2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.

89 hp jump from 88?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 11, 2005 | 06:44 AM
  #1  
jump454's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: new york
89 hp jump from 88?

i'm wondering what caused the jump in horsepower between these two years. was it just the ecu, or exhaust and intake or is it a totally different housing and rotors? im just curious cause the first one is easily changed. the second doesnt matter if i get aftermarket hop up parts. but the third ones a little harder to change. any help appreciated.
Reply
Old May 11, 2005 | 06:48 AM
  #2  
rarson's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
From: Fallston, MD
First off, the rotors are 9.7:1 as opposed to 9.4:1. Not only that, but they are also lighter. Then add in the VDI intake, which I believe actually accounts for a large amount of the horsepower difference.
Reply
Old May 11, 2005 | 06:55 AM
  #3  
Whizbang's Avatar
Respecognize!
Tenured Member 20 Years
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,106
Likes: 72
From: Anchor Bay, CA
cough cough FC FAQ cough cough...top of forum cough


there are ECU differences obviously from different fuel maps (1000 rpm higher than the s4), emissions needs, and the fact the motors are different in terms of manifold construction and compression ratio.
Reply
Old May 11, 2005 | 08:54 AM
  #4  
Icemark's Avatar
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 24
From: Rohnert Park CA
There is actually very little increase on the non turbos as peak torque didn't go up at all (well 3 ft/lbs) and since the torque is really what moves the car.. well

But the HP increases came from better flowing intake, high compression rotors, and revised engine management.
Reply
Old May 11, 2005 | 04:21 PM
  #5  
jump454's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: new york
i'm a retard. i meant in the na model. sorry i didnt clarify. but i was just curious if i was starting at a disadvantage compared to the 89 model. i could see the compression bump as a power adder but i didnt know if the other things you said applied to the na models too or just the turbos.
Reply
Old May 11, 2005 | 04:36 PM
  #6  
rarson's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
From: Fallston, MD
Mark, I have to disagree. Torque doesn't necessarily move anything. Horsepower, however, does imply movement. Torque is not a unit of work.
Reply
Old May 11, 2005 | 05:57 PM
  #7  
Icemark's Avatar
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 24
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally Posted by rarson
Mark, I have to disagree. Torque doesn't necessarily move anything. Horsepower, however, does imply movement. Torque is not a unit of work.
well if you want to get down to the nity grity, wattage would be more accurate, but they don't rate motors on wattage in the USA
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dona1326cosprings7
1st Generation Specific (1979-1985)
4
Oct 29, 2015 06:47 AM
izzolaw
Introduce yourself
1
Sep 28, 2015 06:03 AM
befarrer
Adaptronic Engine Mgmt - AUS
3
Sep 22, 2015 09:33 AM
23Racer
Race Car Tech
1
Sep 21, 2015 10:48 AM
The1Sun
1st Generation Specific (1979-1985)
0
Sep 7, 2015 10:21 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:49 PM.