Guys I read some crazy news on BMW's website, the new 3 and 5 series both received 4 cylinder engines as opposed to the traditional inline 6. The car makes 240HP at full power but the number I'm interested in the torque; 260 foot pounds to be exact @ 1,250 RPM!!! WTF it doesn't matter if you have a 300HP TL the BMW will take you off the line every time. Our cars don't make full torque until about 4800 RPM. Is there anything I could do to improve my torque figures?

 

A small turbo is probably your only real option.

My 2002 civic si with a 2.0l 4 cylinder had ~200ft-lbs of torque at the wheels at a little over 2300rpm with the greddy turbo kit (it has a tiny turbo).

All other power mods available pretty much shift power up further in the powerband, and the comptech supercharger builds boost linearly.

 

Shoehorn a Duramax between your TL's fenders?

Seriously though, you bought the wrong car if you're looking for that shove in the back grunt.

 

power comes on at 4700k!

 

nitro? iono

 

TURBO.......there problem solved

 

the J&R turbo kit will provide everything you are looking for.

 

BOLT-ONS - JPIPE (xlr8) - and a catback will give you torque but will never be above your HP power even if your going turbo route. Unless go get an EVO/STI/BMW if you want TQ over HP figures.

Like Anx stated, your in the wrong platform if that's what you're looking for.

 

For low end torque I'd recommend a lightweight crank pulley and our XLR8 j-pipe.

 

MDX spacer...

cost $80 and gets you almost 8-10WTQ low end

 

honda is one the last places to look if you want torque.

The bmw makes power like that with a small turbo

 

http://web.archive.org/web/200805270...om/tqvshp.html

So how fast/quick are you trying to go?

 

Torque is measured, hp is torque over time. More rpms=more torque over time if the torque remains constant.

Both are important but I prefer low end torque for a relaxed daily driver. I hate the fact that you have to downshift two gears in the TL just to maneuver around in traffic.

For a pure race car, higher hp is usually better but the area under the curve is very important as well. Higher hp/low torque is more temperamental, usually harder to launch, more sensitive to gear ratios. If you have an auto you'll need a higher stall converter to put the car in the powerband right away or it will suck off the line. This is one reason most high torque domstic cars are just as quick with the auto as they are the manual yet the TL has a pretty large difference.

I have literally had a Mustang GT racing me in my GN that puts down 620lbs of torque at 2,800rpm and I had no idea he was racing me, rpms never went over 2,800 and it wasn't until he congratulated me on the win that I knew he was racing. The low end torque makes it move effortlessly. I can accelerate uphill in top gear to go around people and never have to think about downshifting.

To get any appreciable additional torque out of a small engine and to do it at a lower rpm will usually require forced induction. You can make small gains but you'll never have 300lbs at 1,500rpm without a turbo. You must increase displacement to do this so a larger engine or artificial displacement (turbo) is the way to go.

Check out a 335 BMW or 911 turbo Porsche if you want to see what a properly implemented turbo can do for ultra low rpm torque on a small engine. What ever rpm the turbo can produce full boost at is going to be your torque peak with rare exception.

 

It should be mentioned that F1 cars have very closely spaced gears and are able to be kept in their powerband all the time. The lack of weight helps a lot as well.

 

Personally I feel the weight of the car, as well as aspiration, delivery preference and even gearing are all irrelevant in such a discussion. 750hp is 750hp. Doesn't matter if it's being produced at 2000rpm or 10,000rpm. But when it comes to the discussion of torque, it MUST be qualified by rpm (ie 300lb/ft @ 2000rpm) otherwise it's completely meaningless. And then in doing this, you are actually expressing power even though you may not realize it.

You could have 1000 lb/ft of torque.....but if it's only at 1000rpm, that's only 190hp.

The 620lbs of torque at 2,800rpm you mentioned really only means 330hp. Suddenly it's not that impressive. But if it maintains ~600lb/ft up to 5000rpm, suddenly were talking about 571hp. Suddenly it makes perfect sense why that setup was so quick.

The truth is it's all about the "power band" and being able to maximize it with your setup (especially gearing).

 

I've only got a minute to post...

On paper, sure, hp wins. But you don't see F1 engines in OTR diesel trucks even though F1 has the same and more hp but 1/10th the torque.

Your last line was the most important. You have to have the gearing (and torque converter if auto) to take advantage of the more narrow powerband of a high hp, low torque engine. You end up with cars like an S2000 that can potentially run a decent 1/4 mile time but most drivers can't get them off the line right because the launch is nearly impossible to master. In my car, I can get caught in between gears, not downshift, or generally screw up and it doesn't hurt my times that much. In the TL, I feel like I've blown a race if I shift 100hp too early. Anyway, I left a lot out but I need to get out of here, it's my Friday.

 

Do a mdx swap & that's your answer there. They make TQ from about 25k rpm all the up same hp. Then add bolt on's for more hp

 

Uh....don't you think that might have more to do with cost & longevity? :/

But again all you said is irrelevant. Lets say a 300hp turbo-diesel maxed out 1st gear at 30mph. Next we take a 700hp F1 setup made to max out 1st gear at 30mph as well. Which setup....mounted in a pickup.....do you think would pull a double wide harder?








Answer: F1 setup would pull 233% harder because it makes 233% more power.

 

My far feels plenty fast, I honestly don't even want to know how much HP or Torque I have as long as it's fun to drive.

 

You're stuck in theory and trailer queens. I suggest going to the drag strip and see how many all motor low torque/high rpm street driven Civics are competitive. I read about these legendary cars but I've never seen one in real life at the strip and definitely not on the street. It's just not a setup that works.

Weight is very relevant, look around you. It makes a low torque car a little more tolerable in daily driving.

In your scenario, the F1 setup would have more peak acceleration but while it's ramping up to the 10,000rpm or so before it even begins making respectable power, the other setup is out of sight. Once you get the F1 setup into it's powerband it will have more peak acceleration but no production gearbox is going to have the proper gearing to keep it in it's powerband so it falls on it's face again at the shift.

My scenario was an attempt to show you that as vehicle weight goes up, engines tend to get larger and are tuned for low end torque/less peak hp. Manufacturers of trucks don't use a small NA V6 with a 10,000 rpm redline making 400hp and a 15 speed gearbox, they use a 6.2L V8 making 400hp and tons of torque and power throughout the rev range, more average power, a fatter usable powerband. Who wants to be constantly shifting in order to do what the higher torque engine will do in a single gear? More area under the curve has many advantages.

In the real world I've seen it many times. The first Viper GTS I've ever raced was when I was very close to stock and he would pull a few feet on me at the top of each gear but my car was always near peak hp and I did a steady walk away from him even though he would edge up on me in each gear for a second.

When my car was bone stock and I would run the LT1 cars there was always a point in their second gear where they would pull a few feet on me. They had more peak power but I was always in my powerband, more average power to the wheels.

So I'll say it again, peak hp is great in theory or in highly specialized racing where you have the necessary components to keep the engine in it's narrow powerband. However, 6,000rpm stall converters are not practical on the street, and your clutch is going to hate you on an "optimal" launch. Not many cars I know of come from the factory with optimal gearing for racing which I don't blame them, the owner would be shifting like crazy.

What manufacturers do for real life is sacrifice a little top end power for a fatter powerband with more bottom end torque (or add a turbo so you can have your cake and eat it too) that is more forgiving and likely quicker with typical gearing. So if a compromise is made in gearing which it always is and the engine drops a few extra rpm on a shift, it's no big deal on the higher torque engine with the fat powerband but it is a big deal on the peaky high rpm engine.

As you said, if my car makes 330hp at it's stall speed of 2,800rpm, you can see how it's pleasant to drive and how very little shifting is required. It has power everywhere on the tach, the power is there the second you hit the gas. Take a NA 3.5L making the same peak hp and punch the gas at 2,800rpm in any gear and see what kind of pull it has.

Going back to the OP, he's right, the BMW in question would destroy a TL off the start due to it's superior low end torque assuming BMW is even remotely competent of providing a suitable gear ratio. Anyone who has driven a Honda product whether it's a TL, Civic, or NSX knows they lack low end power.

So for a trailer queen, go for the max hp. For a fun, quick street car, look at area under the curve or average power.

 

Great info and great post, Matt. To the point and a lot nicer than I expected, to be honest. You guys both help us out a lot and already have our respect. Just agree to disagree...

 

If you want torque you should not have bought an acura... I love high strung engines I find them more fun. I strongly hate turbos because they ruin the sound of any engine in my opinion, try a supercharger I really doubt a 335 can beat a supercharged tl let alone a lowly 328. There is a manual supercharged 3g on youtube running 13.1 a 335 runs a 13.4. Also keep in mind that because of fwd the tl is hindered off the line but if the race would continue passed the 1/4 the tl would continue to pull farther away from the BMW because traction would stop being an issue.

 

If I were purchasing a car for it's ability to beat other cars in a straight line, the TL wouldn't be my first pick.

The TL is a lot of things, but street sweeper isn't one of them.

 

But thats the fun of tuning taking something unexpected and making it a monster. Im jealous of you j32 tl guys you have a turn key supercharger and a turn key turbo. I would kill for a comptech blower with a real warranty that didn't require me to spend tons of cash on custom pieces to make it fit.

 

The ignorance is strong. Turbos ruin the sound? I think you're in the minority here but that's ok. High strung NA engines are personal preference but are usually the worst choice if winning is the goal.

You're comparing two totally different cars, far from a turbo vs supercharger comparison. Does the supercharged TL make 300lbs of torque at 1,500rpm, didn't think so. Remind me, what does a 335 run with just a tune? Deep 12s. Want to rethink your logic?

Care to guess how many blown engines were a result of the supercharger improperly implemented? Those cars ran harder than they should have because the tune was extremely aggressive......because there was no tune. A 335 will run 13s all day, every day. It will run high 11s just as reliably as it ran 13s when stock.

You saw one supercharged TL run low 13s and now you think that means superchargers are better? Have you seen the 14 second supercharged TLs? I can show you 2 500whp TLs on this board and I don't think a single one has made under 400whp. Since we're posting in absolutes, since my turbo car runs deep in the 10s which is quicker than the supercharged TL you mention, I conclude that turbos are better than all.

I don't care what's better between the two, it's actually application specific, I'm just pointing out the huge flaws in your "logic" and your assumptions.

 

Something like this lol
Check out this video on YouTube:



Sent from my iPhone

 

Turbos sound like vacuum cleaners, My friend who has an evo that runs low 12s admits that as much as his car is faster he wishes he had my sound. He even calls his car the mitsubishi blender. And 2 OP has a TL and is saying that a bmw will beat him off the line so therefore a comparison between a tl that is supercharged and a 335 is perfectly in line. Another thing that I forgot to mention is the fact that you wont ever have to worry about a 335 running 12s because itll probably go into limp mode because of a faulty fuel pump. Superchargers are better in my opinion because they offer linear power similar to the power band of an N/A set up. But once again OP was asking how he could essentially beat a 328 off the line I gave him my response which I believe is the best one. This is a forum where people are allowed to express their opinions I personally think turbos are garbage which is the reason I purchased my car over a 135 even if the 135 is faster. This isnt even a supercharger vs turbo thing but a "how do I make my acura faster than a bmw" thing.

 

Your turbo friend is simplying trying to not make you feel bad bro, turbo exhaust sounds way better IMO depending on what exhausts they go. The low growl is what is sexy about them vs a high pitch N/A sound.

 

who let the special kid in!?

 

There should be a minimum IQ test before you're allowed to register. Set the bar at 40 and this dude would not be bothering us.

 

My best friend has a fairly modded 335 and it drives just like stock and runs high 11s. No issues so try and speak of things you have experience with, not 4th hand info.

You can't say one setup has a more "linear" powerband than the other. You're stuck in 1990 when turbos were laggy. In the present, many turbo setups make full torque by 1,500rpm and some of the fattest and most linear power deliveries in history, more linear than your typical NA engine.

Turbos are garbage. You enjoy your 200whp, I'll enjoy my 602whp and I'll try not to think about how much better yours sounds when I'm driving mine.

 

I'm known as the dumb Rockstar...but I think that'll blow over.
I don't know anyone in their right mind that doesn't love the sound of a turbo...especially since if you're truly hearing the turbo, that also means your back is being pressed into the seat, your hair is on end, and your dk just moved.

First fast car I ever got to play with, my long time friend's uncle's turbo 280Z...boosting something like 26 pounds...when the turbo spooled...the car went slightly sideways in 2nd...I'll never forget that feeling.

 

THIS !!!

this is the reply Paul (NAV6 something) gave me couple years back and since then I have been modding the shit out of my car....

i recently ran an Audi S5 and put couple car lengths on it (to give the other car a benefit of doubt, I had a jump on HER....yes it was a chic driving)....but either way the feeling of having a 4D sedan which can run with/beat cars like the S5 and the older V8 mustangs is just priceless....

i can only imagine what the Turbo-ed/SC-ed/engine build guys feel....i would like to feel that way down the line

 

I agree. When I first got my car in '94 as a barely 17yr old kid it was a special time. The car was somewhat known but many of the old timers doubted it's potential. Turbos were not common and not respected. There was no such thing as a V6 that would hang with a well built V8. I can't tell you how many times I had to pop the hood and let them count the plug wires. There were many pissed off muscle car owners. When me and my father would pull into Sonic in our GNs (his was a 10 second car back in the late '90s which was unheard of then), we would get weird looks, some curious and none could understand it. Our cars were quiet and well mannered, the opposite of most of the others at the time. Back then they just didn't understand. We were the outcasts but it was really fun.

 

I thought this was a discussion about hp vs torque. Now it's devolved into NA vs Turbo vs SC. I'm bringing it back for a second.

Some implied torque is king, yet IHC touted a figure of 602 horsepower. It's a little confusing. If Torque was the most important, then turbo diesel pickups would be king of the road. But they are not simply because they don't have enough rpm to make use of their huge torque numbers. They simply don't make POWER. If they did, they could be geared much shorter for crazy acceleration. Now when you combine huge torque figures with some rpm and suddenly you end up with 602hp and low 10's (given a proper gear setup). IHC even mentioned the guy with the pure torque setup lost to his high-power setup and he didn't even know he was in a race.

Again my original point was this....The value of torque by itself is meaningless until you bring time (rpm) into the equation. But once you do that, your really talking about POWER weather you want to or not. Weather it's at the low end power, high end power, or right down the middle.

Again on the subject of power vs torque, here's a neat chart I found that illustrates wheel torque when gearing (rpm, gear, final drive & tire size) comes into play. See how much torque the Integra R can actually lay down in each gear. This is all due to it's high rpm power nature. If the rpm was less, the gears would have to be longer and the torque would be much lower still maxing out at the same speeds. But because the R engine continues to make power to high rpm (~8500rpm), you are able to gear it much shorter than your average Integra. This multiplies the torque and allows the Integra R to be a lot more fun RELATIVE TO a 1.8L RS Integra, which has slightly more displacement (more stroke) and makes slightly more torque.



Now I'm not trying to say it's better than, faster than, more fun..... compared to some street dragster, or even a Turbo R. I'm directly comparing a higher power R to a higher torque RS Integra. Same chassis, same engine. Very different power band, gearing and driving experience. I think that's pretty fair.

Did that help my cause any? What do you think? Maybe I'm talking out of my butt.

 

^^^ thats why i miss your old sig....

"its just a V6" haha....

 

Sean....i think you both are right on this one....

Tq is what helps you get off the line and HP is what keeps you moving....

IMO, you need MORE TQ to get upto 60 and you need more HP to maintain that....once the vehicle is in motion and the dynamic weight of the car goes down, you do not need as much TQ as HP to keep it moving....hence having low end TQ is very important and equally important is having high end HP....

 

Yes it's two distinct schools of thought.

Just keep in mind that just as you can add torque to get to 60 quicker, you can ALSO maintain the same torque and add more rpm. Because of the increased rpm you can gear shorter and get to 60 quicker because you have still boosted torque into the road. Do you see? Obviously it's the more expensive way to go if your modding....especially for big numbers or low ET's. But it definitely works. It's part of what has made high-performance Honda's special since the late 80's. It's also why so many people hate on Hondas. It's just different.....and doesn't seem to make sense to everyone.

There are pros & cons to either fashion, and it all depends on personal preference (or rules of competition). What exactly does each person want form their car. Ask 10 different people, get 10 different answers.

 

When did this become a flame war? am I not allowed to be entitled to my opinion? Which is why I purchased my car in the first place. Now I am not going to pretend I know the equations for tq to hp and what not but op wanted to beat a 328 off the line so I gave him my response. Just because I dont like turbos doesnt mean that what I said wouldnt still get the job done. Correct me if I am wrong but just because I dislike turbo chargers and I hate cars has a turbocharged Grand National he has taken great offense to my personal opinion on the matter which he really has no place to take offense to. Also Ill take my n/a screech over a bassy turbo any day! I love my j series I just wished it revved higher so I could hear it sing for longer.

 

Try not to let it get to you. It's just the internet. It took me several years on this forum just to get people to consider listening to me. Gotta pay your dues I guess. :\

I too agree turbo's sound weird. The "shift & sneeze" thing is silly too. I've preferred NA power ever since I watched NHRA Pro Stock as a kid. I was into the "idea" of building a turbo Honda right up until my friend started dumping thousands into modifying his own cars. When I saw how much it cost to correctly upgrade factory turbo'd Mitsu's, I was really put off. They were very very fast, but not nearly as much fun to drive around as one would think. Plus both cars were plagued with random issues all the time. In fact he still prefers his currently bone-stock STi to his old 450whp EVO. After that I decided I would drop a hassle-free stock NA Type-R motor into my Civic (yes expensive too). Ever since then I've been hooked. The sound, the response, the gearing.....everything. I was in love. When we went for those first rides in the car with nothing but the cat bolted to the header, everyone was blown away. Each of my friends kept saying they had no idea how fast the car was cause they were so blown away by the sound. And this is coming from guys with modded turbo Volkswagen's and Mitsu's. It's fun in it's own way, and each of them really enjoys my car (as I enjoy theirs). BTW: NONE of them still have their project cars.

I don't race the car whatsoever. My goal was to simply build a decent all-around sports car for relatively little money. 36mpg, 200hp, 8500rpm, loud as hell, and completely stock reliability (only bolt-ons). I achieved my goal and am extremely satisfied with the results. Next project is working on the steering system.