine has you have to calculate how much work its doing at what RPM. This mesurement is torque. A dyno will test how much torque an engine makes and since it knows what RPM the engine is at it can calculate HP.

HP = (torque * RPM)/5252

That's why HP and torque will always cross at 5252 RPMs on a dyno chart.

What does this mean? If you make 100 ft.lbs of torque at 5252 RPM you make 100 hp at 5252 RPM. If you make the same 100 ft.lbs of torque at 7500 RPM you're making 148 HP at 7500 RPM. You're still doing the same amount of work, just at a higher RPM level.

Typically small N/A engines will make low amounts of torque. If they're made to rev high they can put out lots of HP. The opposite is true with very large turbo diesel engines. How can a TD truck tow so much moire weight than a V8 truck when it makes less HP? Torque is the answer. High torque and low RPMs means low HP numbers.

So what do you want? In a light car you can get away with low levels of torque as long as you can rev high and make higher HP. You use gearing that optimizes the high RPM ranges. How do you think a 600cc motorcycle can put out more HP than a 1600cc car engine? Because it happens at very high RMP.

For instance the Honda CBR600RR puts out 117 hp at 12,500 RPM, but only has 49.9 ft.lbs. at 10,000 RPM. In contrast a D16Y7 puts out 106 hp at 6200 RPM and 103 ft.lbs at 4600 RPM. What do you think would be better in a Civic? The one with more HP?

So what do you need? Something in between. Something that has enough torque to get you moving and enough RPM to allow you to run closer ratio gearing so you can use the torque more efficiently. I'm not even going to get into "area under the curve" but that's another aspect of it. Since Honda engines typically rev high they're going to have higher HP numbers than Torque numbers. If you compare a 1.6L B16A to a 1.8L B18B you see that the 1.6 has more HP, but it will have less torque (it revs higher).

If you have a light car you can get away with lower torque. If your car is heavy you will like to have more torque.

Just remember. Torque moves cars, HP sells cars.

 

Nice post 'nonsense'

Most people, including myself, are going to say go for some more torque since it makes the car more responsive. That's why I have an H23vtec in my EF hatch.

 

Holy .....wow...simply wow...that was the answer that i needed....nonsense...i love you...i mean....thank you very much.

so a b18c that would rev higher would have more hp than it has right now....

so if i understood everything....hp is how much of the torque is applied at a certain rpm /5252(which is the magic number)...sweet.

its clears my mind....il go ls all the way

 

Great post nonesense, thats a great explanation

 

Nonsense has it completely correct.. good job for posting the good info The ls with a few mods would be nice. I would assume that a b16 tranny would be a good help also.

 

Actually i have a question and figured this would be a good place to ask.

you say that hp = (torque * rpm) / 5252, why then do cars not always make their peak power at redline? Just askin, thought you might know the answer, its been bothering me, noone else seems to know.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ~sp33~ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">why then do cars not always make their peak power at redline?</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is really obvious. Almost every stock car makes the most power somewhere other than the redline in its powerband. In a world where all engines are made by the same specifications, including cam lift, compression, and weight throughout the entire car, everyone would have peak power at a certain point.

We have yet to find a practical efficent design of a combustion engine. Of course we have to account who makes the cars we use. They are certainly not aiming for perforamce over cost. V8s have loads of torque all at once, but their individual design puts high RPM operation and the ability to carry the power that high in the first place, far from stock. Likewise, inline fours have the ability to push a lot of out of a little because of rotating mass and aswell, design. It would be nice to have an inline four or eight with a huge displacement, but this would defeat the purpose of the Vertical design; to fit those extra 4 cylinders under the hood comfortably. Ever seen an inline six, they aren't the smallest.

Most economical cars are designed with smaller engines with more displacement and a camshaft(s) that is optimized to give most of the punch when your under 4,000 RPMS. If your in a Hyundai Elantra Wagon, who needs to hit 6,500? If you can have that extra power at the beginning of the tachometer, that means the engine will need to give less effort on the most used speed of the engine; in other words, less wear because of low RPM operation, as well as improved gas efficency because of less load. Basicly, if you use your brain just a little bit, you will find out.

In other words, I wish I could have a engine with torque and HP...a bored and sleeved B16 with stage 3 camshafts should do the trick!

 

Im not asking why dont cars have their power at redline. Its obvious that power low down is much more useful. What im saying is according to that formula, torque *RPM /5252, why dont all cars peak power occur at redline. Seeing that the higher the rpm, the bigger the power figures are going to be. But thats not always right.

@drsquish, you took my reply out of context. I was refering it to the formula.

 

I know exactly what you are saying sp33,


remember that the camshaft turns simultaneously to the engine, more specifically the pistons. Well, depending on the camshaft, lift, vacuum created, there comes a point when you rev so high that the valves are not open long enough to completely fill the cylinders and thus, you see the HP/TQ go down (alhtough the RPMS are still going up)

Does that make sense?


Also as mentioned above about the HP/TQ, that's right.

HP does not actually exist, it cannot be measured. HP is simply an equation derived from TQ and time. Only TQ can be measured.

Also, remember don't pay attention to peak numbers, I know you've probably heard it before, but I know it and I still fall victim to PEAK numbers.

 

thanks man ^^ thats what i wanted to know.

 

it's about time a thread with good info come out and not a single flame came outof it i think i learned my lesson of car stuff for the day.

 

damn....thats damn good **** to know about HP/TQ. never thought of it that way. NONSENSE.....you are a motha phucking "G"

 

Ive got the torque figures of a car, along with what rpm its doing, but when i put them into the formula.. the power reading doesnt match up to the magazine i got it out of. Im assuming im doing something wrong.

Honda civic sport '06.

138.64 lb/ft @4200rpm therefore:

(138.64*4200)/5252 = 110.87HP

but the book states it has 152HP@6200rpm.

So i tried (138.64*6200)/5252 = 163HP

Am i doing it right? and is this formula just a rough guestimate?

 

im guessing since mathmatics are presicse the fourmula should be right
but what magazines post isnt always true so i think go with the math!

 

some of the figures differ by up to 50hp lol.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ~sp33~ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ive got the torque figures of a car, along with what rpm its doing, but when i put them into the formula.. the power reading doesnt match up to the magazine i got it out of. Im assuming im doing something wrong.

Honda civic sport '06.

138.64 lb/ft @4200rpm therefore:

(138.64*4200)/5252 = 110.87HP

but the book states it has 152HP@6200rpm.

So i tried (138.64*6200)/5252 = 163HP

Am i doing it right? and is this formula just a rough guestimate?</TD></TR></TABLE>

After peak torque at 4200 rpm, the torque #'s begin to drop, not stay flat. So at the peak hp of 6200 rpm the torque is not 138.64 ft/lb. It's going to be (152*5252)/6200= 128.76 ft.lbs.