Spec-V vs. 2000 SI vs. RSX-S (vid)

[C-Kwik]

First of all the 6speed G35 COUPE runs a 14.1. The 6-Speed SEDAN runs a 14.6. Bet even if the Sedan runs a 14.1, it's still a margin of .7 seconds despite the fact that the G35 has aabout 100 less pounds and the M3 only has 2 more lb-ft of torque.

Most factory turbo cars have rather quick spooling turbos. And combine it with AWD and you can launch like a bat out of hell. Drop your clutch from 6000 RPM and you should have some serious 60 foot times. I've seen stock AWD eclipses easily pull of sub 2 second 60 foot times very easily. Look no further than the 3000GT here as well. They are some 3800 lbs, but can run to 60 under 5 seconds despite only having 320 HP. Why? Because they can launch hard. This will reflect in both the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times quite easily. And over most NA motors, turbos tend to have a broader torque curve.

Just so you know, Torque is essentially HP. Torque is the measure of twisting force. HP is a measure of what the twisting force can do over time. Below is a copy of a post I have included in a couple of other threads before. I think I was responding to something to do with why higher RPM's can make more power, but it explains quite a bit about HP vs torque:

"While it is theoretically possible to build an engine that could have a torque peak beyond redline, I doubt you'll ever find that this is the case. At least not with a stock motor. It would be rather pointless to build an engine to breath best beyond redline since you'll never see it then. If you modify the motor so that it puts the torque peak beyond redline, then it would be very wise to increase redline, assuming the motor can handle it.

Torque peak on a stock KA occurs at 4400 RPM according to Nissan's rating. The highest redline I've seen on any KA is 6900 RPM. The peak torque is occurring way before that.

There could be a number of reasons to increase redline. If there is still power to be made, then it may extend your power band some. Keep in mind for a given amount of torque, the higher the RPM it is made in, the better. As an example, let’s consider an electric motor. They tend to make the same amount of torque all the way to its maximum RPM. You'll find that while torque is the same, HP will increase directly with RPM. So the more RPM you have, the more HP you have. Internal combustion engines do not have perfectly flat torque curves. Typically it rises to a peak and then starts diminishing. Even though it diminishes, due to the nature of Hp being greater with RPM (for a given amount of torque), the HP rating after the peak torque can still be higher than at peak HP. And in most motors, this is typical.

The reason that HP rises with RPM, is because it's a measure of potential. Frankly, HP is one of the most misleading terms when it comes to rotating engines. Torque is the force that actually accelerates your car. The higher the torque, the faster you will accelerate. So the best acceleration in each gear occurs at peak torque. But some smart guy thought up a device called a transmission. It has many gears that allow the motor to have more leverage. Lower gears allow you to put more torque to the wheels, and therefore you will accelerate faster. Notice your car accelerates its fastest in first gear? So why do we care about HP? Well, since the HP is a number that takes into account torque and acceleration it can tell us more about how well it uses the leverage your transmission provides. Typically, the longer you can stay in a lower gear, the more torque you can get to the wheels at any given time. All motors will get to a point where the speed is mechanically limited, or get to a point where the torque has diminished so much that shifting to the next gear would give you more torque to the ground. Ideally, you would want to shift at the point where the torque measurements at the wheels in each gear crosses the curve for the next gear.

HP is a calculated number. It is much easier to determine how fast a car will be from looking at this number than looking at just the peak torque number. If I were to say a motor had 150 lb-ft of peak torque, it would be hard to determine how fast the car is. It could end up being a motor that spins at 1 RPM but makes 150 lb-ft of torque with a 1 RPM redline. This would not be useful for nothing more than turning something that needed an exact output of 150 lb-ft of torque at 1 RPM. You could have 50 gears, and chances are you’d never get moving very fast at all. 150 lb-ft of torque at 1 RPM is .028 HP btw.

Now let’s consider I tell you that a motor makes 150 HP. It may make 150 HP even at 1 RPM. But at that one RPM, you would have 787,800 lb-ft of torque. Now, even with some seriously tall gears, I'm sure you could accelerate a car with some decency with that much torque.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume we have two motors that have a perfectly flat torque curve. Both make 150 HP. The first one has a redline of 100 RPM and the 2nd can rev to 1000 RPM. The 100 RPM would make 7878 lb-ft of torque. The 1000 RPM motor would make 787.8 lb-ft of torque. If we took the 1000 RPM motor and used a gear ratio of 10:1, you’d be making 7878 lb-ft of torque(ignoring any drivetrain losses), at 1/10 the speed of the motor. It would actually have the same torque and HP curve as the 100 RPM motor after the gearing. If the gearing were matched so that each motor hit redline at the same wheel speeds, they would accelerate the same. Even though the 1000 RPM motor made 10 times less torque, it can make the same HP because it can make use of the leverage additional RPM's give. And as you see it is quite linear. 10 times more RPM with 10 times more leverage with 10 times less torque achieved the same results."

This being said, you have to consider what the torque curve looks like. The peak torque doesn't tell you how much torque is made before and after the RPM where the peak HP occurs. Generally, the flatter this curve is, the better as it will be making a higher average torque. Many of us refer to it as the area under the curve. The bigger this area, the faster the car will accelerate overall. Both peak HP and peak Torque are typically momentary numbers. Unless you have a CVT transmission, you won't be at any specific RPM for very long while accelerating. You must take into account the output at all RPMs in the powerband.

Do a search on the internet for 1/4 mile time calculators. Take a look at each one. You'll find they don't calculate the times using torque. And conversely, you can't calculate torque using 1/4 mile times either.

Lastly, look no further than F1 race cars. They put out some 750 HP or so at nearly 18,000-20,000 RPM. To make 750 HP at 18,000 RPM, you would be making only 218 lb-ft of torque. Why are F1 cars fast? Because they make lots of HP. They only make a mediocre amount of torque. They just do it at a very high RPM where it can take advantage of gearing and put down a lot of torque to the ground.

[LiU]

don't really want to get into hp vs. tq the sequel, all have their points, reason why specV won (even though just by a bit, the S was catching up) is because its power peaks sooner, simple as that - dunno bout gearing on the cars but assuming both manufacturers did their job and designed gears that benefit each car to their application

and to sevas13 comment that he thought once the rsxS got up it would walk away (although it did appear to catch up to the V once it got going)- no the rsx makes only 25 (a comparison of flywheel horsepower as rated by the manufacturer) more hp - it would not "walk away" like, for example, a 3000gt VR4 (300+, awd) walking away from my car (155), the rsxS will win eventually, but not anywhere close to "walking away" from the specV... I think both the spec V and the rsxS run low 15s I tihnk the rsxS's time is just a tad bit faster (maybe 1 tenth of a second) depending on whose times you look at, so really 1 tenth of a second is hardly considered "walking away" from some1

PS the estimates on the intake is waayy too high, 165 tq on a rsxS?? - no

[SeVa-S13]

I think of "walking away" as slowly increasing distance. You know, like walking?

[nlzmo400r]

My apologies

To all that say tq doesn’t matter I’ll provide several examples

All you non believers, or ignorant fools…I’ll provide the following numbers to justice that tq is more important then HP (the reason Diesel trucks don’t run 12's is because they weight twice the average car)

Case 12003 Acura CL-S 6 speed 260hp 232tq weight 3510lbs 0-60mph 6.1sec ¼ mile 14.8 2003 Audi A6 2.7T 6 speed 250 hp 258tq weight 3875lbs 0-60mph 5.9sec ¼ mile 14.5

Audi is heavier, has less hp, but has better times…why? More TQ

Case 22003 Acura RSX-S 6 speed 200hp 142tq weight 2778lbs 0-60mph 6.7sec 1/4mile 15.12003 VW BEETLE S 6 speed 180hp 173tq weight 3005lbs 0-60mph 7.0 1/4mile 15.2

The VW has less hp, is much heavier, puts out about the same times…why? More TQ

i dont want to be an *** here but dont the VWs and Audi's have the 4wheel drive to?

[MainEvent212]

the rsx is tested at 15.4 to my knowledge...and i think the spec V is a slower 15.6 or so...i donno...i know that my friends rsx S is faster then my mini S...but then again he's better at dragging then me..i cant launch well for ****...i'm good at keeping my revs up through twisties

[LiU]

I think of "walking away" as slowly increasing distance. You know, like walking?

And I'd say 5hp/tq is a pretty damn accurate estimate, and more if it were CAI...

sevas the rsxS makes 142 tq from the factory, not 160, are you tihnking about the new s2000 (or should i say s2200)? hehe

[SeVa-S13]

Actually, I was just having a stint of stupid. I mixed up the stock RSX (Non Type-S) hp, and the RSX-S's torque...

[LiU]

I had a coupla races w/ my friend back in the days when his rsxS was stock and I had only intake and exhaust w/ a a clutch pushing 90k miles, I beat him initially by like a car until his front bumper was at my door around 70-80 mph, so I wasn't really surprised to see many specVs beating rsxS at least hanging around very closesly

[S14-84]

first of all...that IS NOT A SI... it said regular civic too on the video so its not a si.....and i think it had to do with driver...cause if you see every race...rsx-s came closer and closer...if you see rsx-s, you can tell that it pulls real hard on 3 and 4th gear...if it was better driver i think...rsx-s should won every race..

[jEzTeR]

Cool video clip.

Spec V = lots of tq RSX-S = 9K redline

Both are good cars.

[nlzmo400r]

Cool video clip.

Spec V = lots of tq RSX-S = 9K redline

Both are good cars.

type S redlines at 8k

[tl1000sga]

first of all...that IS NOT A SI... it said regular civic too on the video so its not a si.....and i think it had to do with driver...cause if you see every race...rsx-s came closer and closer...if you see rsx-s, you can tell that it pulls real hard on 3 and 4th gear...if it was better driver i think...rsx-s should won every race..

SI civics (old or new) won't touch an RSX type-S, stock for stock.

[tl1000sga]

oh, "I'm sorry", the dude gives false info but has more posts, oops, he's right then. Yeah, I was wrong, the Audi doesn't have an advantage cuz of awd, it's because I have fewer posts. You guys are ridiculous.

He was reffering to the fact that AWD only helps in traction. After that, wieght and drivetrain loss make it a disadvantage.

AWD does NOT automatically make the car better all the way around.

who's ridiculous?:rolleyes

[LiU]

stock for stock these two cars are very close in performance, numbers don't lie, in every 1/4 mile I've seen both cars come very close, don't underestimate the spec V.

but when it comes aftermarket a moderately modded rsxS will probably eat a specV... ie: i/h/e/cams and tuning and a rsxS will probably produce more results than a specV, just from what I've seen so far on many Honda motors, cams and tuning, and headwork can unlock alot of hp.

but then again the specV is 18k (around there) while the S is 23-24k...but that's another discussion

PS http://www.specplace.com has a nice article on hp vs. tq, and it has an example of two cars (similar performance to the V and the S)

[nlzmo400r]

SCC got 35 WHP from boltons alone on a spec V, all motor, spec V doesnt touch modded type-s's, yea right, id like to see that one run

[LiU]

SCC got 35 WHP from boltons alone on a spec V, all motor, spec V doesnt touch modded type-s's, yea right, id like to see that one run

I never said it doesn't make power well, but it's just the fact that Honda B series and K series motors respond very well to bolt ons and headwork and tuning, better than what the qr has shown (so far)

as for your quote, import tuner had an article on the rsxS, whichput down 171 whp stock, 196 w/ i/h/e, and 220 with toda cams and ECU rom tune, that's a 50 whp increase, http://www.importtuner.com/tec....html

and if i remember correctly, the SCC article on the qr25 had i/h/e, some JWT cams, removed the balance shafts...

again I don't want to start a nissan vs. honda argument, I'm all about nissan but it's just somewhat the fact that Honda motors respond to bolt ons and headwork and tuning very well, no way around it, can't deny it

[S14-84]

SI civics (old or new) won't touch an RSX type-S, stock for stock.

no s***...

[nlzmo400r]

I never said it doesn't make power well, but it's just the fact that Honda B series and K series motors respond very well to bolt ons and headwork and tuning, better than what the qr has shown (so far)

as for your quote, import tuner had an article on the rsxS, whichput down 171 whp stock, 196 w/ i/h/e, and 220 with toda cams and ECU rom tune, that's a 50 whp increase, http://www.importtuner.com/tec....html

and if i remember correctly, the SCC article on the qr25 had i/h/e, some JWT cams, removed the balance shafts...

again I don't want to start a nissan vs. honda argument, I'm all about nissan but it's just somewhat the fact that Honda motors respond to bolt ons and headwork and tuning very well, no way around it, can't deny it

o i wasnt trying to start an argument, and i have hte Import Tuner with that Type S in it, and also the SCC. And B series engines to respond AMAZINGLY well (probably best ive seen for an N/A car) to bolt onts, and i sure hope nissan's motor will do the same, although from Honda fans i hear the K series engine is much harder to work with and power is harder to find. Did u see the I/T where the 1st gen turbo eclipse gained like 65WHP from bolt ons? that was freggin nuts, i still dont know if i belive it

[LiU]

that's funny I have heard the same, my friend who knows his stuff when it comes to Hondas hates the K series because he claims it doesn't respond well to bolt ons and other mods, but so far I've seen otherwise

[D-UNIT]

A stock G35 sedan makes 260 hp and 260 ft/lb's of tq! **WOW**!!!!!

[jdmfreak]

Yea the early Eclipses/Talons respond very well to bolt ons.Just check these #s from Import Tuner for a 92 Eclipse turbo.

The Parts

1 HKS Power Flow Air Box $345.00 2 APEXi N1 Exhaust $629.00 3 Hyper Ground Wires $100.00 MSRP total $1074.00

Performance Chart

HP Level TQ Level B Baseline 157.2 143.4 1 HKS Power Flow 1 61.8 149.6 2 APEXi N1 Exhaust 178.7 155.7 3 Hyper Ground 184.0 172.1 F Final 184.0 172.1

Thats 26.8hp and 28.7tq

And this from Part 2

1 Apexi N1 Downpipe $239.002 HKS FCD $150.003 Holley 255lph fuel pumpMSRP total $640.00 HP Level TQ LevelB Baseline 183.6 198.61 Apexi Downpipe 219.9 228.72 HKS FCD 267.1 252.83 Holley 255lph fuel pump 290.3 278.4F Final 290.3 278.4

Thats a 106.7hp 79.8 tq gain for $640. Very nice.

[jdmfreak]

Oh and it was AWD.