Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by Nitrousux, Mar 11, 2003.

  1. Why is the hp rating charted @ 8300? the redline on this car is 8900, and the peak hp output is 240 officially, not 250. and THAT is at REDLINE, not 8300. Either the boys down @ sc.net are confused as to when an engine generates peak hp, or this car defys the laws of physics.
     
  2. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Yes the peak hp is usually at the redline but not always, this is due to a drop off in torque.

    torque X Rpm
    ------------ = hp
    5252

    In the equation for hp the "5252" in the denominator is a constant so if hp is raised or lowered then rpms or torque has changed.

    The hp figure of 250 quoted on this site is a mere typo.
     
  3. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Nitrousux, totally wrong my friend

    peak power is pretty much NEVER at redline, the S2000 produces 240hp @ 8300rpm and redlines at 9000.

    It's all to do with the ECU and the valve timing. The redline is decided by the strength of the engine alone, the ECU and VVT are designed so that the engine is efficient as near to the redline as possible, maximising power. The higher the speed, the more heat loss and friction there is, so efficiency and hence torque fall away, this in turn leads to power peaking then dropping back down.

    The japanese-spec car has 250hp, thats probably why

     
  4. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    I know this is off topic. But refering to your signature the displacement is not always indicative of the performance. As an example please let me use the ford power stroke and compare it to the dodge cummins. These are both diesels. The power stroke is 80 cu larger than the cummins. When modifying, the cummins can run up to about 630hp, at the ground, before nitrous or propane. The powerstroke runs into trouble above 500hp. The dodge is an I-6 the ford is a V-8. The smaller I-6 is capable of more power than the larger V-8. Also the cost to get the I-6 to that hp level is less than half of what it would cost to modify the powerstroke to 500hp.
    Little 3 liter ,naturally aspirated, japanese motors make more hp in stock trim than the venerable 5.0. The replacement for displacement is great engineering.
     
  5. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    The quote in my signature was inspired by misinformed individuals such as yourself. “There’s no replacement for displacement” DOES NOT mean that displacement is the only way to increase horsepower, torque or any other measure of performance. Instead it is more of a physical property, because a larger engine pulls in more air/fuel mixture per cycle.

    Here’s an example:

    A Subaru WRX has a 2.0L boxer 4, fed 14psi of boost to make 227hp

    I have a GMC Typhoon which has a 4.3L V6 also fed 14psi of boost, however it makes 280hp, only by virtue of more displacement. (it has no other major performance mods)

    The Typhoon is ten years old and I’m sure lacks some more “modern” features of the WRX, so clearly it isn’t decided by technology or engineering.
     
  6. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    The proof is in the puddin.
     
  7. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Ok, why don't you look at the some of the past STI versions, 2.0 litre engine, yet more power (some have had 300hp and 290lbft torque), it's only fair, or how about the new STI making its way to North America this year - 300lbft, 300hp, and a turbocharged 2.5 litre engine.

    The thing about the Impreza though, is it performs better than the numbers imply, I mean with the power the current STI has (263hp, 253lbft torque) it shouldn't be enough power for it to reach 60 in 4.5, yet it does.

    Anyway, back to what you said, you are right (although with better technology, the power difference can be compensated for).
     
  8. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    I didnt look at the STI becuse it Gets its 300hp from more boost than the base WRX, this doesnt illustrate my point. Also I was not comparing the performance of a WRX and a Typhoon, just their hp figures.
     
  9. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    That's what I was referring to (not the performance, just the hp - I just felt like mentioning the performance at the end).

    Now that you mention it, you're right, it doesn't illustrate your point.

    The STI isn't very much higher in boost, those versions were only at 16.1 I believe.
     
  10. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Oh my god ! "believe in fiction"
    YOU HAVE A GMC TYPHOON!!!
    ...I have the same suv but not too powerful etc.. please read : I have a chevrolet blazer s-10 1994 162bhp 4.3L ... what does i need to have (i know how to have 280bhp) to have an suv so fast like yours ?
    thanks you
     
  11. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    here is my one question....why does honda always make cars with so much less torque than hp? the torque on this thing is almost 100 less than the hp, and we all know that hp sells the car and torque wins the race. they are wasting the engine. i am not trying to bash the car but if ur car has 250 hp and only 150 or so ft-lbs. you are working too hard. hp=amount of work engine is doin and torque=actual power to the ground. if one car has 250 hp and only 150lb-ft and anothe has 200 hp and 200 ft lbs the 200 hp will win. try not to focus on hp too much ppl.
     
  12. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    While I am a huge fan of torque, you have already answered your question. HP sells the car. What looks better 250HP or 200HP. Torque figures aren't usually shown during commercials. If I wanted no roof and a high reving nimble vehicle I'd buy an R6.
     
  13. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Well I dont know about now, but a couple years ago you could order a Typhoon kit from GM. It's a turbo and upgraded parts such as pistons, rods, fuel injectors etc. for the GM 4.3L. Its not a cheap kit and then you have to tear down the motor and rebuild it with the new parts in order to handel the turbo. Contrary to the belief of many "Honda Tuners" you cant run forced induction on stock internals without fragging some parts, posibly worse. Even with the kit you wont have AWD and will have trouble puting 360lb ft. of torque to the ground.

    Sounds like more trouble than its worth? Yes it probably is, your best bet is to pick up a SY or Ty, but then again your not in the US.
     
  14. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    That statement isn't entirely true, both hp and torque play a big factor in races, if it's driven properly, a car with higher hp but less torque will be faster in a longer race, the only time having more torque but less hp is an advantage is in a short race, where a fast start makes a huge difference.

    a 200hp, 200lbft car will always be faster than a car with 150hp and 250lbft torque, and will generally be faster than a car with 250hp and 150lbft, but a car with 250hp and 150lbft will always be faster than a car with 150hp and 250lbft. Hp and torque are both very important, but as long as the engine is kept at a high rpm, then hp is more important in longer races.

    BTW, your analysis - "hp=amount of work engine is doin and torque=actual power to the ground" - is wrong. If it were true, then torque, rather than hp would be measured at the wheels on a dyno. Torque affects how easily the car is moved forward, hp is your rate of acceleration increase, or how quickly the force moving the car forward is increasing.
     
  15. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Go take some Physics courses, check out the specs of any modern F1 engine and think about what you said again.

    KE = 0.5 * m * V^2

    Power is the rate of doing work.
     
  16. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Well, is the porsche boxster faster or S2000 faster? The Porsche has over 200lb/ft of toruqe and 225hp, and weighs less than S2000.
     
  17. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Well, is the porsche boxster faster or S2000 faster? The Porsche has over 200lb/ft of toruqe and 225hp, and weighs less than S2000.
     
  18. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    The S2000 is slightly faster, but the Boxster handles a little better.
     
  19. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Exactly, the S2000 has higher performance, with much less torque.
     
  20. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    And the handling is also better...
     
  21. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    Password, speaking of sigs yours rules.
     
  22. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    yep.
     
  23. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    They are speechless.
     
  24. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    I am.
     
  25. Re: Breakin' laws (of physics that is)

    lol!
     

Share This Page