I was wondering what I can add to the engine in order to increase the torque to 200 or over besides SC (05s.... get jacked)? Can this be achieved even with a SC?.. thanks in advance.

 

A supercharged AT TSX will put down about 160-165lb ft to the wheels, or somewhere around 190-195 at the crank. There's nothing else that will get you closer to 200ft lbs for less money.

 

I think the specs says the torque is 160@7000rpm. Let's say it is linear. 160/7 = 22 lb.ft per 1000 rpm. So, if you can set the red line to reach 9000 rpm, you should have 200 lb.ft of torque without adding anything.

 

The max. torque is measured at around 4500 or 4700 RPM. And it is not a linear relationship between the RPM and the torquet output; torque stays pretty much the same from 4,000 RPM to redline. I cannot remember exactly, do a search on the TSX dyno.

 

F = ma

We want F to be 200
m is constant.

So, how fast is the rpm before we can get 200 lb.ft of torque?

 

Sure, Force = mass * acceleration, and Torque = (length of arm)*(Force that is perpendicularly applied to the arm).

What is your point? What on earth are you comparing among all the different things you stated in your statement?? Please find me a equation define the relationship between acceleration and torque -- I don't think there is one.

Please go look up your Physics books and do a search for TSX dyno.

 

This is what I am thinking.

F = 200 lb.ft
m = constant (lb)
a = function of rpm (or ft/min if you cut the circle and lay it flat)



so...

200 lb.ft = m (lb) x a (ft/min)

So, what should "a" be to get to 200 lb.ft...

So, assuming it is linear, we can get 200 lb.ft with 9000 rpm.

However, since it is not linear in reality, this means that we need to punch it more than 9000 rpm before we can get 200 lb.ft of torque.

maybe 15,000 rpm to get 200 lb.ft of torque?

 

Force is never define in the unit of lb-ft like you said. You cannot just say Force=Torque, and Torque doesn't equal to acceleration either. I cannot even go through the equation you wrote. It gives me a headache.

I hate to talk to people who just pulling stuff from their behinds... and trying to justify what they say by using jargon; typically, the only achievement of these people is successfully butchering the words that make them sound smart.

Yes, "Reality" is the key word. In the real world that you and I live in, the toruqe output from TSX is clearly measured in the dynos. Look them up. It is really a simple thing to do.

 

Sorry bz268, but force =/= torque.

 

The right unit of force in English units will be lb (since weight is just a measure of mass*acceleration which is force), not lb*ft, btw.

 

Man, I gotta stop spamming. The relationship between an engine's torque and RPM is NOT linear. You can find dyno graphs and confirm it, as BusyShifter suggested.

 

The torque could only continue to increase with RPM if the induction and exhaust systems can keep up with the pace. Others far smarter than me in the field of engine tuning have determined that the K24 is not a good high-end breather (NA). Certainly, forced induction helps this, but only so much. Also, consider that @9000rpm, the pistons will be moving at 5850ft/min - faster than any production engine can manage.

 

if we can't increase "a", can we decrease "m" to get more torque?
for example, it takes certain amount of force to push the pistons down. If we use very light weight pistons, it will reduce the force wasted on the pistons.

How much more torque will we get if we make the pistons with titanium or anything that is very light.

 

The question here is which topic bz268 is more wrong about, engines or nav systems. I'm gonna go with engines.

 

You don't really push the pistons down, per se. It is the process of combustion that pushes the pistons up and rotates the shaft. I don't think the weight of the piston is any relevant (maybe it is, I am not sure...) to the combustion process.

 

sorry, but because torque is measured in rotatin crank
it isnot f=ma
more of...

M=I*alpha
M= moment (torque)
I=Inertia (very complicated due to irregular shape of components within the engine, but something like... (mr^2)/4 + mr_c^2
alpha = angular acceleration

not so simple now is it?

damn i hate myself for knowing this s**t

 

Sorry to chime in again, but it seems like you are confusing rpm (angular velocity) and angular accleration. rpm is speed, not accleration, so it's not matter of at which rpm you will make 200 ft*lb of torque, but how fast you will speed up the rpm that will determine your torque. along with other variables

 

/cheer

 

Physics understanding is nice and all, but book knowledge gets you no where without actually understanding the principal dynamics of an internal combustion engine. That guy somewhere in your hometown that failed out of highschool, but managed to supercharge his 66 nova with parts from autozone and ebay knows more about the applied science of engines than it seems you do.

 

I'm just sitting on the sidelines because what I want to say will definitely offend someone.

 

Wow. That was good for a laugh or two...I hope people weren't looking for any real information from this thread...other than the second post.

 

This is the result of siting in my office doing nothing all day. hahaha!

 

Oh yes. You are absolutely right. It is not how fast the engine is spinning. It is how fast the engine can reach a certain speed.

If the engine stay at 9000 rpm, there is no acceleration. If there is no acceleration, there is no torque. F=ma where a=0 -> F=0

So, can we use different fuel to make more torque? Use some fuel that has a higher density. So, when fuel is expanding, it has more mass to get more pressure to push the pistons harder.

Can we burn a mix of gasoline and diesel to get more mass?

 

High density gasoline, yes, but you are not getting enough oxygen in the intake charge, so all you will do is run rich and not make more power.

Run diesel mixed with gasoline? Try it on your own car and let us know if it feels more powerful.

 

Geez guys... instead of bitching about all of this mumbo jumbo, just take out your engine, weld on 2 more cylinder chambers, add pistons, connect to crank, and call it a day.

/thread.

 

To answer the original question....Supercharger, Turbocharger or Nitrous( ).

BTW....The stroke on the K24 is too long to efficiently rev over 8000 rpm without forced induction, there is just not enough time to fill the combustion chamber properly no matter what or who builds it. A modern F1 engine has a stroke of less than 40mm. A torque curve will always be a bell curve.

 

I woudln't feed my car with diesel cocktail to my car, the engine will hate you , but "increasing density" that's the basic idea behind Nitro Oxide, supercharger, and turbo.

and to tell you the truth, engine is not a simple machine. there are probably more than thousands of variables that can make huge impact to the engine's power, durability, and such. That's why honda hires engineers to R&D. And it takes more than few years and few millions of dollars to make an engine. So... basically what you are thinking has been already thought by the honda engineers and been scrapped

 

LOL first this guy says the $240 Garmin i3 is better than the stock Acura/Alpine. Now he thinks he can apply F = ma to an internal combustion chamber/crankshaft, or better yet suggesting that force=torque. hahahaha.
Anyway, force does not equal torque, mass would likely be the mass of the car, not of the fuel even if you CAN apply f=ma because afterall it's the mass of the car that is accelerating, not the fuel. The fuel is merely there to convert chemical energy to mechanical energy. MIXING diesel in???? That would knock the hell out of your engine and destroy it due to pre-mature ignition. FINALLY, although you switch to lower gear to increase your RPM, there is a point where the power coming out of the engine tops out and so the torque curve would drop instead of keep rising. I mean, assuming what you say is true that all you have to do is increase the RPMs, does that mean that all we have to do is somehow put in smaller high gear (ie via an 8-speed automatic or something) and miraculously we get 30 lb-ft more of torque??? NO

 

Force =/= lbf-ft...Force is measured in lbf, N, etc.....lbf-ft is the unit for Torque which has an equation of Torque [lbf-ft] = radius[ft] * Force[lbf]

"so...

200 lb.ft = m (lb) x a (ft/min)"

incorrect because ur units are totally messed here already... [lbf.ft] =/= [lb] * [ft/min]

IF i'm doing hwat you are doing...my 'so called torque unit' is supposed to be [lbf.ft/min] which isn't what you stated

also, acceleration does not have a unit of [ft/min] thats velocity...acceleration is in [ft/min^2] then this just ends your interpretation here coz it's totally wrong..haha im sorry

 

You wont see 200 lb/ft to the wheels out of a K24 without going FI. The Comptech supercharger kit would be the most straightforward way. A stock 06+ 6MT puts maybe 145-150 lb/ft to the wheels, so you wouldnt get there with bolt-ons.

 

Sho-one's 04 MT with Comptech SC, CT Header, and Injen CAI put down 189 tq to the wheels. If he were to add RT Cat to that setup I'm guessing you could get to around 195 tq to the wheels. An 06 MT with same mods might put down close to 200 though, I haven't seen a dyno of a 06 MT with Comptech SC yet though.

 

do u kno wat force is??

 

This guy has to be a parody poster. Has to be.

Kid, give it up. Go back to school and get ready for action/reaction. F=MA does not and will not ever = torque.

Obviously you never owned an F-150 with a 351 or anything of that nature. You'd know then that RPMs have very little to do with torque in a general sense. It has to do with tuning of the motor, etc etc etc.

Thanks for the laughs though.

 

Keep digging

 

absolutely, I am almost digging through there to the other side to China.

The truck has massive torque because it has massive Mass to push the pistons. So, it doesn't have to have big "a"... I guess... as I am making this shit up...

So this is the same thing F = ma; where m = really big.
If you have big "m", you don't need big "a" to get big "F".

 

please take physics, i think physics has more than F=ma...if i remember correctly

 

Must resist.

 

 

you guys are so beyond relevant...

 

Posting on a legendary thread, again!