Water-S

I know this has been beat to death many of times. TQ vs HP. The thing is I got a friend with a Integra GS-R built to the MAX(he re did the motor and bored it out put in a bigger turbo,ported polished heads, exhaust of course, intake, even larger intake manifold) forged bottom end,carbon fiber hood, he's taken out some of the interior. However he got it out of storage and tuned it up this weekend. so I went out with him tonight. to see how it's running. don't get me wrong the car sweet.
however there was another buddy of mine has a new GTO with a 6 speed (bone stock) and keep in mind I bet my bud has 7-10 grand in mods in his GS-R so it would be a pretty even run.
I stood outside of the cars and watched no matter what my buddy with the modded GS-R did he couldn't touch the GTO out of the hole. He'd adjust his fuel management system,he'd adjust his v-tec controler, he'd try shifting at lower and higher RPMs. they run about 1/8 of a mile. and yes I know duh, the GTO got a 400 hp motor. the Integra was kind of slow out of the hole but once that turbo spooled and he was getting going he was slowly catching the GTO.
My thing question is I like import cars(both german and japan cars) so why is that is that companies like Honda and Acura don't address TQ as much as HP.
For example you look at a torque monster like the E55 AMG. it makes over 500 ft lbs of tq. out of a gas motor that's crazy IMO. Honda's biggest torque motor is the RL with about 265 lbs of torque. which I know compariable to a E350 torque #s.
However I was disappointed in the new M5's torque rating under 400 ft lbs of torque for a v-10 is weak. the hp rating is awesome. I haven't ridden in one or driven a new M5 but that's my bitch about Honda/Acuras they make all their hp on top end. being shot out of the starting line is almost intoxicating.

Sarlacc

Because Honda/Acura is all about making smaller displacement motors with higher outputs.

mrdeeno

i think it's because Acura is trying to make do with what it has and go its "own" way.

for some applications, high hp/low torque is good and gives the car character...like the new SI or s2000. These cars have to be geared to maximize the torque available, and the fact that Honda makes great manual trannies adds to the character.

but for larger cars like the accord, TL, RL, etc...more torque is needed to get the car moving.

think of a dump truck with a diesel...it has mounds of torque, but probably very little HP.

Honda's larger cars and trucks aren't deficient in torque or HP in anyway and acceleration is sufficient for each car's function.

But unfortunately honda doesn't live in a vacuum, and the only reason that it "seems" that Hondas are low on torque is because, like you are doing, Honda and Acura engines are being compared to engines with ridiculous amounts of torque/hp. No car needs anywhere near this amount of torqe/hp...but then again we live in the land of conspicuous consumption...when was the last time you bought something you REALLY needed?

I think the new M5 engine is trying to be the best of both worlds...have enough torque for exhilerating performance at lower RPMs, but have the capability to wind the engine to higher RPMs for the same character as race engine. I think Honda engines are trying to be the same...but on a much much lower scale.

Maximized

Honda builds low displacement, short stroke engines. Hence, why their engines usually lack tq. I think have finally realized this and thus this is why we are seeing rumors of a V8 or V10.

CLpower

exactly, ultimately there is no replacement for displacement, and displacement creates good torque. I'm suprised your buddies GS-R got beat like that though, can he drive? I got my but handed to me in my GTO against an Naturally Aspirated civic hatch about a month ago on the hwy



as far as the E55 goes, you are looking at a supercharged motor, which are notorious for a ton of torque, the V10 of the M5 isn't a HUGE displacement motor, also remember it's a very high revving motor.

Maximized

Yea the E55 has a Lysholm(Sp?) supercharger which produces large amounts of torque off idle. Screw superchargers love to make torque.

synth19

I prefer high torque and high hp.

CLpower

then why are you driving a 350Z

synth19

^ bitch. :P give me a few more months...

Water-S

good luck finding a car that has both hp and high torque under 60-70 grand.

CLpower

GTO has 400-400 and most dyno around 350 HP @ 5500 and 350 lb ft from 2000 to about 4500 and is still making 300+ at 6K

Water-S

another car you look at as far as torque is the new Benz E320CDI. 369 ft lbs of torque. however it does 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. whch is equal to a Mini Cooper S convertible.

SSMTL01

I'm sure fuel economy plays a big part in this as well

CLpower

diesal turbo motors are notorious for a ton of torque. It probably only makes like 200 HP




edit: My guess was off by 1 hp, it makes 201

CLpower

gearing is the biggest part of fuel economy. For example, vettes are known for getting 25+ mph, i've seen 30 on my dads C5.


My GTO while still weighing 3800 lbs has seen 24-25 and avg's about 20 which is what I got in my first gen CL

Sly Raskal

iTrader: (1)

mattg

my car makes mad TQ, yo.

synth19

jerk!

SteVTEC

It's much much much more complicated than that. At least if you're talking about V-6's, displacement for displacement, Honda J's tend to have relatively narrower bore and longer stroke than almost every competing engine. But the longer stroke does not necessarily give a torque advantage, nor does a shorter one give it a disadvantage. At least on street engines. The Nissan VQs have always been known as torquey engines, but displacement vs displacement compared to Honda, they have extremely short strokes.

Bore x Stroke

3.0L class
Nissan VQ30: 3.66 x 2.89 in
Honda J30: 3.39 x 3.39 in
Toyota 1MZ: 3.44 x 3.27 in

3.5L class
Nissan VQ35: 3.76 x 3.20 in
Honda J35: 3.50 x 3.67 in
Toyota 2GR: 3.70 x 3.27 in

Even comparing similar domestic and German V-6 engines you'll find about the same thing. The J's tend to have lower bore to stroke ratios.


The advantage of going with a longer stroke engine is not so much a torque advantage but rather an efficiency advantage. A longer stroke means a narrower bore at a given displacement, and smaller bore engines favor efficiency since combustion is more tightly controlled, knock resistance is higher, and overall brake-specific fuel consumption at a given power tends to be lower. This is probably a big part of the reason why Honda J-series V6 engines are so fuel efficient. With a longer stroke though, you have higher piston speeds and a lower rev limit. You also have less valve area to work with which does not favor top-end peak horsepower production, but that's what VTEC is for. Other disadvantages is that with engine block architectures that are setup for narrow bore, you tend to have limited displacement ranges. A VQ with its 108 mm bore spacings spans from 2.0 to 4.0L displacement ranges. The Honda J only has 98 mm bore spacings and only goes from about 2.5 to 3.5L. The engine doesn't seem to have the headroom (limited deck height?) to go beyond 3.5L. It could do 2.0L also, but Honda uses I-4's at that displacement. Large bore short stroke engines also have relatively lower piston speeds which favors revving capability. So combine a larger bore engine with a lot of valve area and a short stroke that favors high RPM and you have a great platform for high peak horsepower. But they do consume more fuel. I've seen lots of reports of Honda V6's getting 33-34 mpg on the highway. Have never heard that for VQ engines.

At least with street engines, it's mostly about induction setup and camming more than anything. Take an extremely oversquare VQ30 and put in fixed geometry narrow long intake runners and short duration cams and you have excellent low-end torque response despite a very short stroke engine, and 190hp @ 5000-5600 rpm. Now take the same internal geometry but put a variable intake on top and give the cams a little more duration and you have 222 hp @ 6400 rpm and still no variable cam timing or lift.

Same deal with a Honda K24 "super stroker" (3.425 x 3.90 in). In Accord trim with a fixed long narrow intake runners, short duration cams, 9.8:1 compression and 87 octane fuel is makes peak torque at only 2400 rpm or so, and 160-ish hp in the 5000 rpm range. Now take the rev-up K24A2 in the TSX. Still only a fixed intake, but short fat intake runners that favor top-end, much hotter cams, high compression, premium fuel, yadda yadda, and now you get 205 hp @ 7000 rpm. wowzers!

Long stroke engines do tend to favor "torque" though. Not peak torque necessarily but rather just low-end torque. With a limited bore size, intake velocity at low-rpm tends to be better which does in fact favor torque.

Honda's philosophy of engine tuning is about producing peak torque at very high RPM, which is what gives the best peak horsepower output. The problem with doing this is that by the time the engine hits peak torque, it's at a very high RPM where there's significantly more friction. The RL's engine puts out 256 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm. If there's 15 lb-ft worth of additional friction in the engine at 5000 rpm than there is at say 3000 rpm, then there is actually 271 lb-ft lurking there at 5000 rpm but its lost to friction and what you get is 256 at the crank. Now set the engine to make that same peak torque much earlier in the powerband where there's lower friction and you actually get the 271 lb-ft. All other factors being equal, you also just increased your peak rate of acceleration and seat of the pants feel also, with the tradeoff of losing a little bit of top-end performance since you just compromised the engine response towards the low-end instead of the top-end. So now maybe your engine only has 275-280hp instead of 290hp. But you also have 271 lb-ft of torque @ 3000 rpm vs 256 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm (and even less than that at 3000 rpm). This right here can explain some of the reasons why Nissans tend to have more peak torque and more torque lower in the rev-band, but not quite the top-end of Honda engines.

In the racing world where displacements are fixed and regulated, race engineers will actually go and look at stuff like this to see which bore and stroke configuration gives the best combination of peak torque and acceleration, peak horsepower, and fuel efficiency. As much power as F1 engines have, they don't tune them for the absolute mostest peak horsepower they could have, because then you trade off peak torque, peak acceleration, and fuel efficiency. They also don't tune them for peak in gear acceleration (torque) either, because then the car might not have the peak horsepower needed to rocket down longer straights where you're at higher RPMs for extended periods.


Everybody has their own tastes, and there's no real right or wrong way to design an engine as far as I'm concerned because all methods and philosophies have various advantages and disadvantages. It's just a question of how well suited an engine is to the application, and what makes your particular customers smile. Honda fans love the screaming top-end, but complain about a lack of low-end or mid-range. Other people rave about awesome mid-range or low-end, but then complain about having no top-end at all. It's impossible to have it all at once, and if you can you have one expensive engine.

Sorry for the long post.

SteVTEC

I think the comparison between the E60 M5 5.0L V10 (500hp/383tq) and the boosted AMG engines is a pretty good point. Both are great engines, just for different customers with different preferences.

The AMGs will rocket off the line and give you tons of power without really pushing or revving the engine. They don't sound all that great though, and I don't think any Benz has ever won a fun to drive comparison either. They're all automatics too, and automatics definitely favor high-torque engines over revvy high-horsepower engines due to the nature of their operation.

The BMW V10 sounds freaking awesome though, screams up to its 8250 rpm redline or whatever it is, and is a ton more fun to drive than an E55 AMG could ever dream of with the much more crisp response of the SMG tranny. It may lack the torque of the boosted AMGs, but with 8250 rpm to play with you can run very short gears and have lots of torque multiplication like the S2000. Thrust at the wheels will still be similar to the AMGs, although the M will need more revs than the AMG to put the same amount of power to the ground. But that's okay because the engine sounds awesome.

The "best" car is the one that suits your preferences and driving style best. Just test drive both and see what you like better.

SpeedyV6

Excellent post. There should be a link to this post in the faq's.

Ken1997TL

Keep in mind that in many countries, cars are taxed based upon the displacement of their engines.

For their displacement, Honda motors are quite powerful and very efficient.

mrdeeno

and what credentials do you have to back up your assertions? You sound like just another fanboi to me!

Good post though...at 1am ??

Maximized

Steve, good post. I didn't want to get into that much detail. Cam selection and manifold design are key. Honda builds their engines to rev, so I would think that the cam duration, heads, and manifold runners are tunned to breathe up top. Again, this sacrifices low end torque in exchange for rpms.

F23A4

And on the BMW V10 sound!! One drove by my home two weeks ago and even under PT that motor simply 'sings' (for lack of a better word).

afici0nad0

i agree

F23A4

I just copied and pasted his post onto an email to my son....an aspiring mechanical engineer.

Maximized

I'd take the boosted AMG over the BMW V10 anyday of the week. The 5.5L AMG from what I've seen is mod friendly. Granted you don't get the dynamics of the BMW, but the AMG is competent in the handling/braking department. Neither car is very nimble since they are 4000 lbs+ sedans.

I have to disagree with Steve on the sound remark. The AMG sounds like a muscle car, whereas the V10 M5 motor is raspy. To each their own...

Water-S

I agre with your statements Maximized.
the M5 IMO kind of sounds more "higher pitched" than a E55 AMG. not as high pitched as a Porshe or some stupid ass ricer pipe.

Joe5.0

Thats why I'm supercharging my mustang. Great low end tq + top end boost = no lack of power anywhere in the rpm range.

The CL-S feels like a slug off the line in comparison, but also get 30mpg on the expressway, and when above 4k rpm is pretty quick.

Also, as far as the GTO vs. Integra, its more of a fwd vs. rwd difference. Put some sticky tires and a lsd on the integra and he will have a much better chance of not getting yanked off the line. FWD is lame for drag racing because as soon as you launch the weight gets transferred to the rear, exactly what you dont want in a fwd.

Minch00

Because people buying a diesal E class are worried about stop light drags with the 16 year old girl down the street

Sarlacc

The m5 is pretty fucking nimble, especially for a car its size/weight. look at the vids..like the retard is drifting it around parking lot.

AMG can't touch that kind of performance with a 10 foot pole. They are soley autobahn monsters.

Ken1997TL

I respect them both, but they are two totally different beasts.

F23A4

....love them both but the E60 M5 is the complete package!!

CLpower

i've yet to drive a mercedes that didn't handle like an absolute pig, E55 included. My dad has a S500 and it was fast, but handled horribly, esp. in comparison to his now 7 series. It's amazing the handling/driving difference between MBZ and BMW

Maximized

Both cars aren't sports cars. I wouldn't classify a 4000lbs car as nimble. The M5 is a good handling car for its size, but it's no C6 or 911. I wouldn't buy either car for handling, so I would choose the faster straight line car.

CLpower

well, cars are getting heavier these days, hell 996 TT's weigh in at 3500+ I believe. B ut they are both still heavy.


I do have to say, the Torque of the E55 is mesmorizing, I haven't driven a new M5 yet though, btu will never forget doing a burnout in an E55 w/ 4 people in the car from 0-80 before I let off w/ the tires still spinning

SteVTEC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...toring&pl=true

Shawn S

I love torque….. All 400 pounds of it.
And I still get 22-23MPG all day long with mostly city/country driving.
Haven’t been on a long highway trip yet except for the trip home from the factory in Kentucky and the car wasn’t really broken in yet.
Still got 25-26MPG though. Not bad considering the cruise was set on 75MPH and there were a couple of 100+MPH blasts thrown in there.
I’m taking a trip down to Virginia in a few weeks so we’ll see how she does on the highway.