integra vs WS-6
06-23-2005, 07:05 PM
#21
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he has to have more than just horsepower. he has to have torque also. if he has low torque, he is not doing a whole lot. I have seen imports with high horsepower but low torque not do so well. i think it will be close without the ta using n20 and i think the ta will win with it. i do agree however that from a roll the ta would get took. with n20 from a roll i think it would be pretty close. just my .02 though, different things depend on this race besides hp and tq. traction/weight/driver will most likely make the race.
06-24-2005, 12:44 PM
#24
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torque is less of a factor when going from a roll.
Even if he is making 508 at the wheels, I'm guess he's still pushing in upwards of 350ftlb, which is more than enough to propel a 2500lb car.
He's making more torque than stock ls1's, which weigh 1000 lb's more, so I don't quite understand your logic.
Even if he is making 508 at the wheels, I'm guess he's still pushing in upwards of 350ftlb, which is more than enough to propel a 2500lb car.
He's making more torque than stock ls1's, which weigh 1000 lb's more, so I don't quite understand your logic.
06-24-2005, 01:15 PM
#26
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you mean he has NO torque. You have to have torque or the car wont move.
Have you seen a 500hp integra before. Do you know what it can run? Try mid 10's at 135-140mph. Tell me where in that mph do you see no torque.
Have you seen a 500hp integra before. Do you know what it can run? Try mid 10's at 135-140mph. Tell me where in that mph do you see no torque.
06-24-2005, 02:55 PM
#30
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not that I am a "smart ***", I just think logically. Everyone seems to think hondas makes no torque, which is far from the truth. Granted it's not v8 like, but who cares.
Heres an example:
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
Which one is bigger. See my point. This is why that honda would pull his ***.
You see the rpm difference. Thats where Hondas make most of there power, up top.
Heres an example:
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
Which one is bigger. See my point. This is why that honda would pull his ***.
You see the rpm difference. Thats where Hondas make most of there power, up top.
06-24-2005, 07:11 PM
#31
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by 25psi
Torque is less of a factor when going from a roll.
Even if he is making 508 at the wheels, I'm guess he's still pushing in upwards of 350ftlb, which is more than enough to propel a 2500lb car.
He's making more torque than stock ls1's, which weigh 1000 lb's more, so I don't quite understand your logic.
Even if he is making 508 at the wheels, I'm guess he's still pushing in upwards of 350ftlb, which is more than enough to propel a 2500lb car.
He's making more torque than stock ls1's, which weigh 1000 lb's more, so I don't quite understand your logic.
And the least amount they make is 300ft.lbs, and thats at 1500-2000RPMs...
Torque is more of a factor when going from a roll, he will be at a low RPM (assuming the cars will race from a low speed, say 20mph), and if he not making much torque at the RPM, the F-body will pull like mad on him.
06-24-2005, 07:27 PM
#32
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by 25psi
Its not that I am a "smart ***", I just think logically. Everyone seems to think hondas makes no torque, which is far from the truth. Granted it's not v8 like, but who cares.
Heres an example:
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
Which one is bigger. See my point. This is why that honda would pull his ***.
You see the rpm difference. Thats where Hondas make most of there power, up top.
Heres an example:
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
Which one is bigger. See my point. This is why that honda would pull his ***.
You see the rpm difference. Thats where Hondas make most of there power, up top.
I want you to try something with your car(assuming its N/A).
Go to the RPM at which your peak torque occurs at(or around that RPM), and then stomp on the gas. Now go to the RPM at which your peak power occurs at (or close to the RPM, so you dont hit the limiter) and stomp on the gas.
Which pulled harder?
The RPM at which peak torque occurs will jerk you back noticably harder, because like it or not, torque is really what moves the car, and the torque and is what matters.
06-24-2005, 09:31 PM
#33
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hondas dont make that much torque, its usually a lot lower than hp. also, his car is not stock so i dont see where you guys are like "stock ls1s make this much" and blah blah, like i said i think he will lose without nitrous, but a 150 would be enough. who wants to make some bets on here?
06-25-2005, 08:54 AM
#34
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ill make that bet
I never said torque was not important.
You compensate the lack of displacement or cylinders by the amount that you rev your engine! Thats why you see nascar,bikes,race cars,etc rev to 10,000 plus rpms. You can not argue with physics. I gave you a simple mathmatical equation, that clearly states my arguement.
I think I know where the whole misunderstanding is coming from here. The point I'm trying to advocate is that there is no reason to look at the torque. If you want an engine that produces 1000hp a@ 8,500rpm you will need 617ft/lbs of torque. The misunderstanding is that you are thinking that I'm saying you will never need torque at all. This is not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that you can throw out your torque numbers, they are unimportant. Now for the car to make X amount of horsepower it will need Y amount of torque at Z rpm. So you will need torque to make horsepower. However the torque, as a number, is useless to brag about. It is useless to say "Oh yeah, well my car makes 400ft/lbs of torque. Now if that same person was to say "My car makes 400ft/lbs of torque at 8000rpm" its a different story. But thats only because that means he's making 609RWHP. Which is definitely a force to be reckoned with. So in the end I think we were arguing totally different points (atleast I hope I've caught the problem here). I'm saying Torque as a number means nothing but rather that horsepower is what you should pay attention to because that is what makes your car go down the track. You're saying that torque is necessary for an engine to make good horsepower. So in the end we're both correct. Obviously the better your torque, the better your horsepower. But high torque is nothing without a good amount of RPMs. I'm just tired of V8's throwing their torque numbers around when it doesnt prove anything.
I never said torque was not important.
You compensate the lack of displacement or cylinders by the amount that you rev your engine! Thats why you see nascar,bikes,race cars,etc rev to 10,000 plus rpms. You can not argue with physics. I gave you a simple mathmatical equation, that clearly states my arguement.
I think I know where the whole misunderstanding is coming from here. The point I'm trying to advocate is that there is no reason to look at the torque. If you want an engine that produces 1000hp a@ 8,500rpm you will need 617ft/lbs of torque. The misunderstanding is that you are thinking that I'm saying you will never need torque at all. This is not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that you can throw out your torque numbers, they are unimportant. Now for the car to make X amount of horsepower it will need Y amount of torque at Z rpm. So you will need torque to make horsepower. However the torque, as a number, is useless to brag about. It is useless to say "Oh yeah, well my car makes 400ft/lbs of torque. Now if that same person was to say "My car makes 400ft/lbs of torque at 8000rpm" its a different story. But thats only because that means he's making 609RWHP. Which is definitely a force to be reckoned with. So in the end I think we were arguing totally different points (atleast I hope I've caught the problem here). I'm saying Torque as a number means nothing but rather that horsepower is what you should pay attention to because that is what makes your car go down the track. You're saying that torque is necessary for an engine to make good horsepower. So in the end we're both correct. Obviously the better your torque, the better your horsepower. But high torque is nothing without a good amount of RPMs. I'm just tired of V8's throwing their torque numbers around when it doesnt prove anything.
06-25-2005, 09:42 AM
#35
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 25psi
Torque is less of a factor when going from a roll.
Even if he is making 508 at the wheels, I'm guess he's still pushing in upwards of 350ftlb, which is more than enough to propel a 2500lb car.
He's making more torque than stock ls1's, which weigh 1000 lb's more, so I don't quite understand your logic.
Even if he is making 508 at the wheels, I'm guess he's still pushing in upwards of 350ftlb, which is more than enough to propel a 2500lb car.
He's making more torque than stock ls1's, which weigh 1000 lb's more, so I don't quite understand your logic.
Who said it weighs 2500 lbs?
I know that thing is light, but I'd rather hear for TX_SS that it weighs 2500 lbs or not, he should know better.
06-25-2005, 10:12 AM
#36
10 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 6,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with 25 psi, there are diesels that make 7-800 ft lbs of torque but only can rev to 2500 rpm.
A balance of torque and hp wins races.
My teg full weight was 2550 that was everything in it plus the spare, I'm sure he's a bit lighter.
A balance of torque and hp wins races.
My teg full weight was 2550 that was everything in it plus the spare, I'm sure he's a bit lighter.
06-25-2005, 02:22 PM
#37
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think he would lose with a 150 shot.
You need to take in consideration that, the integra weighs at least 8-1000lbs less than the camaro. Thats a full second already of the quarter mile.
You need to take in consideration that, the integra weighs at least 8-1000lbs less than the camaro. Thats a full second already of the quarter mile.
06-25-2005, 02:38 PM
#38
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JD_AMG
LS1's make 360-375ft.lbs of torque stock.
And the least amount they make is 300ft.lbs, and thats at 1500-2000RPMs...
Torque is more of a factor when going from a roll, he will be at a low RPM (assuming the cars will race from a low speed, say 20mph), and if he not making much torque at the RPM, the F-body will pull like mad on him.
And the least amount they make is 300ft.lbs, and thats at 1500-2000RPMs...
Torque is more of a factor when going from a roll, he will be at a low RPM (assuming the cars will race from a low speed, say 20mph), and if he not making much torque at the RPM, the F-body will pull like mad on him.
06-25-2005, 05:47 PM
#39
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by 25psi
Ill make that bet
I never said torque was not important.
You compensate the lack of displacement or cylinders by the amount that you rev your engine! Thats why you see nascar,bikes,race cars,etc rev to 10,000 plus rpms. You can not argue with physics. I gave you a simple mathmatical equation, that clearly states my arguement.
I never said torque was not important.
You compensate the lack of displacement or cylinders by the amount that you rev your engine! Thats why you see nascar,bikes,race cars,etc rev to 10,000 plus rpms. You can not argue with physics. I gave you a simple mathmatical equation, that clearly states my arguement.
I think I know where the whole misunderstanding is coming from here. The point I'm trying to advocate is that there is no reason to look at the torque. If you want an engine that produces 1000hp a@ 8,500rpm you will need 617ft/lbs of torque. The misunderstanding is that you are thinking that I'm saying you will never need torque at all. This is not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that you can throw out your torque numbers, they are unimportant.
Now for the car to make X amount of horsepower it will need Y amount of torque at Z rpm. So you will need torque to make horsepower. However the torque, as a number, is useless to brag about. It is useless to say "Oh yeah, well my car makes 400ft/lbs of torque. Now if that same person was to say "My car makes 400ft/lbs of torque at 8000rpm" its a different story. But thats only because that means he's making 609RWHP.
Which is definitely a force to be reckoned with. So in the end I think we were arguing totally different points (atleast I hope I've caught the problem here). I'm saying Torque as a number means nothing but rather that horsepower is what you should pay attention to because that is what makes your car go down the track. You're saying that torque is necessary for an engine to make good horsepower. So in the end we're both correct. Obviously the better your torque, the better your horsepower. But high torque is nothing without a good amount of RPMs. I'm just tired of V8's throwing their torque numbers around when it doesnt prove anything.
06-25-2005, 05:50 PM
#40
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by 25psi
I still think he would lose with a 150 shot.
You need to take in consideration that, the integra weighs at least 8-1000lbs less than the camaro. Thats a full second already of the quarter mile.
You need to take in consideration that, the integra weighs at least 8-1000lbs less than the camaro. Thats a full second already of the quarter mile.
As Im sure you know, the weight of the car is transfered to the rear when accelerating (reason FWD cars suck at drag).
That integra's claimed power is a lot, more than enough to spin the wheels of a car under 3000lbs, especially a FWD one...