Compared to domestics, europeans, other japanese cars
Someone told me stroke/rod ratio can someone explain it for me? im trying to get all the info i can get its for a lil paper im writing
thanks

 

Toyota Camry 2.2 http://www.rri.se/popup/perfor...D=332
Prelude/Accord dohc 2.2 http://www.rri.se/popup/perfor...D=494
Accord 2.0 sohc http://www.rri.se/popup/perfor...D=480
GM-Opel 2.2 http://www.rri.se/popup/perfor...D=570


They don't differ much...

 

well mostly because of it being a 4 cylinder smaller piston motor. smaller pistons usually mean higher revving. and less torque.

This is the very basics.

 

Current F1 engines produce somewhere between 250-290 lb-ft of torque with that figure peaking at around 14,500rpm. Expect bhp to peak around 3000rpm higher than the torque peak e.g. 17,500rpm, and the rev limiter to cut in a further 500-1000rpm higher than that.

In simple english: F1 dont have a lot of torque but a lot of HP and rev high with small pistons. I dare you to say an F1 isnt fast...

Just google it

 

i dont see how their so fast with only 290ftlbs^^6

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turbociv910 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i dont see how their so fast with only 290ftlbs^^6</TD></TR></TABLE>
They're light.

 

there's not alot in it for torque, go look at the torque numbers for a E36 325i bmw, that has 300cc more capacity and it still has comparable torque. you'll find rod ratio has a large part in it. near square bore lets it rev hard but doesn't help with low end torque to much

 

thats why its Hseries FTW...

 

displacement

 

stroke

 

displacement x stroke

 

bahahaha

 

compared to other honda motors we've got it pretty good. except for the fact our cars are heavy.

 

then why don't you make a tube frame

 

Jardolei is right that F1's are fast. When they had V10's they had 900hp, now they use 750hp V8's. They don't need that much torque because they're constantly revving above 12 rpm, the rev limiter is at 19k. and 300 ft-lbs of torque is plenty to get a 1500 lb. car rolling. They do 0-60 in 2.2 seconds. As a matter of fact, the Honda F1 car topped out at 271mph when they tested it.

As far as the torque in 4-cylinders, it's never going to be great in NA form (at least from the factory). More displacement = more torque.

 

Honda performance 4bangers are NA out of the factory while most other performance 4bangers have some sort of forced indution. However no other Factory NA 4 under 2.3 liters has as much power or torque as a Honda.

 

What "other" cars are we talking about here?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by pizzamanprelude &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">there's not alot in it for torque, go look at the torque numbers for a E36 325i bmw, that has 300cc more capacity and it still has comparable torque. you'll find rod ratio has a large part in it. near square bore lets it rev hard but doesn't help with low end torque to much</TD></TR></TABLE>

M50/m52 is an inline 6 with a much different setup not really a straight compairison.

 

domestic cars usually have big engines like 5.7, 6.0 v8s {camaro, corvette, mustang etc.} so they have more torque due to more displacement. most european cars have atleast a v6 like m3s, audis, VR6 and usually start at 3.0 liters, again more displacement. european 4 bangers are usually turbocharged like the VW/audi 1.8L turbo 4, forced induction can take the place of more displacement in a motor to make more torque. japanese cars other than honda are more or less the same way, turbo 4s like the MR2, subarus, silvias, rx7 {yes i know its rotary but its turbo} and 6 cylinder motors like 300zx, supra, skyline.

the point is most of the cars you mentioned have more torque because hondas dont have very much displacement. thats where you get your tirque from, other than winding the crap out of a motor. if youve ever seen how small a b16 piston is youd realize why theres no torque

 

Word. Hondas are still the best motors to ever grace this earth. What other company has made a 200hp NA I-4? If you can answer that, then what other company has made a 240hp NA I-4? What does this have to do with this post? I don't know, but I do know the next S2000 is going to have a 250hp K24, NA of course. (and that should make about 180ft-lbs of torque, I'm also guesstimating)

 

Celica motor hits the 100hp/liter mark.

Ferrari makes 490hp @ 8500rpms out of just 4.3 liters NA. This is from their cheapest car too.

Honda motors are great, but they're certainly not "the best motors to ever grace this earth." There is life outside of Honda ya know

 

Lol....I can't believe you're using the ferrari engine as an example....haha it certainly makes sense but the cost is also a factor here....

You would be challenged to find another engine that can keep up with the f20c as far as VE and hp/liter for the same cost....

Yes there is a life outside honda....I'm just glad I'm not a part of it...lol...we have (by far) the most information available to the hop-up cheap 4cyl cars crowd....not to say that it can't be done elsewhere but we definitely have more info at our disposal....and a better market

edit: and preludedriva, since this is a general question, use the general discussion and debate forum

 

I agree with you on those points, I just wanted to provide counterpoint to such a boastful statement. When I read it, it reminded me of the kinds of things I read on other car forums about how "their brand owns all."

And to continue with the technical aspect of this thread's question, I'd like to say that because of honda's engine efficiency, their horsepower figures tend to dwarf the torque figures they make.

Example:

When you hear about some random engine making 280hp and 270ft lbs., you don't think too much of it. Those numbers sound about right.

Then, you hear about a Honda 4-banger making 250hp, and then you hear it makes 166ftlbs 2000rpms away from redline and it makes it seem like it's out of proportion. It's making a lot of horsepower from efficiency, but it's displacement and rod/stroke ratio is still showing it's presence in the torque figure.

 

I agree with that also....I'm never really impressed with the b series builds....big hp and no torque = no fun

Honda big blocks ftw

 

ok is it smaller stroke for higher reving and more hp? and longer stroke for higher torque right?