# RB26DETT low on torque?



## Yunis A (Jul 25, 2004)

ive been looking around and have seen some 400 bhp Rb26's pushing a very low torque figure around 320ft/lb ...even some of the 700-800 bhp engines are only pushing about 500 ft/lb 

why is the torque comparativly lower than the power it makes?

Like wise my R32 GTR (said to push out 360 ish bhp) feels a fair bit slower than my old calibra turbo  , which made 300 bhp and 330ft/lb

i know bhp is not the main deciding factor as it the torque that propels the car during accleration etc...but still id expect them to be close..


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Small capacity, short stroke.

And any car once you in big bhp/litre is the same, the torque never goes up at the same level as the revs, ever.

Find me another engine thats like 300bhp per litre like you mentioned (the 700-800bhp cars) and is still 200lbft/litre like you mentioned...

No? Thas cause there aint one.

Torque makes a car FEEL fast, dont make it GO fast, that "torque wins races" statment is a load of old balls frankly.

Midrange torque makes a car feel fast, but its the torque at high revs where peak power is that has any real effect on serious performance (as you wont be in the midrange) and most cars torque will have tailed right off by then.

What RPM was your calibras peak torque? Less than 4k idve thought from other graphs ive seen.


----------



## Yunis A (Jul 25, 2004)

yeah your right, yeah between 4-5 k torque is strong...


----------



## GrahamM (Oct 27, 2003)

Compare your graph to this near standard R33 GTR from dyno.scoobynet.co.uk


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Id get your GTR looked at tho mate, no way would i say its 360bhp if the calibra genuinely is faster, as even if that RR run was done in FWD mode rather than 4x4 (was it?), Power Engineering rollers are known to be about the highest reading in the land...


----------



## Yunis A (Jul 25, 2004)

im gonna do some tests with my acclerometer in the mean time till i can get it over to someone like rk tuning or abbey... i dunno its hard to remember for sure, i last drove my calibra in august ( broke it up for spares )....its just from memory and how its last felt..lol

calibra was running 4wd... 

been to power engineering a few times, and the reading ive had there seemed about right compared to exagerated readings from other places like well lane or interpro

graham, do u reckon PE inflates their readings?


----------



## Kirky R33 (Mar 20, 2004)

One of my mates has got a orion turbo, and i rembered it being mad fast! 

when i got my sky and had the tuning done i thought, mmmm i rember the orion being faster than this (at that point i hadnt been in the orion for about 6 monthes plus)

When i actually went in the orion, it wasnt a patch on mine!

just had a warpped sense of speed as at the time it was the fastest car i had been in, and i guess my memory "big'ed" it up a bit


----------



## ADUS (Mar 10, 2004)

if u want torque go rb30


----------



## skylinelee (Aug 5, 2002)

you lot cant half ....torque

hehe


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

SteveN

Torque makes a car FEEL fast, dont make it GO fast, that "torque wins races" statment is a load of old balls frankly.

Frankly, what a load of old balls. How can something feel fast but not go fast.


----------



## twinturboch (Mar 21, 2004)

R32 Combat said:


> SteveN
> 
> Torque makes a car FEEL fast, dont make it GO fast, that "torque wins races" statment is a load of old balls frankly.
> 
> Frankly, what a load of old balls. How can something feel fast but not go fast.


Because the torque determines how the power is delivered. A car with lots of torque will have good pick-up from low revs and pull very hard low down but a high bhp low torque engine will feel slower and then pick up heavily as you reach peak power. It makes a massive difference. Thats why big capacity NA vs small capacity turbo with similar power feels so utterly different.

Best comparison I can think of is between my mates E30 M3 and my 200sx. They feel completely different as they accelerate (his pulls evenly through the rev range, mine picks up slowly then flies at peak revs) but they (prior to modding) ran near identicle times at the strip.


----------



## spudgun (Sep 3, 2001)

my r32 gtr with stage 1 (400bhp/300lbs torque) doesnt 'feel' anywhere near as fast as my old evo6 with 400bhp/330lbs torque. BUT, i can still remember vividly how my evo performed, and i know that at the 'ahem' higher speeds (on a private road), the evo would run out of puff, whereas the skyline keeps going harder. ooer!

had an e46 m3, never felt quick, but if you didnt watch the speedo, you could go to jail for the speeds that thing would reach with relative ease.

the one car that always 'feels' fast to me, in a passenger seat anyway, is a modded scooby, dunno why, just always does.

my old r33 had 550bhp and 450lbs torque, now THAT 'felt' fekkin fast! i dont think 400bhp is enough now  big turbos and big bills here i come asap!  i never learn


----------



## blueskygtr (Mar 24, 2004)

From what i gather and feeling the performance of a friends R32 GTR the cams on these motors makes a huge difference
The RB26 lump was restricted for road use by many means including cat,s exhauast filters etc but they also had a very restrictive cam put in them for road sales !!
The cams mainly effect torque and not BHP so if you have not changed them yet yunis then most of the people on here would recommend it i think !!!!
JAY


----------



## r33 v-spec (May 24, 2002)

What cams are recommended say for a atage 1 car? And is it the same principle for all the models, i.e. R32/3/4?


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

Personally, I do think it's important to have plenty of torque. I like an engine that pulls like a train through the revs - that gives me HUGE punch out of a corner. Yes you can knock it down a gear so you are in a better rev range ... but it's also nice to be able to leave it in a gear, hit the throttle and let the torque of the engine pull you through the revs and then pull to a high speed because you are in a higher gear.

TVR engines nearly always come with a very even balance of torque and BHP, I'm pretty sure the Porsche GT2 Clubsport comes with a very closely matched torque / bhp figure.

A torquey engine makes a car VERY driveable.

Didn't Pro X have a pretty monsterous torque figure ? (I seem to recall figures over 600).


----------



## Yunis A (Jul 25, 2004)

blueskygtr said:


> From what i gather and feeling the performance of a friends R32 GTR the cams on these motors makes a huge difference
> The RB26 lump was restricted for road use by many means including cat,s exhauast filters etc but they also had a very restrictive cam put in them for road sales !!
> The cams mainly effect torque and not BHP so if you have not changed them yet yunis then most of the people on here would recommend it i think !!!!
> JAY


well, i took the car for a hard charge today on a quiet streck of private road... i did some pod style 5k launches...  

i kept an eye on the boost guage and it was hitting 1-1.1 bar in each or the first 3 gears... i changed up at 6k rpm in every gear...i was a bit scared to push it to the llimiter ( isnt it around 8k the std ecu limiter cuts in?) should i have changed at 8k ? still getting used to this car, its totally difgferent from my last one where it would run out of puff at around 6k..

mind u the car did feel a bit quicker....i loved the 5k launches...the thing shot like a catapault!   

Im a fan of cams, along with a ported head they made a huge difference on my calibra the torque gain was aroung 47ft/lb and about 39 bhp..

for mt R32 gtr, what sort of cams should i got for? step 2 272 degree inlet and exhaust? but i guess id need a mappable ecu right? along with some steel turbos...


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

Just thinking about this a little more, don't WRC cars have their horsepower figure restricted (to around 300hp) but have something like 500+ftlib of torque ? Those things are STUPIDLY rapid ...

Alot of American muscle cars have low horsepower figures but high torque figures ... some of those cars are mighty inpressive too.

There's also a new Mercedes that has around 500 / 600hp but nearer 700ftlb of torque.


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

BHP is just a calculation of torque, therefore u need lots of torque to make bhp. Where the torque is decides how the car feels and goes. The comment about high torque and high revs is only relevant for open roads. Placement of the torque curve should be decided by application of the car. This is why rally cars have low down torque, its all stop and go, yet why F1 cars use high revs to gain the bhp but lack torque low down.

The restrictor only allows a certain amount of air into the engine so after around 5000rpm there will be an air flow restriction so the torque is made low down where is has the air available, having a cam setup to make it further up the rev range is ponitless as it will be starved of air. Take the restrictor off and u have Grp B engine power :smokin: 

High torque as high rpm is hard to achieve but like I said there is no ideal, it depends on application and % of time at any given rpm to decide on torque placement.

Nad


----------



## blueskygtr (Mar 24, 2004)

Yunis A said:


> well, i took the car for a hard charge today on a quiet streck of private road... i did some pod style 5k launches...
> 
> i kept an eye on the boost guage and it was hitting 1-1.1 bar in each or the first 3 gears... i changed up at 6k rpm in every gear...i was a bit scared to push it to the llimiter ( isnt it around 8k the std ecu limiter cuts in?) should i have changed at 8k ? still getting used to this car, its totally difgferent from my last one where it would run out of puff at around 6k..
> 
> ...


Step 2 will take you well up but prob need some more boost to equal it out so bigger tubbies!!!!
Dont rev to 8k unless the engine has been rebuilt you have to remember how old these cars are ! In my humble opinion 7k is a safer bet but 6.5k is good enough to use most of the power
A lot of people seem to think that the head is very badly finished so gasflowing or porting seems to be a good idea

I will be running 1.4 -1.5 bar and step 1 260 in/out tomei pon cams along with all the other goodies And i will be posting up dyno results when she is all done  

JAY

JAY


----------



## djdna2000 (Nov 14, 2003)

Daz said:


> Just thinking about this a little more, don't WRC cars have their horsepower figure restricted (to around 300hp) but have something like 500+ftlib of torque ? Those things are STUPIDLY rapid ...
> 
> Alot of American muscle cars have low horsepower figures but high torque figures ... some of those cars are mighty inpressive too.
> 
> There's also a new Mercedes that has around 500 / 600hp but nearer 700ftlb of torque.


"There is no replacement for displacement" - American muscle cars have 5-6 litre engines, this is how they are so torquey down low. I expect that merc has a big fat engine too.

A WRC car is designed very differently from a roadgoing turbo car. The restrictor only allows a certain amount of air through, which is directly related to horsepower. What this effectively means is that there is no point in a huge turbo which can supply loads of air to a high revving engine. Instead a small, fast spooling turbo is run at very high boost pressures (2 bar plus) to provide power low down, lots of ignition advance, coupled with water injection, antilag and good intercooling make this possible.


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

What I was just trying to point out is that torque does indeed make a car quick. Some people go for a high HP figure ... others go for a more balanced torque / hp figure (and i've seen them told that it's a waste of time going for a decent torque figure and that they should concentrate on getting a decent HP figure - aimed at no-one in particular ... i've just seen discussions on various forums i frequent). 

I wanted to point out that a lower hp figure and a higher torque figure can make a quick car. I just picked those as "off the top of my head" examples.


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

djdna2000 said:


> "There is no replacement for displacement" - American muscle cars have 5-6 litre engines, this is how they are so torquey down low. I expect that merc has a big fat engine too.
> 
> A WRC car is designed very differently from a roadgoing turbo car. The restrictor only allows a certain amount of air through, which is directly related to horsepower. What this effectively means is that there is no point in a huge turbo which can supply loads of air to a high revving engine. Instead a small, fast spooling turbo is run at very high boost pressures (2 bar plus) to provide power low down, lots of ignition advance, coupled with water injection, antilag and good intercooling make this possible.


Is there an echo in here


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

If you're thinking about what mods to do, you could have a look at my own mod history here to see how much difference each step made. My car currently makes 420 bhp at the hubs (approx 490 at the flywheel?) and has excellent low down response - far better than stock.

Regarding torque vs power ... *power = torque x revs*

The problem with the Calibra is that it produces a shed load of torque at 3000 - 4000rpm (thanks [mostly] to overboost which gives you a good shove in the back and makes it feel fast) and then it instantly starts tailing off. Consequently, with its asthmatic top end, you find yourself changing up rather than leaving it in the lower gear.

The Skyline is a very different animal. It doesn't have the overboost for starters so the boost doesn't come in with such a wallop. However, rather than running out of puff, it carries on pulling all the way through the range. You can leave it in the lower gear for longer and benefit from doing so.

Some people say you need power to go fast, some say you need torque. Actually, it's the *area under the power curve* that's important. If you, say, change up at 7500rpm and then the revs drop to 5000rpm in the next gear, you want the power between these two points to be as high as possible.

Think about turbo diesels for a moment. They have huge torque figures but they don't have the revs and so they're not that quick in balls out mode. Because they're low revving, for their torque they're low powered (and are forcing you to be in a higher gear than you want to be). However, because they do have excellent low down torque, driveability is very good.


----------



## djdna2000 (Nov 14, 2003)

rallymad_nad said:


> Is there an echo in here


I don't think so?


----------



## -C- (Oct 16, 2003)

You need both 

& no - Skylines dont make much torque for the (relative) big power they make, but I put that down to the short stroke/revvy engine (bit dare I say it like a V-Tec)


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

-C- said:


> & no - Skylines dont make much torque for the (relative) big power they make, but I put that down to the short stroke/revvy engine (bit dare I say it like a V-Tec)


Absolutely - it's because of the revs.

Many cars happen to make a similar lbft max torque figure to their bhp max power figure because of the revs that most car engines produce their torque/power. This is just a coincidence really. If we used KW and Nm instead of bhp and lbft the numbers wouln't be similar at all.

Because Skylines are high revving, they make more power for the same torque than a normal car - hence the relatively low torque for the amount of power.


----------



## Pikey (Feb 19, 2004)

That's a better way of thinking about it - instead of making poor torque for the power, making lots of power for the given torque  

Although how anyone could say a GTR was 'low on torque' is quite beyond me


----------



## djdna2000 (Nov 14, 2003)

Pikey said:


> Although how anyone could say a GTR was 'low on torque' is quite beyond me


I think they are the same people who claim their Mondeo 2.5 turbodiesels are sports cars cos they have lots of torque at 2000 rpm?


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

R32Combat- EASILY thats how, huge torque (esp as most cars have it all in the midrange where its useless for real performance) makes a car feel fast as it suddenly throws you back in the seat, that DONT mean you going fast. Maybe try things before you say im talking bollocks... 

Daz- You mentioned WRC cars as an example, they go for torque as they have NO CHOICE! 300bhp or there abouts is the maximum power you can get from a 32mm inlet restrictior. They STILL go for maximum power, just it cant go no further, but torque isnt to do with maximum airlfow so can still achive 500lb/ft by running 3.5bar boost in many cars, boost is the best way of increasing torque...
But you think if they suddenly went to a non-restricted rule the WRC spec cars with 300bhp-500lb/ft would beat cars with say, 500bhp-350lb/ft? Hell no, theyd all go for more power, even if it meant a loss of torque.
(And before anyone says it, yes WRC cars are faster round a stage than GrpB ones, but thats due to massive advances in brakes/susp/tyres, NOT to do with engines, a GrpB car will make mincemeat out of a WRC car if brakes/susp/tyres were equally good)

In a way inlet restrictiors prove my point on torque not actually mattering hugely compared to bhp when it comes to the extreme performance of a car...

Restrictors dont/cant reduce torque, restrictors restrict BHP, but they use restrictors to SLOW CARS DOWN


----------



## -C- (Oct 16, 2003)

Pikey said:


> Although how anyone could say a GTR was 'low on torque' is quite beyond me


Comparitively speaking, yes!

But it makes up for it with its ablity to rev


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Why would a WRC car that need quick responses go for all out power than torque  ITs not an F1 car with nice open track to go round, its on and off power so need power the second the throttle goes to the floor. This is achieved with a broad torque band not a high bhp at high revs. Like I said before you need to match the engine to the application it is being used for. WRC cars are no where near 100% WOT unlike an F1 car so having the power out of reach is pointless. The engines stay the same and its the gear ratios that are adjusted for each rally depending on how straight or twisty it is. Where as on a race car the engine would be recamed and mapped to move the power up for a more open track and down for a twisty track as they have no restrictor yet the NA applications hold power back.

If you would like to discuss further I could put you in contact with out Motorsport Tech Lecturer who maps Touring cars all over the world and we have just been through the above subject recently.

"The turbo restrictor's effect is mostly noticed in high engine RPM (above 5000). In this region of operation, the engine's output is very dependent on air flow. This is why engine heads are ported and air intake channels are polished to optimize air flow. The restrictor's effect on engine torque is beneficial. Peak torque values are obtained in medium engine rotational speeds. The presence of the restrictor, which actually accelerates the gases flowing through it and directs the to the center of the turbocharger's compressor wheel, essentially increases the engine torque. We can roughly estimate the drop in engine power to be as high as 40% whereas the engine torque can be increased, through appropriate engine management, by around 20%."

Nad


----------



## Yunis A (Jul 25, 2004)

djdna2000 said:


> I think they are the same people who claim their Mondeo 2.5 turbodiesels are sports cars cos they have lots of torque at 2000 rpm?


i said the skyline torque appears low for the power it makes,not said anything about a mondeo diesel being a sport car lol


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Nad- With ALS and modern turbochargers you dont have serious lag even with serious power and small capacity providing you in the right rev range.

To have a FAST car youd want the peak torque and peak power in the same rev range, pointless having loads of midrange torque when in hardest driving your revs are never anywhere near the midrange.
All race engine are built to have peak power and peak torque both at the top end of the revs, where its actually useful.
WRC engines have peak torque relativley low, but its the same place their power is, they dont rev high at all, they cant, the power is strangled by the restrictor, thats the point.

They use restrictors in Rallying and Rallycross and every other bloody sport (just they the most appropriate to counter your argument as you seem to think rallycars are faster with the more torque and less power...) TO SLOW THE CARS DOWN, slow means not as fast, not as fast on the tracks they go on, rallycars go on twisty turny tracks, but if you in the right gear, with ALS, and a modern turbo, you will have no lag and tons of torque even with 600+bhp on a 2litre engine.... 

Its tyre/beakes/susp improvments that have made WRC cars handle better so go faster, old GrpB cars from the early/mid 80s were FAR faster than curent WRC cars apart from that, and that was with ancient technology, way before proper ALS and more modern unlaggy turbos.

You can still see this today in some countrys where rallying has far larger restrictors in some classes (i remember 45mm ones in some Canadian rallying) giving the cars 450+bhp and they **** over the cars in the 32mm restrictor class with your 300bhp WRC spec engines...

Regarding the lecturer, might help to remember the phrase "Those who can, do. Those who cant, teach" 

Jesus...


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

SteveN said:


> Regarding the lecturer, might help to remember the phrase "Those who can, do. Those who cant, teach"
> 
> Jesus...


As he gets paid so much he does both, to help up and coming engineers 

Havent got time to comment on the rest of the post as need to be up in 4hrs to carry on working but will have a read through it later as its turning into an interesting discussion, just what I like  

Nad


----------



## -C- (Oct 16, 2003)

Big power doesnt necessarily mean it will be fast though!

Take for example, there is a magazine out at the moment (Jap Performance/Banzai somethng along those lines). It has the RC Devs Evo (900+ Bhp, 600+ lb/ft) Another companies 450/450 Evo & an MR320....

The lap times - all set by the same driver:

Evo VIII MR FQ320 - 1min23.58
Tuning Japanese - 1min23.30
RC Developments - 1min21.81

So, big power/big torque is all very well & good, but if it's not *useable* then the above proves it's not effective. The RC car is 3 times as powerfull as a standard Evo and 'supposedly' their track spec, all you have to do is take one look at the way the power is delivered to see that it would be bloody useless (nothing untill 5000rpm & then it jumps nearly 600bhp-400lb/ft over a 500rpm rev band where it finally comes on boost. come into a bend around 5000rpm & try to hold that on the throttle would be like lighting a dynamite stick 

There is a balance between torque & power as its been said, you can't have one without the other..

My personal preference would be to make good torque low down for drivability & pickup out of tight bends and the ability to rev and make good power at the top end. The compromise is finding the bit in the middle 

IIRC I was always told "tourque gets you going, bhp keeps you going" 

Driving a horrendously laggy big turbo'd skyline has opened my eyes to it, on the way to Le Mans this year proves the point perfectly - I technically had the most powerfull car in our group travelling down, but I was the one who was working the hardest to stay with everyone else! A 300bhp Impreza would just put his foot down & go, whereas anytime I wanted anything to happen I had to drop it a gear or two, hang back, come on boost & launch me down the road. Yes I could leave it in a higher gear, but after 30 mins you get bored of that/the noise/the consumption.

Accessable torque brings drivability to a car IMO - only after living with a Skyline that's hard work do I appreciate that now.


----------



## DarkChild (Nov 5, 2004)

Hello everyone. Just recently joined the forum because of my passion for the GTR's. I'm originally from Malaysia but I'm currently in San Francisco persuing my education.

I hope you don't mind me sharing my opinion on the torque and power thing...

I think, Power is really defined by torque X RPM.There's only certain amount of torque that an engine is capable of making (give or take some tuning). The only really big variable here is RPM. Hence, if you increase your RPM, your power will go up. For instance, when Ferrari F1 car increased their rpm limit by 300 on their newest engine, they are basically saying that their max power just increased by that much more. That's why F-1 engine are spinning in the range of 18000+ rpm. 
So if you scramble this around you get Torque = Power per RPm.
The torque of an engine is determinded by a few things;

1. Capacity. Ie 3 or 4 litres etc. This is a constant in all F1 engines.

2. Oil Viscosity. If your oil is less viscus it means that your engine will have more torque.

3. Lightness of parts. A similar engine with lighter parts like a ighter piston, crankshaft etc will have more torque.

4. Fuel. A fuel with a higher energy output with obviously give more Torque.

So from what I have said you can see that Power is not really a great measure of an engines performance.

For instance, if you were to race a 3.5 Litre Old F1 engine with say 800 bhp and a 3.0 Litre F1 engien with 850 bhp, the car with the 3.5 litre would probabley win. THis is becasue at low RPM this engine would give better power. its only when the 3.0 litre engine gets up to high RPM that it will deliver more power.

Just my opinion...


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Nad,

I would question your motorsports lecturer. Accelerating air towards the centre of the compressor is not a specific benefit of the restrictor. As you should know, increasing the speed of the air will reduce it's pressure, this increases the PR of the compressor and doesn't help at all.

What it DOES help with is surge, you couldn't run the 2.5bar (gauge) boost pressures at such low rpm without the restrictor. But the reason the torque is increased is because of the extra boost, not the restrictor. You must realise the WRC turbos are purpose designed to run with a restrictor, and to get the most out of it.

I would also be very careful when people say they can increase things with "engine management" that covers a multitude of sins, and is often someones way of saying they don't fully understand it but they want to sound clever.

If you were to increase the restrictor from the WRC cars they would increase the operating RPM, they probably would lower the amount of useable boost at low RPM as they would be using different turbo technology. Ultimately the aim is the most POWER in the RPM range you are going to operate in, which may be a balance between power and RPM.

Paul


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Chris- The EVO times i dont belive has anything to do with the engine power really, it just proves that handling is far far more important than power on a track, and proves unless the chassis and suspension is up to the job, you cant make any use of your extra power really.

Regarding torque helping you out of tight bends, i guess you mean midrange, and all that means is your not in the right gear.
Any racing driver would always keep the car in the powerband, having bugger all low down makes a car harder to drive as have to keep changing gear to keep it on the boil, but in the hands of a pro it certainly dont make it slower.
And dont forget is REALLY hard with your car as its got a nightmare of a T88 truck turbo on there too...

Torque makes cars drivable if your being lazy (ie not changing down to keep the car in the powerband), but torque wont make it driveable in performance terms, often torque is the thing that makes it more undrivable, reason cars are undrivable is the delivery of the power/torque is more than the car is capable of handling with ease.
If you want an easy example of it being torque not power that makes a car harder to drive, just look at TypeR Hondas vs Focus RS for example, both similar power and performance, but the Honda, because it has not a lot of torque has no real issues with torque steer or anything making it smooth and easy round corners, wheras the FocusRS, tho really good handling, has loads of torque which tho makes it easier to drive if your too lazy or rubbish to change down a gear, is a little harder to handle due to the torque giving a sudden punch.

Heres a interesting quote from someone with a VERY laggy car, yesterday... 



> Lag is in the eye of the pansie footed beholder imho!
> 
> If you have lag...... your in the wrong gear


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Steve,

That is a very shortsighted view of lag don't you think?

Having to change mid bend because your turbo is laggy is a rather poor setup, it would often necessitate short shifing and loosing out on torque early in the bend. I think you are getting mixed up with lag and boost threshold. ALS sorts lag, but not really boost threshold. And even ALS can only fix the lag up to a point where you have some boost and full throttle. If you want to adjust the the car on the throttle and you have to wait for the turbo to spin up after lifting slightly on the throttle, you are at the mercy of your large turbo.

Paul


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Pavlo said:


> Nad,
> 
> I would question your motorsports lecturer. Accelerating air towards the centre of the compressor is not a specific benefit of the restrictor. As you should know, increasing the speed of the air will reduce it's pressure, this increases the PR of the compressor and doesn't help at all.
> 
> ...


Pretty much what i was getting at with the final bit of my post late last night, the lecturer, like most these types, knows **** all infact.

Pavlo also backs up what i was saying for the reasoning for the restrictor, and backing up everything i said, so thats it, case closed, im right as ever, lol 

Seriously tho, good thread, but when it comes down to it, what Pavlos said, and well, what ive said, is just facto.


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

btw, WRT my post above. It boils down to not being able to make a T25 out of a massive T88 truck turbo, just with ALS.

Paul


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Pavlo said:


> Steve,
> 
> That is a very shortsighted view of lag don't you think?
> 
> ...


Yes and no.

The quote is a bit short sighted, i didnt say i 100% agreed with it as i dont, but the ALS thing i said, IMHO, is correct.

I had ALS on my last car (i mean PROPER WRC ALS, no some pussy mild stuff like you usually get on road cars) so know exactly how the car behaves with it. 

I also know the difference (unlike most) between Lag and Boost Threshhold.

With ALS on it no longer feels like the small capacity, laggy, low comp, turbo car, that it really was, it feels like somthing with a VERY big n/a engine, enabling you to use as much or as little of the throttle as you need, the thorttle responce becomes linear like a n/a engine, so you can balance the car perfectly, and no need to juggle the gears between too much power/torque and it bogging down.

So you can stay in the boost threshhold but as the power delivery is now linear you just dont have to use full throttle so you can stay fully in control of the car.

IMHO if you STILL got a problem where one gear youd be hitting the rev limiter, and the other gear you bogging down, then its NOT and engine problem as such, its that your gearing is totaly unsuited to the engine and the purpose of the car, and thats nothing to do with n/a or turbo engines, would be the same on all highly strung engines, and exactly why any serious race car has a choise of gear ratios and diffs, depending on the track they using...


----------



## djdna2000 (Nov 14, 2003)

Pavlo said:


> What it DOES help with is surge, you couldn't run the 2.5bar (gauge) boost pressures at such low rpm without the restrictor. But the reason the torque is increased is because of the extra boost, not the restrictor. You must realise the WRC turbos are purpose designed to run with a restrictor, and to get the most out of it.


Surely the restrictor will increase low rpm (low mass air flow) torque in the same way that narrower inlet/exhaust runners do by increasing gas velocity? Of course the 2.5 bar does help


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

DanJ- Id say no. In a n/a application yes, but in a turbocharged engine the air is forced in so i think it makes very little odds.
Esp in the application its used in where the boost threshold starts at about idle and theres no lag, so there never a time where the car is acting like a n/a one.

Torque is the mega boost, nowt else really (well obviously lots else, but a comparitivly small part compared to the boost), huge boost spikes is what makes most modern turbo cars feel so fast even when they not, boost pressure is the main way to increase torque on a turbo mota, so most modern turbo cars boost quite high in the midrange, then drop off to some pussy amount top end to put a limit on the power and performance, and to help reliability of course.

VE


----------



## -C- (Oct 16, 2003)

SteveN said:


> Chris- The EVO times i dont belive has anything to do with the engine power really, it just proves that handling is far far more important than power on a track, and proves unless the chassis and suspension is up to the job, you cant make any use of your extra power really


I think i'm just being retarded in trying to explain what I mean  

I'm going to give up lol! 

I still want both though


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

I think alot of this comes down to how YOU want to drive your car and how YOU want it to react in various conditions.

Steve - you clearly are happy to make as many gear changes as required to ensure you are in the power "band" that you want. Other people would rather leave it in a higher gear, have a set-up that pulls from low in the rev range ... and then pull from low RPM to a high RPM without shifting.

Personally ... i'm quite happy to shift cogs... but also like to be able to be lazy sometimes and leave it in a higher gear (to ease past a car or something rather than knock it down a gear and fly past).

As Nad said - i think it comes down to requirements as to what is the best set-up.

There's been alot of talk of race cars / race drivers. Most of us spend the bulk of our time on the road ......... not the track.....


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Pavlo said:


> Nad,
> 
> I would question your motorsports lecturer. Accelerating air towards the centre of the compressor is not a specific benefit of the restrictor. As you should know, increasing the speed of the air will reduce it's pressure, this increases the PR of the compressor and doesn't help at all.
> 
> ...


Paul, the section at the bottom which was in quotes comes from the company that supplies the restrictors to the WRC cars, it is not from my lecturer.

Also ur last quote is one I have been trying to get across for a while, that the power is matched to the application the car is being used in, which I will come onto when I have read the rest of the replies.

Nad


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Really this post is just a reinforcement of what I have already said with a few tweaks to it after todays lecture (take it how u want) on torque, power and gears.

The main point I have been trying to make is how the engine behaves is dependant on the application you wish to use it for. I cant see anyone going to deny that statement.

My general comments are based around rally car engines due to the applications they are used in, short twisty roads etc because that is what I drive on so, although engines is not my main interest, the chassis is.

Two statements I would like to put forward are that:

1. For open road/track applications where few gearchanges are required and mainly WOT, high torque @ high rpm is desired, to achieve a high but narrow power band. This is because it is easy to keep the car on boil and in the narrow power band.

2. For twisty road/track applications where many gearchanges would be required and is not mainly WOT, high torque @ low rpm is desired, to achieve a wide powerband. This is because it is hard to keep the revs up so at any given rpm power is required instantly.

I can understand the application for the use of ALS, as I too will be using it, but in terms of longetivity not to the extent of short engine life. Having been in many laggy cars on country roads they are no match for responsive engined cars because it is too hard to keep them at the peak of the narrow power curve. Exteme ALS is one illegal on the road, and doesnt help with longetivity. I for one dont want to rely on ALS just to have a driveable car, same reason I dont want to run a nitrous oxide system to remove the lag. I want it responsive all the time and not have to wait for the turbo to spool up, hence the choice of low down torque to provide a wide powerband.

I assume the thread is still based around a road car/engine for given road scenarios otherwise as stated before, rallycross cars are a prime example of high torque @ high rpm and no lag.

Also I think many people have to understand there are a lot of variables in regards to cars with many people only concentrating on power and overlooking the chassis and driver.

Nad


----------



## NISFAN (Oct 11, 2003)

You can think of torque as an engines efficiency curve. Where an engines peak torque is achieved, is also it's most efficient (volumetric efficiency) range.

Engines with high torque in the mid range sacrifice top end power, and vice versa, to a point.
Any engine that produces high torque at the higher rev range will be faster round just about any track than a mid range peak torque engine. This is a fact even in low speed competition like trials riding, where those engines are way more revvy than they have been historically, against the opinion of the older so called experts

The true skill when setting up a turbo charged engine, is to match turbo size and trim to the cam profile and timing, and ultimately to the natural characteristics of the engine (bore, stroke, rod length, cylinders, valves, etc). This will ensure good efficiency across the range, thus higher torque every where.

Too many cheque book tuners screw this concept up with thier mix and match bolt ons, rather than well thought out engineering. They then blame laggy, high boost threshold engines for poor driveability, but a well sorted engine will be good all round to a large degree, with high torque across the range.

A good high performance engine will produce higher power and torque even at relatively low revs than a standard engine, and then absolutely blow it away from mid revs onwards. True lag is the only down fall, but now with ALS, even lag is defeated, OK at a cost.


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

The torque curve will follow pretty closely to the volumetric efficiency curve as torque is a measurement of such as to how efficient the engine is at any given point.

Totally agree about matching everything else to the cams, they should be chosen first to depict the characteristics of the engine and everything else built around them to work in harmony. 

Nad


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Daz- Its swings and roundabouts in tuning, you cant have high bhp/litre and expect it to have tons of lowdown power, turbo or n/a, its worce with n/a tho.

If you want a big power car that you dont need to change gear in, buy a huge V8, you got to buy/build a car that suits yourseself rather than expect the impossible.

I mentioned Pro drivers mainly as we talking about WRC here, but not just that, also becuase most peoples problems/dissapointments are due to driving style/ability and not a serious problem. Mainly the not revving it, not changing down, thing. You dont need to be a pro to do that tho, anyone could...



rallymad_nad said:


> For twisty road/track applications where many gearchanges would be required and is not mainly WOT, high torque @ low rpm is desired, to achieve a wide powerband. This is because it is hard to keep the revs up so at any given rpm power is required instantly


You dont need lots of low rpm torque to get a wide powerband unless the car is running a restrictor...

Who cares is theres **** all power till 5000rpm if the power is there till 10,000rpm (Going back to my point about ancient GrpB cars  ) Especially when you got twice the power too...

5000rpm powerband is more than a WRC car has really...

And with 6-7 speed sequential boxes that max out at very low speed in rallying its not too difficult to keep in the powerband even if it was tiny.


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

Personally I'd not happily live with a car such as a Skyline that did nothing until 5000rpm. Yes it would be great fun for a while but it would soon get tiresome on long journeys up and down the box just to move past stuff - let's face it, the RB26 isn't exactly a monster when it's off boost. Actually, when I first got my Skyline, I thought it was totally gutless low down. Thankfully it's much better now right across the board.


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Ever drove a Honda S2000? Have to drop 3 gears from cruising gear to accelerating hard gear if your doing 70 odd...


----------



## NISFAN (Oct 11, 2003)

Better to lose some weight than gain some mid range torque at the expense of top end power. Acceleration results are the same at mid range revs, and even more impressive at high revs. Ooops letting the (not so) secret out.

At the end of the day, a heavy car needs strong low down power to make it feel quick. A radical S3 with p1ss all torque is quick.


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Damn good point Nisfan


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

It would be nice if the GTR was lighter but I like the creature comforts such as aircon, back seats and a stereo! Not sure how much lighter it's possible to make the car without spending a fortune.


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

SteveN said:


> And with 6-7 speed sequential boxes that max out at very low speed in rallying its not too difficult to keep in the powerband even if it was tiny.


Who has a 7 speed box, not many have a 6. Tell me, how do u keep a rally car in the tiny power band when you are not on the throttle??

Please can you find me a wide powerband using high end torque then please to support your point?

If your going to go on about losing weight (which is a better way than gaining power) then u may as well bring the air resistance into the equation and aerodynamics which have a greater affect on the speed of the vehicle than power does.

One again I thought we were on about road cars here, waiting to 5000rpm is not really any good is it. Even on a rally car on a twisty track ur gonna need one hell of an ALS system to keep in the boost threshold!!

U need low down torque to give a usable power band because how many normal road cars rev over 7000rpm comfortably?? The higher the torque up the rev range the smaller the powerband can be.

Nad


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Escort WRCs had a 7 speed box.

Not many have 6 as they dont feel they NEED it, not becuase they cant.

If i remember right, ive seen a BMW M5 Racecar with a 10 speed box...

You keep a car in the powerband with the gears, which is what i said, lol.

And even the GrpB cars support my point TOTALLY and thats 15 year old technology or even older...

I nearly didnt put that last bit as i KNEW youd quote that without the rest of the post, read the rest of that post.

And you want 600bhp+ 2litre cars with a good powerband yea? Gimme a bit, il find some details to **** on the bonfire a bit more than even GrpB cars would...


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Once again if u read my post, the issue here I thought is road cars, and you still are going on about Grp B cars??

U are on about using gears to keep the car in the power band but if u read it I was on about when you are not on the throttle how do u keep it in a small power band???? 

Grp B cars were banned as they were too fast and uncontrolable, but obviously not due to how the power came in, nice and smoothly wasnt it for ultimate control  

Nad


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

SteveN said:


> And you want 600bhp+ 2litre cars with a good powerband yea? Gimme a bit, il find some details to **** on the bonfire a bit more than even GrpB cars would...


If u seriously find one with a 7500rpm limit and 4000rpm powerband I know where I am sending my other engine :smokin: 

Nad

P.S. Let keep this as a discussion, no need to swear now  I come to the internet to learn, without voicing ones opinions they will never know if they are right or not. Evidence just helps to back opinons up, cant rely on everything we read everywhere. No one is ever right 100% of the time.


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

You were on about WRC cars, so i was on about GrpB cars...

And whats being on the throttle got to do with keeping it in the powerband? lol.

Like i said, if you dropping out the powerband on every gearchange, unless your engine spec is severley shite, your gearing is wrong for the engine.
Your own fault for doing the car like that.

If your off throttle you change DOWN a gear to keep in the powerband, its not fookin rocket science is it...

And with todays modern turbos theres little or no lag in the powerband even with 300bhp/litre.

Its only an issue where you using laggy 1980s truck turbos like a T88, esp when that things capable of about 400bhp per litre on a GTR....

GrpB cars were banned cause they were TOO FAST, yes, youve contradicted yourself from earlier posts now and helped me, if they were not good for rally stages due to allegedly having no lowdown power that you reckons needed they wouldnt be too fast for the stages, theyd be too slow.
So that proves my point exactly dont it 

Youl LOVE my next post, hold up...


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Regarding road cars, wouldnt you say this is ok for a 2litre Turbo on Optimax with no nitrous or antilag...










200lb/ft by under 3000rpm is plenty for a 1200kg car dont you think  And more than almost all std "performance" road cars of that weight. Infact its as good as most performance TDi's people rave about soo much...

200bhp by under 4000rpm is also far more at far lower revs.

Thats lowdown power wouldnt you say?

And lookie here...

4250rpm... Is it me or is that midrange? Is the power now around 375bhp and the torque about 470lb/ft or am i seing things? lol.
Far more power than a WRC car at far lower revs, and the torque not a million miles off...

Oh dear, look further...

The power steadily rises and peaks at 6800rpm at 614bhp and stays not far from the 600bhp mark upto and beyond 7500rpm...

But surely the torques not up to much...

Oh deary me again, it seems the toque keeps rising even more and peaks at 508lb/ft at 6000rpm, stays above 450lb/ft till 7250rpm, and even at 7500and beyond its still 400lb/ft...

So what were you saying there Nad?  

So is that not got good lowdown power/torque, a big powerband, and huge top end power too? 
Would that not be a good road car?
Would that not make total mincemeat of WRC spec cars if there was a class allowing WRC spec everytihng else and engines like that?

Dont forget that is with optimax rather than race fuel, and no AntiLag either...

7.2:1 compression too if anyone wants to argue the toss about needing high compression for good lowdown power


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

And there was me just about to bring area under the curve into the equation  Nice graph, pretty good for photoshop  still trying to decide on the shape of it though, looks good though :smokin: 

But what have we decided on, that to make a fast car u need a broad power curve or not??

"Indeed, while peak bhp is easy to understand and can be expressed as a single number, the true performance of the car is dependent on many other factors, not least of which is the area under the power curve. If for example an engine produced 900 bhp at 19,000 rpm but only 800 bhp at 18,000 rpm, it would be described as peaky and difficult to drive. The on-track performance would be nowhere near as good as an engine with a lower peak power of 875 bhp at 19,000 rpm, but which still produced 850 bhp 1,000 rpm below the maximum. Indeed, torque is equally important as the power of the engine, as torque is what provides the acceleration. A good racing engine, much like a road car unit, requires a generous, smooth torque curve."

Pat Symonds Renault F1

And there was me thinking I was going to get to bed early tonite  

Nad

P.S. Re Grp B, too fast in a straight line, once the rpm had picked up. Remeber Clarkson driving the 700bhp RS200, fast in a straight line but uncontrolable in the corners due to the sharp rise in power, the way it came in and broke traction.


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Thing is went in a car last nite that didnt boost up till 4000rpm and up until then was really laggy, just felt that for a road car would have to be pushed to much to to get it moving. Didnt feel very drivable or responsive off boost. Just wouldnt really want a road car feeling like that. Im all for flat out but with my NA car, it feels just as good driving normally as it does when pushing hard. Maybe thats the downside to a turbo car??

Nad

P.S. Good to see it was one of MAD's cars u posted a graph up of, mines going there anyway


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Dynod on Norris Designs engine dyno so can ask Simon if its photoshopped as he uses the forum somtimes 
Id say 201.8mph at Bruntingthorpe and 0-100mph 7.1sec, 0-150mph 13.3sec, kinda proves its for real...
Infact the mental acceleration proves its nice n easy to drive as the thing is RWD so its got serious traction issues unlike a 4wd.

Regarding GrpB and the sharp rise in power, well modern fuel/ign mapping and ALS would stop any sudden rushes of power.
Reason they were so bad as it was hard to use part throttle, part throttle didnt have the power it should, due to old engine manamgent not more modern TPSs that sence full movement, theres was just open/shut, the rest was purely governed my the MAP sensor etc etc.
And trust me, ive driven a car same spec, just 2 ECUs, one that couldnt sence part throttle openings, and one that could, and the difference in part throttle driveability is huge.
ALS would make a massive difference to how sharp the power came in too as they would be able to use part throttle a lot more rather than needing to keep boot in to get anywhere, as like ive stated already, its like driving a car with a huge n/a engine when its activated.
And just more sophisticated mapping would help in general as the cars more likely to be mapped thoroughly rather than just full wack due to more load points etc.
And judging a car just cause clarkson crashed it means nothing, hes a total spaz, and it was far from GrpB spec anyhow, it was a 700bhp road car.

And no, you dont need a broad power curve for performance, hardly nay race cars have, you just need the appropriate gearing.

It is possible to have broad power and big power with small capaity tho, like the car i posted shows you  Jus not nececary purely for performance.

Oh, and you mentioned the sudden hit of GrpB cars making them undrivable, you really belive the 500lb/ft of WRC cars is a nice smooth delivery do you? lol, it all comes in in a very short space of time at very low revs...

Its a massive hit, probably a bigger hit than most the GrpB cars (i think most had torque down in the 400s), but the cars are slower as they have less power (and GrpB cars also had trouble as susp/chassis are far more advanced today than back in the early/mid 80s).

You have started on about making cars more drivable in a different way now, taming, smoothing the power, well if traction is an issue they way they generally do that is REDUCE the torque, as its torque not power that causes wheels to spin and lose traction. 

I dunno, seems like your points, purpose, and reasoning are changing every post to suit the argument, i duno, im off to bed.

Good thread this...


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Well just to let u know I frequent PS as well.



Itsmeagain said:


> Im arguing with some **** jockey that thinks he knows everything and need to prove him wrong once and for all


Can you not read the paragraph below??



rallymad_nad said:


> I come to the internet to learn, without voicing ones opinions they will never know if they are right or not. Evidence just helps to back opinons up, cant rely on everything we read everywhere. No one is ever right 100% of the time.


So much for having a friendly discussion  

Nad


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

SteveN said:


> Dynod on Norris Designs engine dyno so can ask Simon if its photoshopped as he uses the forum somtimes
> Oh, and you mentioned the sudden hit of GrpB cars making them undrivable, you really belive the 500lb/ft of WRC cars is a nice smooth delivery do you? lol, it all comes in in a very short space of time at very low revs...
> 
> You have started on about making cars more drivable in a different way now, taming, smoothing the power, well if traction is an issue they way they generally do that is REDUCE the torque, as its torque not power that causes wheels to spin and lose traction.
> ...


I was joking about the graph, seen it before, everywhere as with the 200mph achievement. 

Did u not note the hint of sarcasm at 'smooth delivery'  

I'm glad you pointed out that the RS200 was a road car, as this is the whole point of this thread. If we were on about rally engines with restrictors there would be no discussion really, and ALS would solve everything. We are not so it cant. Lets leave Grp B behind, my initial discussion of rally engines was based on the application they are used for, not how they relate to road engines in terms of restrictors.

Have I changed what I am aiming for?? My aim is to achieve a drivable car with power always there, with smooth power curve to aid control of the car. Saying that has just made me notice what I was unsure about that graph, the two large spikes in it, obviously why Rod has issues with getting traction under 100mph.

I am not here to prove people wrong. All I want is to achieve the best out of my engine for the amount of money that I am ploughing into it. The only what that is going to happen is voicing my opinion and finding out what is right and wrong.

Nad


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Well you seem intent on proving yourself right when everything barring your lecturer says you not really, and going on and on, and i thought in a very patronising way (which has made me more sarcy back), and the way you seem to be changing the argument (from what kind of power delivery is good, to what subject we on about entirley, went from rallycars to road, to rally again, depending how the argument was going...) to suit your comeback posts, well it does your head in when its like talking to a brick wall isnt it.

Its all evidence i post, opinions arnt worth anything unless theres experience, and even then its not as good as evidence, but you seem to change your argument every time the evidence shows you stuff.

All for learning, i dont know everything, far from it, stuff pavlo said taught me a lot about restrictors for example, but it dont seem like your learning, seems like you just constantly dissagreeing with facts for the sake of arguing...
Not once did you ask a question, you was posting "facts" and trying to make everything else seem like bullshat.

Anyway, i got work early tomorrow so it has to be bedtime i think, all in all its a good post i reckon tho.

Nite


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Yeah likewise, although added a bit to the above post to save time but you can read that tomoz. Like I said Im still learning loads on engines as the chassis is my prefered area.

Nad


----------



## Norris Designs (Aug 4, 2002)

SteveN - Rods engine is 2.2 not 2.0, and no the figures are certainley not photoshopped!!!  

Cheers

Simon


----------



## Pikey (Feb 19, 2004)

kingsley said:


> Personally I'd not happily live with a car such as a Skyline that did nothing until 5000rpm


Drive an Integra Type-R, or any Civic with a B series engine. My old Civic did nothing until 5500rpm, then kept on pulling waay past the point where a normal car would have given up and changed gear. Rev limit was somewhere around the 8300rpm mark  :smokin: 

I personally found it _more_ enjoyable changing gears to keep the car at high rpms when out for a blast, rather than riding a wave of torque everywhere in the same gear.

Found the Skyline actually quite 'boring' to drive in comparison! But then it was standard at the time so I suppose it would be.


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Pat Symonds' quote about engine torque is interesting.

Yes torque is important, but why don't you calculate the torque levels for the power numbers he quotes. You will see it's actually not very much torque at all, certainly less than a WRC car can muster.

If Rod tarry has traction issues under 100mph, don't you think that has something to do with gearing rather than just the torque delivery?

Paul


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

I quoted Pat Symonds, not so much to do with the ammount of torque but the area under the power curve. What is more important, a high peaking power curve say 300bhp with less area, or a slightly broader curve yet twice as much area under the curve yet 260bhp. In my opinion it depends on application and gearing. Im sure Steve will just say the higher one but when I was looking at some car datalogs, it showed that the smaller bhp was better suited to a particular track/road due to the lengths between each corner and in real life being easier to keep it on boil. Would this come down to the need for drivability from a smoother power build up and aid car balance hence making it faster?

The main difference was the difference in bhp vs area under the curve. 40bhp against having twice as much power available for twice the amount of time?

Would probably be shown better with a graph but not a whiz so will whack something up in Paint  

Regarding traction as Steve said, its the torque punch that causes the wheelspin. Apart from starting in a higher gear but then if u can wheelspin up to 100mph, I think its a case of being careful on the throttle as upping all the gear ratios would make it no good for day to day driving surely?

In regards to Vtec engines, I can see what you mean but we are on about turbo applications with lag being an issue. Even under 5000rpm, all my mates who all have vtecs, the cars never feel poor to drive under 5000rpm, as isnt that the design of vtec. To allow good response even on the smaller cam settings??, where as some cars that just have big cams would be no good lower down?? I have seen a graph from a vtec turbo lump, but unsure as to what it would feel like off boost?

Nad


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Nad,

Have you actually calculated the torque referenced by Pat Symonds?

Yes area under the curve is really the driving factor, but only within your useable RPM range, and even then you would like to weight it based on time spent at each RPM zone. Sometimes they are interelated, others they are not (rev limited touring car for example).

Paul


----------



## NISFAN (Oct 11, 2003)

Power under the curve is all good, but they are talking about effective power under the curve. Different to total power under the curve. Having a power band much wider than your gear spacing is pointless. As SteveN says, when driving hard you should be using your gears to keep the engine within it's power band. 

I think F1 in the early 80's showed which is better. The choice back then was a 3 litre NA or a 1.5 litre Turbo, by 1985, they were virtually all Turbo charged 1.5's. Peaky like no other, but obviously the better choice. And even back then F1 had a fuel restriction, bring back 1.5 litre turbo cars with re-fuelling allowed, and those cars would desimate a current F1 car. Some were pushing 1400+hp. Even BMW's 4 cylinder was pushing 1100+hp in qualifying trim.

A diesel engines total power under the curve, and torque values are usually pretty impressive, but a more peaky petrol engined car will beat it every day of the week in racing conditions. It's debatable which car is the better to drive day in day out. Some prefer the lazy style of diesels, while some prefer the latent poke on offer from a petrol engine.

Are you a diesel or a petrol man?


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Ironically the last generation of 3.5 engines had more power on raceday than the turbo cars did in their day. And now the 3.0 engines have more power again.


----------



## Lee_Pendlebury (Nov 18, 2001)

Pavlo said:


> Ironically the last generation of 3.5 engines had more power on raceday than the turbo cars did in their day. And now the 3.0 engines have more power again.


Thats just development though, which as already mentioned is why WRC cars are faster than group B with less power etc etc.

If it was still 1.5 Turbo I have no doubts they would be pushing stupid power. Fact is they keep finding more which is partly why the change engine spec (and are doing so again).


----------



## NISFAN (Oct 11, 2003)

Pavlo said:


> Ironically the last generation of 3.5 engines had more power on raceday than the turbo cars did in their day. And now the 3.0 engines have more power again.


True, on race day, but the Turbo cars had only 190 litres of fuel per race, not the unlimited amount allowed today.

Also, they were restricted on boost pressures by a regulation blow off valve.

And the material technology able to sustain 18,000+ revs wasn't there then. They were a lowly, 12-14,000 rpm.


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

NISFAN said:


> Power under the curve is all good, but they are talking about effective power under the curve. Different to total power under the curve. Having a power band much wider than your gear spacing is pointless. As SteveN says, when driving hard you should be using your gears to keep the engine within it's power band.
> 
> Are you a diesel or a petrol man?


In terms of that then would you only want a wider of say 3000rpm powerband for say a 6sp car that tops out of 200mph so that when u drop a gear and say 2500rpm you are still in the sweet spot, compared to a normal car that tops out at 140mph and only a gear drop of say 1500rpm, that could survive on a peakier power band of around 2000rpm??

In regards to diesel, and the naughty rally cars that shouldnt be brought back into this conversation, the diesel golf did very well, winning its class I think?? 

But Im a petrol boy at heart, prefer to rev an engine rather than having a lid at 4000rpm.

Paul, figure i got were 336Nm @ 19000 and 315Nm @ 18000 and then 326Nm @ 19000 and 288Nm @ say 21000rpm if they seem right. Not sure what 1000rpm from maximum would be?

Nad


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

Pikey said:


> Drive an Integra Type-R, or any Civic with a B series engine. My old Civic did nothing until 5500rpm, then kept on pulling waay past the point where a normal car would have given up and changed gear. Rev limit was somewhere around the 8300rpm mark  :smokin:
> 
> I personally found it _more_ enjoyable changing gears to keep the car at high rpms when out for a blast, rather than riding a wave of torque everywhere in the same gear.


I like revving a car like that if I'm in the mood for doing so but I'm not always in that mood. If I'm driving back on a long journey late at night and I'm tired the last thing I want to have to concentrate on is keeping the motor buzzing. That's why, for me, I've had my car set up so that it does both fairly well - OK not big power compared to some of the cars on here but knocking on the door of 500bhp and full boost at about 3000rpm (about 0.45 bar at 2000rpm).


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Nad,

Those f1 cars don't have much torque do they! A WRC rally car can be near 700nm!


----------



## 323GT-R (Aug 19, 2002)

F1 car produces more Tractive Effort than a WRC car


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

But I thought it was only torque that mattered, or at least that's what I am told!


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

[email protected]


----------



## 323GT-R (Aug 19, 2002)

Well we all KNOW that torque wins races, don't we??????


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Pavlo said:


> Nad,
> 
> Those f1 cars don't have much torque do they! A WRC rally car can be near 700nm!


Yeah I was gonna say that, seems crap doesnt it, but then they dont weight that much do they!

Was just thinking about position of the best power curve for best performance. As all power curves drop off at some point, would it be best to have the drop off near the edge of the usable rpm range, say 7100 with redline of 7500, so no power is being unused, the curve is extending as far back as possible into the rev range and space before the redline to change after the peak power to allow for a gear change that makes best use of area under the curve. Hope that is worded right.

Nad


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

As much power as possible throughout every point in the whole rev range would be best.

A torque curve that holds the same level of torque right to the red line would make for a quicker can than a torque curve that drops off before the red line because in that last 500rpm, the one that doesn't tail off is going to accelerate harder pulling through those revs. I can see your desire to leave 'no power unused' but it's still better if it doesn't tail off before the red line, all other things being equal.

However, all other things are often not equal. The engine whose torque tails off a bit before the red line is likely to have a better spread of torque in the allowable rev range, IMHO. Without wishing to re-open a whole can of worms, personally I'd prefer that.


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

rallymad_nad said:


> Yeah I was gonna say that, seems crap doesnt it, but then they dont weight that much do they!
> 
> Was just thinking about position of the best power curve for best performance. As all power curves drop off at some point, would it be best to have the drop off near the edge of the usable rpm range, say 7100 with redline of 7500, so no power is being unused, the curve is extending as far back as possible into the rev range and space before the redline to change after the peak power to allow for a gear change that makes best use of area under the curve. Hope that is worded right.
> 
> Nad


I do believe you get it now.

An easy way to think about it, is torque will get you out of a corner, but you need power to take you down the straight (gross simplification, usual disclaimer applies etc).

Paul


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

kingsley said:


> As much power as possible throughout every point in the whole rev range would be best.
> 
> A torque curve that holds the same level of torque right to the red line would make for a quicker can than a torque curve that drops off before the red line because in that last 500rpm, the one that doesn't tail off is going to accelerate harder pulling through those revs. I can see your desire to leave 'no power unused' but it's still better if it doesn't tail off before the red line, all other things being equal.
> 
> ...


I am on about the power curve, not the torque curve, hence why you would have it dropping off as you dont want to overrev the engine. Otherwise to get max power you would have to keep hitting the rev limiter and losing speed, so you need to be able to change gear in time, taking on human response times etc. Having a torque curve right across the engine would be great but they decided that to make a car faster the torque would have to be up the higher end of the rev range, hence sacrafising some low down torque.

Using Rod's graph as an example, peak power is at 6800rpm. Lets say there is a 1500rpm drop between gears. Changing now will drop you down to 5300rpm there is about 480bhp. If you carried on and didnt change until say 7500rpm you would only drop down to 6000rpm and there is about 575bhp there, almost 100bhp more to start accelerating with again. If u calculate out the usuable power in these two rev ranges, the one with the most will give you the better acceleration, which is the higher one. 

Obviously if u didnt change till say for example 8000rpm you would drop back to 6500rpm, now although there is more power availble now the actual area is less because you lost power in the last gear and wont have it for long in the next.


Torque will cross the power curve at 5252rpm so the power will always rise above on a powerful race engine, as its torque x rpm/5252 to get a power reading. In that case I would have thought that the torque would always drop towards the redline in that situation?

Nad


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Torque on a NA engine will often be flat to very near the redline. Turbo engines are able to max out the biggest restriction (the turbo) at lower rpm. This is what a WRC car does, although limited to about 300hp* they get that as early as possibly as a byproduct of the massive low down torque.

In a 5 speed car geared for 200mph you are more likely to see a 2000rpm drop between gears

* I think they are getting more out of the resitrctors now with purpose designed turbo compressor sides.

paul


----------



## Harry_w (Oct 13, 2004)

> Find me another engine thats like 300bhp per litre like you mentioned (the 700-800bhp cars) and is still 200lbft/litre like you mentioned...
> 
> No? Thas cause there aint one


Yes there is actually, the mitsi 3kgt, the only difference is, these can do it with stock internals, crank, shortblock, the lot :smokin:  for a while  

the gto has the best torque in an engine out of any jap super car, theres a bloke in the states called nelson b who's car is running 684 awhp and 594awtq on 2bar, the turbos can push 3bar,his car ran a 10.75 on a full weight car(1800kg) with a knackered 2nd gear.....now you imagine it at 3 bar with all the mods you guys have(dog boxes,ecu's etc)it'd be amazingly fast

next year there will be some monster gto's inculding in the u.k, i can't wait, personally  

sklyines vs 3000gt's



> Torque makes a car FEEL fast, dont make it GO fast, that "torque wins races" statment is a load of old balls frankly.


well you've totally got that wrong, torque does win races, thats what gives you your pure acceleration, you just need to be able to take it with you to high revs, which gto's do aswell, 

Now i'm not trying to be nasty in any way here guys ,  but when anything bad gets said about your cars for instance low torque, you always take it the wrong way, trying to make up excuses for example sayin torque doesn't matter...

GT's get slated to hell and back but we just ignore it because we know how much potential our cars have, which is alot if you know anytihng about them......

so i'd just want to say that there is another car that can push the same power and beet a gtr on torque...and thats the gto belive it or not   


Best regards to all

Harry  

p.s is there any chance some one could take me out in a skyline, i'd love to go in one but never had the chance


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Pavlo said:


> Torque on a NA engine will often be flat to very near the redline. Turbo engines are able to max out the biggest restriction (the turbo) at lower rpm. This is what a WRC car does, although limited to about 300hp* they get that as early as possibly as a byproduct of the massive low down torque.
> 
> In a 5 speed car geared for 200mph you are more likely to see a 2000rpm drop between gears
> 
> ...


Paul, I was only using Rods graph as an example, not his car and gearbox, hence only 1500rpm gear drop  Although on the other statement I said 2500rpm gear drop at 200mph, not sure which one you were refering to. Must be Rods as I said 6sp box for 200mph 



Harry_W said:


> well you've totally got that wrong, torque does win races, thats what gives you your pure acceleration, you just need to be able to take it with you to high revs,


Maybe Steve would like to comment on that, but I can see where your coming from with that statement worded how it is. You need torque at high rpm to make the power. I think the issue before hand was torque just generally being so low against bhp, not necessarily where it is produced.

Nad


----------



## Harry_w (Oct 13, 2004)

oh yeah sorry about that  , 

what i mean is you need your torque to give you your intial pull and acceleration of the line, just that you need to keep a reasonable amount of torque there carrying on through the high rev range, 

but surely if your running big bhp wouldn't it be better to have tons of low end and mid range torque and let the bhp come in at high revs to give it that kick  

Please if i'm wrong correct me because i don't want to look a pratt telling that to someone else   

Regards

Harry
oh i forgot to mention, another car which produces way more tat 300bhp perlitre is the rx-7

. At least one has been dynod at @24psi 654awhp 382awtq 1/4 9.94 @ 135.4 on a 1.3 litre engine.


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

rallymad_nad said:


> I am on about the power curve, not the torque curve, hence why you would have it dropping off as you dont want to overrev the engine. Otherwise to get max power you would have to keep hitting the rev limiter and losing speed,


If it *didn't* drop off, the car would be faster as you'd be making more power in the last bit of the rev range (which you'd presumably be using in a balls out situation). You'd just have to make sure that you changed gear before the rev limiter.  



> Using Rod's graph as an example, peak power is at 6800rpm. Lets say there is a 1500rpm drop between gears. Changing now will drop you down to 5300rpm there is about 480bhp. If you carried on and didnt change until say 7500rpm you would only drop down to 6000rpm and there is about 575bhp there, almost 100bhp more to start accelerating with again. If u calculate out the usuable power in these two rev ranges, the one with the most will give you the better acceleration, which is the higher one.


Yes I realise that, I thought that I had said that. However, I'm not known for being good at expressing myself ...



> Torque will cross the power curve at 5252rpm so the power will always rise above on a powerful race engine, as its torque x rpm/5252 to get a power reading. In that case I would have thought that the torque would always drop towards the redline in that situation?


Torque usually does drop before the redline, yes, but it doesn't have to. However, because we don't live in a perfect world, we can only make engines that work well over a limited rev range. Consequently, as you indicated (and as I tried to in mine), and engine that had a flat torque curve at red line would ideally want to rev higher than the red line to get the best out of it and would probably not pull as well low down as an engine set up with a high rpm torque drop off as you described.

What would be nice is an engine that made, say, 400lbft of torque from tickover to redline. The power curve would be a straight diagonal line, the car would be very fast and very tractable. However, it's very hard to make an engine do this!


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

kingsley said:


> If it *didn't* drop off, the car would be faster as you'd be making more power in the last bit of the rev range (which you'd presumably be using in a balls out situation). You'd just have to make sure that you changed gear before the rev limiter.


The point I was trying ot make clear was that the power will drop off at some point. At that higher rpm, 300rpm would be a click of the fingers and the time it takes to change etc. All I am saying it wouldnt it be better to shift the power back 300rpm so you have more to use on the other end of the power curve and the dip is where you would change gear. Fair enough if this was dropping 1000rpm before the redline would be a waste but if you have power increasing all the way to the redline to make it all usable you would have to keep hitting the rev limiter. Does that make it any clearer?? or is it just repeating what I said before?? ah well I tired hehe

Nad


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

I think we're probably saying similar things but neither of us are explaining it very clearly. Let's just agree on this one, it's probably simpler!


----------



## Keith_C (Mar 24, 2002)

Harry_w said:


> the gto has the best torque in an engine out of any jap super car


More than 325lbft as standard?


----------



## beachboy (Aug 28, 2003)

Has anyone mentioned the Falken GTR yet? That is 500bhp and around 720lbs of torque. Why would they bother tuning it like that if it didn't matter?


----------



## NISFAN (Oct 11, 2003)

beachboy said:


> Has anyone mentioned the Falken GTR yet? That is 500bhp and around 720lbs of torque. Why would they bother tuning it like that if it didn't matter?



As mentioned on rally cars..........restrictors maybe???? 

If it weren't for the restrictors, I'm sure the Falken team would prefer those two figures the other way around i.e. 720bhp - 500ftlbs


----------



## Yunis A (Jul 25, 2004)

wow didnt expect this thread to casue so much discussion!   :smokin:


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

beachboy said:


> Has anyone mentioned the Falken GTR yet? That is 500bhp and around 720lbs of torque. Why would they bother tuning it like that if it didn't matter?


I think the idea now is to try and stick to road cars.

Discussion is good  

Nad


----------



## Harry_w (Oct 13, 2004)

Keith_C said:


> More than 325lbft as standard?



Yeah, they have really torquey engines, i know a person in our club who had one dynoed recently, it has no major mods

full zorst, intake, b/c, afpr.lightweight flywheel and clutch running 19psi

it made [email protected] and 402lbf/t @5500rpm and his best 1/4 at the minute is [email protected]@1.25bar, do you know any skylines which can pull that time with so little mods and power  i bet you can't   

if you can please show me, this just proves TORQUE DOES MATTER

H


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

What I am wondering is why you haven't noticed the fact that your GTO in the example actually makes [email protected], that, or you have your figures wrong.

Also, given that you were asked for a STANDARD car, what's the relavence of this?

Paul


----------



## Howsie (Feb 25, 2002)

Pavlo said:


> What I am wondering is why you haven't noticed the fact that your GTO in the example actually makes [email protected], that, or you have your figures wrong.
> 
> Also, given that you were asked for a STANDARD car, what's the relavence of this?
> 
> Paul


No flys on that statement  

I do hope that this thread isn't going to turn into an RB26 vs. the world.


----------



## Harry_w (Oct 13, 2004)

Pavlo said:


> What I am wondering is why you haven't noticed the fact that your GTO in the example actually makes [email protected], that, or you have your figures wrong.
> 
> Also, given that you were asked for a STANDARD car, what's the relavence of this?
> 
> Paul



how did you work that one out, have you got a GTO or something, i was there at the dyno day for christs sakes so don't try and tell me, it's got 421bhp @ 5500rpm because it's got [email protected] and it's a 3000gt aswell not a GTO

for your information the person who owns this car is my uncle so get your Facts right before you open your mouth.....   

I'm not being in this thread it's getting to argumentive over a bloody torque figure of a skyline...... all i was trying to do was to be involved and see what people have to say,and to put down what i thought without trying to put anybody or car down, because i personally love skylines to bits they are truly awesome cars......i didn't contribute for someone to tell me to get my facts right when it's my bloody uncle who owns the 3kgt.........


Kindest Regards  

Harry


----------



## Keith_C (Mar 24, 2002)

So what IS the standard torque on a GTO? I'm genuinely curious!


----------



## Harry_w (Oct 13, 2004)

Keith_C said:


> So what IS the standard torque on a GTO? I'm genuinely curious!



The standard torque is around 330lb/ft , this is purely down to it being a V6 engine, V engine produce more torque by design than any straight cylinder engine will EVER do.

That's why V engines are so good, due to the fact their so torquey.  

the GTO engine on paper is capable of revving to 10,000rpm But nobody has been brave enough to try it YET   

At least someones intrested   

Thanks

Harry


----------



## Keith_C (Mar 24, 2002)

I thought torque was more to do with the stroke of an engine, but that's still impressive. I could only find info saying 315lbft on the internet. Is it different for different markets?


----------



## Harry_w (Oct 13, 2004)

Keith_C said:


> I thought torque was more to do with the stroke of an engine, but that's still impressive. I could only find info saying 315lbft on the internet. Is it different for different markets?


it's not the stroke,it's something to do with the balance of the engine, i can't remeber exactly but it's a known fact that V engines are much better at producing torque

No it's not different for different markets, the 3kgt's have slightly bigger turbos 13g's instead of 9b's, we had a stock 3kgt dynoed on that day and it produced 303bhp and 330lb/ft of torque, pretty good for a stock car. i think the GTO's produce about 320lb/ft as standard.

anything else you'd like to know mate  

Harry


----------



## Yunis A (Jul 25, 2004)

what are the stock figures on a skyline? 310 ish or similar isnt it? the bhp faked to satisfy japanese regulations? but torque is low at about 265 ft/lb


----------



## Keith_C (Mar 24, 2002)

Harry_w said:


> it's not the stroke,it's something to do with the balance of the engine, i can't remeber exactly but it's a known fact that V engines are much better at producing torque
> 
> No it's not different for different markets, the 3kgt's have slightly bigger turbos 13g's instead of 9b's, we had a stock 3kgt dynoed on that day and it produced 303bhp and 330lb/ft of torque, pretty good for a stock car. i think the GTO's produce about 320lb/ft as standard.
> 
> ...


Ah right, so it's a dyno result showing higher, not a manufacturer figure. 

Plus stroke *definitely* has a fair chunk to do with torque.


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

Harry_w said:


> how did you work that one out, have you got a GTO or something, i was there at the dyno day for christs sakes so don't try and tell me, it's got 421bhp @ 5500rpm because it's got [email protected] and it's a 3000gt aswell not a GTO


Harry, when someone quotes bhp and torque figures it's natural to assume that they are quoting peak figures. Seeing as bhp = (rpm x lbft) / 5252, you can easily calculate what bhp a car is making at a given rpm if you know the torque. What he was pointing out is that the figures you gave suggested the car was making 421bhp @ 5500rpm which was higher than the (implied) peak figure.

Not knocking you or the car, just pointing something out.


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Harry_w said:


> how did you work that one out, have you got a GTO or something, i was there at the dyno day for christs sakes so don't try and tell me, it's got 421bhp @ 5500rpm because it's got [email protected] and it's a 3000gt aswell not a GTO
> 
> for your information the person who owns this car is my uncle so get your Facts right before you open your mouth.....
> 
> ...


Well you need a serious 'kin forum etiquette check my friend.  

Since power is directly related to torque, and when using hp and ft-lbs, hp = torque * RPM /5252.

If you apply that to the peak torque figure YOU quoted, you will see that it's making 421hp.

402*5500/5252= 420.98 to be precise.

Paul


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

Harry beat me to it.

V engines making more torque than an inline? Now that is funny!

http://www.allpar.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t44849.html

Paul


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

LOL!  



Harry_w said:


> well you've totally got that wrong, torque does win races, thats what gives you your pure acceleration, you just need to be able to take it with you to high revs, which gto's do aswell


When i mean that the "torque wins races" thing is utter shite, its cause the "torque" people who use silly quotes like that are on about is midrange torque, top end torque in the same sort of rev range as your BHP is a good thing tho, not vital, but good thing.
MIDRANGE shove is what most people think of as torque (inc yourself by reading this post) and if yopu can drive its not particularly relevant for pure performance times.



Harry_w said:


> what i mean is you need your torque to give you your intial pull and acceleration of the line,


This comment kinda made me wonder if you actually drive, it almost sounds (the way you wrote it) like you think you have to launch at low RPM or somthing... You can launch at peak power, launch at 7500rpm or whatever, you dont need lowdown power to get you moving, cars have gears fgor a reason, to keep you in the powerband, not one long gear, unless the gearing is totaly wrong for the car you never have to be anywhere but high rpm.



Harry_w said:


> full zorst, intake, b/c, afpr.lightweight flywheel and clutch running 19psi
> 
> it made [email protected] and 402lbf/t @5500rpm and his best 1/4 at the minute is [email protected]@1.25bar, do you know any skylines which can pull that time with so little mods and power  i bet you can't
> 
> if you can please show me, this just proves TORQUE DOES MATTER


Yes i can thanks  Its been proven in the past a good few times that a full weight "stage1" R32GTR (ie 400bhp on a VERY good day) can pull an 11.9sec 1/4mile with just filters, zorst, and 1bar (15psi) boost 

Damn, it must be all the torque eh 

[email protected]"V configurations make the most torque" stuff too...

Lasty...



Harry_w said:


> for your information the person who owns this car is my uncle so get your Facts right before you open your mouth.....


and...



> *Harry
> __________________
> GTOUK MASCOT*


So do you own a GTO? Or is it (guessing by all the above) that your some young lad who loves GTOs but never driven one and possibly dont even drive?

Youl like LSR on here, hes a lot like you


----------



## MONKEYmark (Apr 17, 2003)

the jap supra has a book torque of 310 foot pounds. not that much in it really and a gto are a heavy car. thought they were closer to 2 tons. the supra is about 1550+ kg and normally eat gto`s
i have done a best of 11.9 with not too many mods at 1 bar in supra. is the gto you on about a red one that was in the jap performance mag? a lad with fair hair and a beared?
there was one at elvington did a low 12 ages ago

i used to have a gto tt had it for about 10 months never felt fast to me.


----------



## Keith_C (Mar 24, 2002)

MONKEYmark said:


> the jap supra has a book torque of 310 foot pounds.


I was just waiting for a good moment to mention the 325lbft of the UK-spec Supra or the 338lbft of the VVTi one...


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

nice.

just imagine what it could have done if it was a V engine and not an inline! 

Paul


----------



## LSR (Jun 4, 2003)

> Youl like LSR on here, hes a lot like you


How do you know what I am like to say he is like me? Why mention me in something I have no relevance to? Stop making assumptions (he doesn't drive, this and that about the Harry person and if he is like me then therefore these assumptions are towards me to) and saying I am like that or he is like me when you don't know if I drive etc. I may have said before on this forum I don't drive but I don't post about every major achievement in my life so I have never said whether I have driven or not. I don't pretend or act either.

1) I never said I owned a Skyline or any other car or not.
2) I never said I've driven a Skyline or any other car or not.
3) I have likely said I didn't drive IN THE PAST on this forum, but I've never posted any updates about this so don't assume I still don't drive.

I think you're a chav/twat. With the secrecy about your car, one is entitled to ask if you own the GT-R you claim at the age of 24. How do you like that?


----------



## Emre (Nov 26, 2001)

Harry_w said:


> Yeah, they have really torquey engines, i know a person in our club who had one dynoed recently, it has no major mods
> 
> full zorst, intake, b/c, afpr.lightweight flywheel and clutch running 19psi
> 
> ...


When i had 250rwkw (which is pretty close to your GTO sample) with just exhaust, cam gears and 1.1 bar, I did [email protected]
Full weight, on street tyres and pump fuel.


----------



## GT-Rob (Sep 28, 2003)

LSR said:


> think you're a chav/twat. With the secrecy about your car, one is entitled to ask if you own the GT-R you claim at the age of 24. How do you like that?


lmao


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

LOL! 



LSR said:


> How do you know what I am like to say he is like me?
> 1) I never said I owned a Skyline or any other car or not.
> 2) I never said I've driven a Skyline or any other car or not.
> 3) I have likely said I didn't drive IN THE PAST on this forum, but I've never posted any updates about this so don't assume I still don't drive.


What are you wittering on about! I dont give a toss who drives what or who owns what, this Harry reminded me of you when you first came on here, you used to go on and on about tech things about various cars, most of it was inncorrect stuff youd heard or assumed and youd say it all like you have vast experience of it all and you was right and everyone else was wrong.
There used to be lots of threads like that about one thing or another. **** all to do with driving mate...



LSR said:


> I think you're a chav/twat. With the secrecy about your car, one is entitled to ask if you own the GT-R you claim at the age of 24. How do you like that?


Oooh, im being called names by the geeky lil internet boy, im telling my mum, boo hoo.
By your definitions i probly am a chav, and you cry about what i put about you and Harry so youd think im a twat, but id still knock you the **** out if you said that to me in real life so hey, lol. 

[email protected], its secret here as everyones such lil bitches any post turns to snide comments, and as its quite different id like to keep it fairly 1 off, and posting pics before even my own cars done for everyone to see isnt the best way is it.
Dont mean people dont see, just YOU dont 
Pikey off here for example has seen detailed pics of inlet+exhaust manifolds, infact theres a pics post about them that got (goes n checks....) 106 replys and 1399 views, so not as secret as you think eh boy 
[email protected] even owning it thing too, when ive posted pics of it at the start and was bought from somebody off here   

Loving the "one is entitled" no wonder you think im a chav when you speak like prince charles, lol


----------



## Harry_w (Oct 13, 2004)

Ha ha ha haaaa look at you guys PMSL at you, i don't care what anyone thinks of me, I had this on gtouk when I first joined there they all thought i was some little shit twat who lies about sht

look the only reason i joined this forum was to congratulate A barnes on his car @ Santa pod which is mighty impressive upfront.

So what if i am wrong, at least now i know whats right....but i still think i am right on saying V engines produce more torque than inline engines.  

well done on your times for people who got in the 11's, but then gt's do weigh about 350kg heavier than skylines.  

Did i say you have to launch at peak torque, most people launch @ 7000rpm, so what  

No the person with the red gto is dave naxton, he has loads of mods but a best quarter of 12.7   LOL

sorry about the thing with the HP mate i jumped the gun, i thought you were on about it's max bhp was 402bhp....
STEVE N

FYI yes i'm a lad 15 too be precise SO WHAT for my age i actually know quite alot more than your typical chav, reading fart power in his room, i have been brought up on jap supercars from the age of aroun 9, you really think i care that much   i couldn't care less my friend...  I just felt like putting what i thought up.... And for the last time torque does matter..... You telling me if you had a 800bhp skyline with 250lb/ft of torque, it would be really fast, WIF it would be slow a shit.

explain how a rice-mobile 2ltr turbo Eclipse is capable of hundreds of horsepower, but hardly any torque.(Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower ,so a high reving tinny rice burner is going to produce more horsepower for it's torque than a low reving V-formation block. But, as torque is what counts when accelerating, a low power, high torque engine is better than a high power, low torque engine. 

Yes i do drive cars actually,....and don't take the **** either  

I dont' want to start a slagging match, can't you grow up at your age and act like someone who wouldn't mind explaining, or chatting about what they think instead of going and calling me stuff. 

Thanks Dudes

Harry


----------



## Keith_C (Mar 24, 2002)

Harry_w said:


> But, as torque is what counts when accelerating, a low power, high torque engine is better than a high power, low torque engine.


Really? So how come a Civic Type R is faster than a Golf TDi GTI? Or all those F1 cars with 800bhp and naff-all torque?

Have a look here: http://www.seatcupra.net/guide_powertorque.htm

The jap car torque crown belongs to the Supra. The jap car power crown is shared between the GTR and the Supra, and the jap all-round performance crown belongs firmly to the GTR - multiple success at TOTB has shown that. The GTO is exactly what it is - a 90's jap GT (in the true sense of the word) designed to compete with the 300ZX, something it did well. But it HAS been superseded.

Go on, show you're not a blinkered GTO fanboy, open your mind and learn...


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Harry_w said:


> a low power, high torque engine is better than a high power, low torque engine


LOL! **** me, you proved you know nothing within 15 words.


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

It's a bit sad to see this thread go this way. 

What started off as an interesting thread has degenerated into a childish [email protected] match. Can't people just debate / discuss things amicably (even if they do have different ideas) without reducing themselves to petty insults and smart @ss comments - because they feel they have superier knowledge than someone else ?


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

TBH apart from LSR calling me a chav twat, lol, nothing else is too bad, its more spoiled by misinformation than slagging matches TBH (most of them stem from people talking total **** tho, lol), generally a good techy thread.


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

But that's my point Steve - if you think people are misinformed then just explain why you think they are misinformed, there's no need to tell people they are full of shit, etc. It just makes threads like this go the wrong way. Nad doesn't post here that often ... but even he posted up asking to have a discussion and not a [email protected] match ... so it can't just be my observation.


----------



## 323GT-R (Aug 19, 2002)

With all due respect Daz, if the people who posted actually read the thread from the start, they might learn something, instead of posting the same misinformed trash over and over again...


----------



## MONKEYmark (Apr 17, 2003)

Keith_C said:


> I was just waiting for a good moment to mention the 325lbft of the UK-spec Supra or the 338lbft of the VVTi one...


got it wrong, i always thought the uk spec had 300foot and the jap spec had 315 foot


on the oz site it says below

http://mkiv.supras.org.nz/specs.htm


JAP spec
280hp 323 ft/lb (1997 VVTi 338 ft/lb) 440cc injectors


UK spec
320hp 315 ft/lb 540cc injectors


----------



## Keith_C (Mar 24, 2002)

MONKEYmark said:


> got it wrong, i always thought the uk spec had 300foot and the jap spec had 315 foot
> 
> 
> on the oz site it says below
> ...


 Yeah I saw that, but they've listed the numbers for the US-spec. Toyota's figures for UK spec in the UK were 326bhp/325lbft.

Plus I was under the impression that injector sizes were 440/550 jap/export

It was however the only place I could find any vvti torque numbers, and as Oz/NZ generally got J-spec cars (including the J-spec only VVTi TT) I figured they were most likely to be accurate on that part. Can't blame them for not being 100% clued up on Euro-spec cars!


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Daz said:


> But that's my point Steve - if you think people are misinformed then just explain why you think they are misinformed, there's no need to tell people they are full of shit, etc. It just makes threads like this go the wrong way. Nad doesn't post here that often ... but even he posted up asking to have a discussion and not a [email protected] match ... so it can't just be my observation.


I did give tech reasons for why peoples "advice" was wrong, as did others, over and over, but either the people cant read, didnt read, or didnt belive us, maybe you should read the post properly yourself if you dont realise thats true. Lot of tech reasoning, very little abuse.

And someone else agrees...



323GT-R said:


> With all due respect Daz, if the people who posted actually read the thread from the start, they might learn something, instead of posting the same misinformed trash over and over again...


See


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

Perhaps they still disagreed with the points of view put across ? People are still entitled to keep to their initial thoughts if they still feel they are correct ?

If you don't think they are seeing your point of view, you don't start saying that they are full of sh1t. You either find another way of trying to get them to see your point, or you give up in the knowledge they are not going to change their mind.

And thankyou - I have read this thread proprely ... and I learnt a fair bit (as i've not looked into this kind of thing very deeply before).


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

I said the 15y/o boy knew nothing, due to what he said about the power/torque thing, and thats no opinion, thats simple fact.

I didnt realise i said anyone was full of shit tho...  

I dont really put across points of view, as points of view and opinions are irrelivent in an argument, i just posted fact, i could have an opinion that the world is made of plastic and my cat is the son of god, doesnt make it correct, lol.


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

I think i'll do as per my post and just let you get on with it


----------



## 323GT-R (Aug 19, 2002)

Put the cat on Ebay


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Far Sale, 1 cat, FEMALE, also the SON if god, fussy with food, sometimes pees on the floor, possibly the most powerful being ever to walk the plastic earth, ideal for people who like wine, sandals, or wish to cross the sea on foot, see bible for details, anyone with zero feedback please email before bidding.


----------



## MONKEYmark (Apr 17, 2003)

Keith_C said:


> Yeah I saw that, but they've listed the numbers for the US-spec. Toyota's figures for UK spec in the UK were 326bhp/325lbft.
> 
> Plus I was under the impression that injector sizes were 440/550 jap/export
> 
> It was however the only place I could find any vvti torque numbers, and as Oz/NZ generally got J-spec cars (including the J-spec only VVTi TT) I figured they were most likely to be accurate on that part. Can't blame them for not being 100% clued up on Euro-spec cars!


i know they 550cc injectors on uk/us spec was just quoting off there site.

dont matter too much really, its a pretty good car in midrange


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

Well I havent posted any wrong information for about 5 pages now  although Steve has, I asked for a graph from a 2l not a 2.2  

I too have learnt alot from this thread but it still hasnt fully answered what I want to know, which cant really be answered unless it heads towards response and spool up time, linked in with big bhp and torque on small displacement engines, and which is best for country roads, a fast car or a quick car and what makes one??

I think this has been the problem with what I have been posting as it has been hard to get into words exactly what I was thinking.

Nad


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

how about this?

the areas oulined in red are what I think it should be like, based on wheel hp readings on the day, but it oversped/overpowered the dyno at high speed and the coastdown losses had spikes in unless the operator backed off early. (the initial power figures showed up as 647hp which surprised a few people!)










It's a subaru btw.


----------



## rallymad_nad (Feb 16, 2002)

After going out in a car the other day am slowly deciding that 450bhp is a little too much for country roads anyway regardless of where it comes in in the rev range, although it was originally going to be used for rallying and hillclimbing. May just stick a T28 on it and leave it with 400bhp with massive response and spool up. At least at some point I may actually have a chance of reaching peak power that way.

TBH my Nova has always had enough power, just never enough traction in the wet hence the move to 4WD. Shall see how it goes..........

Nad

P.S. Paul, wasnt actually bothered about seeing another graph, but thanks anyway. Is that counted as a peak torque in the midrange


----------



## 323GT-R (Aug 19, 2002)

Paul, is that still 2 litres? The shape looks similar to my last dyno graph, but the numbers seem a little bigger 

Nad, maybe the real point is that the power / torque numbers are less important than throttle response in a real word situation.


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

no it's not 2.0 any more! 2.5 engine with Garrett turbo.

It could probably do with a slightly smaller turbo and less outright power to be quick on a lot of Britain's roads, purely to reduce lag (not bring the turbo in at lower RPM, but bring it in quicker). Although ALS would probably sort that from a competition point of view. It doesn't however need more torque.

Paul


----------

