Nobody cares about torque anymore!
10-07-03, 01:13 AM
#26
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by turbojeff
That is the truth. Usually a street race starts with both drivers "rolling" on the throttle to stay out front. With a big boost car they will get their *** beat if they aren't expecting to race.
What wins races is a wide, useable powerband. Don't make full boost until 5000 rpm, can't use that very well most of the time.
That is the truth. Usually a street race starts with both drivers "rolling" on the throttle to stay out front. With a big boost car they will get their *** beat if they aren't expecting to race.
What wins races is a wide, useable powerband. Don't make full boost until 5000 rpm, can't use that very well most of the time.
What some people aren't considering is that a big cube engine only makes massive amounts of torque at WOT. There's an amazing invention called the human foot which can modulate the amount of throttle the engine is given which can control that prodigious torque quite effectively.
With big cubes and a large stroke, there's a lot of power on tap *everywhere* in the usable rpm range. What some people apparently don't understand is that you don't have to use all of it all the time... but it's *always* there when you need it, not after your turbo spools up or after your engine climbs another 3,000 rpm.
With larger naturally aspirated engines, the power band is very linear and very predictable without the spike of power that a small engine with a power adder is stuck with. The smaller the engine and the bigger the turbo, the worse the spike, the narrower the powerband, and the less control you have over that power.
Last edited by jimlab; 10-07-03 at 01:27 AM.
10-07-03, 08:55 AM
#28
Full Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: austin, TX
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jimlab
With larger naturally aspirated engines, the power band is very linear and very predictable without the spike of power that a small engine with a power adder is stuck with. The smaller the engine and the bigger the turbo, the worse the spike, the narrower the powerband, and the less control you have over that power.
With larger naturally aspirated engines, the power band is very linear and very predictable without the spike of power that a small engine with a power adder is stuck with. The smaller the engine and the bigger the turbo, the worse the spike, the narrower the powerband, and the less control you have over that power.
In all seriousness I think too many people get caught up in trying to cram the biggest turbo into their engine bay and don't find the right balanced turbo for their application. It won't matter if a t78 makes 500 rwhp at redline if a quicker spooling turbo makes it exponetially faster in the low end.
Jim makes a great point, linear powerband. Go back to rxrotary's chart of the F1. F-L-A-T.
10-07-03, 09:32 AM
#29
Hey, where did my $$$ go?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bimingham, AL
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
course if you dont have your foot on the floor, your not making all your tq, and your not going very fast.
I like a nice linear hp band. I run my peak hp for around 1500rpms which is how far the rpms fall when I change gears. I'm always at peak hp, the only time I'm not is when I'm just cruising around but thanks to gears its just a gear change away.
Just cause you can make the same tq at 2000rpms as 5000rpms with a V8 doesnt mean your car is as fast at 2000rpms as it would be at 5000rpms. You would still need to gear down to get in your powerband (if you want to be fast anyway) so whats the difference.
BTW - I absolutly LOVE Paul Yaw's site, I've spent many hours there reading.
STEPHEN
I like a nice linear hp band. I run my peak hp for around 1500rpms which is how far the rpms fall when I change gears. I'm always at peak hp, the only time I'm not is when I'm just cruising around but thanks to gears its just a gear change away.
Just cause you can make the same tq at 2000rpms as 5000rpms with a V8 doesnt mean your car is as fast at 2000rpms as it would be at 5000rpms. You would still need to gear down to get in your powerband (if you want to be fast anyway) so whats the difference.
BTW - I absolutly LOVE Paul Yaw's site, I've spent many hours there reading.
STEPHEN
Last edited by SPOautos; 10-07-03 at 09:38 AM.
10-07-03, 10:59 AM
#31
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by SPOautos
Just cause you can make the same tq at 2000rpms as 5000rpms with a V8 doesnt mean your car is as fast at 2000rpms as it would be at 5000rpms. You would still need to gear down to get in your powerband (if you want to be fast anyway) so whats the difference.
Just cause you can make the same tq at 2000rpms as 5000rpms with a V8 doesnt mean your car is as fast at 2000rpms as it would be at 5000rpms. You would still need to gear down to get in your powerband (if you want to be fast anyway) so whats the difference.
A vehicle accelerates at its greatest rate of speed (g-force) at its torque peak in 1st gear. Unfortunately, you can't stay at the torque peak indefinitely, and you can't stay in first gear indefinitely, so eventually you'll have to shift. Why wouldn't you shift to the next gear after reaching your torque peak? Because even after the torque peak, torque at the axles is still higher in the current gear than the maximum possible torque (again, peak) at the axles in the next gear up. Maximizing acceleration is all about maximizing torque at the axles, in any gear, at any rpm in the usable band.
Example: A stock FD peaks at about 235 lb-ft. of torque at 5,000 rpm. In first gear, maximum torque at the axles is ~2,850 lb-ft. (235 x 3.483 x 4.1 x 0.85). The engine is down to 137 lb-ft. of torque at 8,000 rpm, but torque at the axles is still ~1,660 lb-ft. (137 x 3.483 x 4.1 x 0.85), higher than it would be at maximum in second gear (235 x 2.015 x 4.1 x 0.85 = 1,650). Not by much, but you're still faster holding 1st gear to redline, assuming traction, than you are shifting.
When torque at the axles in the current gear falls below maximum torque at the axles in the next gear, you shift. Ideally, the drop between gears would also result in the engine rpm falling only as far as its torque peak. This would result in maximum acceleration through all gears.
The difference of having an engine which makes a lot of torque (let's say 400 lb-ft.) at 2,000 rpm (and even more at higher rpm) compared to one that doesn't make the same 400 lb-ft. of torque until 5,500 rpm, is that you can accelerate in your current gear at a high rate of speed immediately, even at lower rpm, as opposed to the engine with less low-end torque which must be downshifted first to get up into its powerband. Shifting takes time.
In addition, wheel speed is a factor. If you can accelerate as hard in 3rd gear as another car can in 2nd gear, you're going to gain a lead on them, assuming adequate traction. Simple math dictates that if torque at the axles is the same for each, the car in the higher gear will cover more ground at any given rpm because it will have a higher wheel speed. Turn your tires faster (without losing traction) and your vehicle covers more ground in the same period of time. It's as simple as that.
Last edited by jimlab; 10-07-03 at 11:05 AM.
10-07-03, 11:15 AM
#32
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by rxrotary2_7
no he did not read it.
even if he did, i am guessing he wont believe it anyways.
part of the reason i dont post much technical stuff. nor do many other people....
waste of time. i will continue to read to myself now.
no he did not read it.
even if he did, i am guessing he wont believe it anyways.
part of the reason i dont post much technical stuff. nor do many other people....
waste of time. i will continue to read to myself now.
Where was all the "reason" in this thread?: Drifting
It's like having an argument with someone who refuses to listen and then says "Oh yeah? Well you suck!"
10-07-03, 12:05 PM
#33
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by DamonB
Read to yourself, but don't talk to the voices in your head
Where was all the "reason" in this thread?: Drifting
It's like having an argument with someone who refuses to listen and then says "Oh yeah? Well you suck!"
Read to yourself, but don't talk to the voices in your head
Where was all the "reason" in this thread?: Drifting
It's like having an argument with someone who refuses to listen and then says "Oh yeah? Well you suck!"
10-07-03, 12:10 PM
#34
Rotary Enthusiast
Sounds like hardbodeez needs to go sequential to find low end torque. seq'l can be controlled nicely at his 340 whp.
Nice analysis from yaw. Main point is that for 2 engines with very different redlines, hp is the main thing. But his graph does seem to have a wierd nonlinear mph axis, and curves suggest redlines are being exceeded. mabe just a plot axis error.
from jim:
"In addition, wheel speed is a factor. If you can accelerate as hard in 3rd gear as another car can in 2nd gear, you're going to gain a lead on them, assuming adequate traction. Simple math dictates that if torque at the axles is the same for each, the car in the higher gear will cover more ground at any given rpm because it will have a higher wheel speed. Turn your tires faster (without losing traction) and your vehicle covers more ground in the same period of time. It's as simple as that."
agree will all but this last paragraph. if in both cases the torque at the axles is the same, and same weight, tire radius, and traction, both cars will accelerate at the same rate, same change in mph per sec. doesn't matter that one is in 2nd, other is in 3rd. If you imply the 3rd gear car is at a higher speed for this example, then he will not pull away from the 2nd gear car.
Nice link to show optimum shift points. It's clear that being beyond the torque peak after a shift doesn't really matter in most cases.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel....ally/tech1.htm
Nice analysis from yaw. Main point is that for 2 engines with very different redlines, hp is the main thing. But his graph does seem to have a wierd nonlinear mph axis, and curves suggest redlines are being exceeded. mabe just a plot axis error.
from jim:
"In addition, wheel speed is a factor. If you can accelerate as hard in 3rd gear as another car can in 2nd gear, you're going to gain a lead on them, assuming adequate traction. Simple math dictates that if torque at the axles is the same for each, the car in the higher gear will cover more ground at any given rpm because it will have a higher wheel speed. Turn your tires faster (without losing traction) and your vehicle covers more ground in the same period of time. It's as simple as that."
agree will all but this last paragraph. if in both cases the torque at the axles is the same, and same weight, tire radius, and traction, both cars will accelerate at the same rate, same change in mph per sec. doesn't matter that one is in 2nd, other is in 3rd. If you imply the 3rd gear car is at a higher speed for this example, then he will not pull away from the 2nd gear car.
Nice link to show optimum shift points. It's clear that being beyond the torque peak after a shift doesn't really matter in most cases.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel....ally/tech1.htm
10-07-03, 01:12 PM
#35
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by DamonB
Read to yourself, but don't talk to the voices in your head
Where was all the "reason" in this thread?: Drifting
It's like having an argument with someone who refuses to listen and then says "Oh yeah? Well you suck!"
Read to yourself, but don't talk to the voices in your head
Where was all the "reason" in this thread?: Drifting
It's like having an argument with someone who refuses to listen and then says "Oh yeah? Well you suck!"
I just read through the drifting thread....the fact that earumazda is a senior in aeronautical engineering is just slightly terrifying....I think that, more than ever, our society is developing people that can't think for themselves. I blame computers for a lot of that....in engineering circles anyway....(hey I'm guilty of this too, before anyone gets bent out of shape).
10-07-03, 01:15 PM
#36
Re: Nobody cares about torque anymore!
Originally posted by hardbodeez
My motor was built by KD Rotary and makes 340hp at the wheels. When 4500 hits, those n/seq-twins kick in like gangbusters and blow the car sideways on street tires. Not very practical for short little blasts in everyday driving.[...]Torque is a forgotten word around this site, and until we work on helping the low end, MOST of us our defeating our purpose.
My motor was built by KD Rotary and makes 340hp at the wheels. When 4500 hits, those n/seq-twins kick in like gangbusters and blow the car sideways on street tires. Not very practical for short little blasts in everyday driving.[...]Torque is a forgotten word around this site, and until we work on helping the low end, MOST of us our defeating our purpose.
On top of this, I find it funny that anyone would be complaining about the lack of torque in rotary vehicles, as if it comes as any surprise. Our strongest points, along with our method of forced induction, simply do not lie in the low end.
10-07-03, 01:20 PM
#37
Hey, where did my $$$ go?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bimingham, AL
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jimlab
This is the difference.
A vehicle accelerates at its greatest rate of speed (g-force) at its torque peak in 1st gear. Unfortunately, you can't stay at the torque peak indefinitely, and you can't stay in first gear indefinitely, so eventually you'll have to shift. Why wouldn't you shift to the next gear after reaching your torque peak? Because even after the torque peak, torque at the axles is still higher in the current gear than the maximum possible torque (again, peak) at the axles in the next gear up. Maximizing acceleration is all about maximizing torque at the axles, in any gear, at any rpm in the usable band.
Example: A stock FD peaks at about 235 lb-ft. of torque at 5,000 rpm. In first gear, maximum torque at the axles is ~2,850 lb-ft. (235 x 3.483 x 4.1 x 0.85). The engine is down to 137 lb-ft. of torque at 8,000 rpm, but torque at the axles is still ~1,660 lb-ft. (137 x 3.483 x 4.1 x 0.85), higher than it would be at maximum in second gear (235 x 2.015 x 4.1 x 0.85 = 1,650). Not by much, but you're still faster holding 1st gear to redline, assuming traction, than you are shifting.
When torque at the axles in the current gear falls below maximum torque at the axles in the next gear, you shift. Ideally, the drop between gears would also result in the engine rpm falling only as far as its torque peak. This would result in maximum acceleration through all gears.
This is the difference.
A vehicle accelerates at its greatest rate of speed (g-force) at its torque peak in 1st gear. Unfortunately, you can't stay at the torque peak indefinitely, and you can't stay in first gear indefinitely, so eventually you'll have to shift. Why wouldn't you shift to the next gear after reaching your torque peak? Because even after the torque peak, torque at the axles is still higher in the current gear than the maximum possible torque (again, peak) at the axles in the next gear up. Maximizing acceleration is all about maximizing torque at the axles, in any gear, at any rpm in the usable band.
Example: A stock FD peaks at about 235 lb-ft. of torque at 5,000 rpm. In first gear, maximum torque at the axles is ~2,850 lb-ft. (235 x 3.483 x 4.1 x 0.85). The engine is down to 137 lb-ft. of torque at 8,000 rpm, but torque at the axles is still ~1,660 lb-ft. (137 x 3.483 x 4.1 x 0.85), higher than it would be at maximum in second gear (235 x 2.015 x 4.1 x 0.85 = 1,650). Not by much, but you're still faster holding 1st gear to redline, assuming traction, than you are shifting.
When torque at the axles in the current gear falls below maximum torque at the axles in the next gear, you shift. Ideally, the drop between gears would also result in the engine rpm falling only as far as its torque peak. This would result in maximum acceleration through all gears.
Originally posted by jimlab
The difference of having an engine which makes a lot of torque (let's say 400 lb-ft.) at 2,000 rpm (and even more at higher rpm) compared to one that doesn't make the same 400 lb-ft. of torque until 5,500 rpm, is that you can accelerate in your current gear at a high rate of speed immediately, even at lower rpm, as opposed to the engine with less low-end torque which must be downshifted first to get up into its powerband. Shifting takes time.
The difference of having an engine which makes a lot of torque (let's say 400 lb-ft.) at 2,000 rpm (and even more at higher rpm) compared to one that doesn't make the same 400 lb-ft. of torque until 5,500 rpm, is that you can accelerate in your current gear at a high rate of speed immediately, even at lower rpm, as opposed to the engine with less low-end torque which must be downshifted first to get up into its powerband. Shifting takes time.
Originally posted by jimlab
In addition, wheel speed is a factor. If you can accelerate as hard in 3rd gear as another car can in 2nd gear, you're going to gain a lead on them, assuming adequate traction. Simple math dictates that if torque at the axles is the same for each, the car in the higher gear will cover more ground at any given rpm because it will have a higher wheel speed. Turn your tires faster (without losing traction) and your vehicle covers more ground in the same period of time. It's as simple as that.
In addition, wheel speed is a factor. If you can accelerate as hard in 3rd gear as another car can in 2nd gear, you're going to gain a lead on them, assuming adequate traction. Simple math dictates that if torque at the axles is the same for each, the car in the higher gear will cover more ground at any given rpm because it will have a higher wheel speed. Turn your tires faster (without losing traction) and your vehicle covers more ground in the same period of time. It's as simple as that.
You can turn your tires with 500lbs of tq 2000 times a minute or you can turn them with 300lbs of tq 7000 times a minute. The later will accelerate much faster because its getting a lot more tq to the ground per minute, this is basically the fundemental basis for HP. Its tq times rpm....or tq over time.
STEPHEN
Last edited by SPOautos; 10-07-03 at 01:35 PM.
10-07-03, 01:52 PM
#38
Lives on the Forum
Don't make this too confusing guys. Torque is a measurement of force, NOT power (because there is no work involved with torque). You can apply a hell of a lot of torque to a bolt for instance, but unless the bolt turns you did no work and therefore made no power.
Engine power is the entire area under the curve of the dyno graph, not merely the highest horsepower attained at a certain RPM. I would much rather have my power nearly consistent across a very wide RPM range as opposed to having higher, peaky power around a certain RPM.
Check out umrswimr's Vette for instance:
Now that's FLAT!
Engine power is the entire area under the curve of the dyno graph, not merely the highest horsepower attained at a certain RPM. I would much rather have my power nearly consistent across a very wide RPM range as opposed to having higher, peaky power around a certain RPM.
Check out umrswimr's Vette for instance:
Now that's FLAT!
10-07-03, 02:21 PM
#39
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mr rx-7 tt
Yep...
Oh, Next time I pull up to the light next to the semi with 800 ft lbs of torque I'll remember not to race because it's torque that wins races...(just like the trucks dominating the NHRA)...
Yep...
Oh, Next time I pull up to the light next to the semi with 800 ft lbs of torque I'll remember not to race because it's torque that wins races...(just like the trucks dominating the NHRA)...
You guys are forgetting HP/weight ratio which plays a huge factor. The CRX that beats vettes has nothing to do with high torque, or HP or anything it has to do with a crx weighs 2000lbs and a vette weighs 3 couple.
Torque is king but Weight is the queen. for every 100lbs dropped you will gain .1 sec off your et at the track.
10-07-03, 02:45 PM
#40
2/4 wheel cornering fiend
Crikey...all this mental masturbation.
It should have been asked in the very beginning-- as Shinobi X pointed out-- why hardbodeez was complaining about a lack of low-end torque when he was running a non-sequential setup. In addition to driving a small-displacement turbocharged vehicle. Yeah, some "street races" may be won by torque, but others (especially real races at a track event) are usually won by horsepower (of course, that doesn't mean you cram everything up at the top of the powerband).
If you want boat-loads of instant response torque, then get that Mustang or another V8-powered car, or shoe-horn that V8 or Rolls-Royce Merlin or whatever into your FD. But one of the appealing aspects of the FD is its ability to get such great overall performance from such a small engine.
Last edited by Kento; 10-07-03 at 02:51 PM.
10-07-03, 03:45 PM
#41
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DamonB
Engine power is the entire area under the curve of the dyno graph, not merely the highest horsepower attained at a certain RPM.
Engine power is the entire area under the curve of the dyno graph, not merely the highest horsepower attained at a certain RPM.
(to no one in particular)
10-07-03, 04:27 PM
#42
Hey, where did my $$$ go?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bimingham, AL
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DamonB
Don't make this too confusing guys. Torque is a measurement of force, NOT power (because there is no work involved with torque). You can apply a hell of a lot of torque to a bolt for instance, but unless the bolt turns you did no work and therefore made no power.
Engine power is the entire area under the curve of the dyno graph, not merely the highest horsepower attained at a certain RPM. I would much rather have my power nearly consistent across a very wide RPM range as opposed to having higher, peaky power around a certain RPM.
Check out umrswimr's Vette for instance:
Now that's FLAT!
Don't make this too confusing guys. Torque is a measurement of force, NOT power (because there is no work involved with torque). You can apply a hell of a lot of torque to a bolt for instance, but unless the bolt turns you did no work and therefore made no power.
Engine power is the entire area under the curve of the dyno graph, not merely the highest horsepower attained at a certain RPM. I would much rather have my power nearly consistent across a very wide RPM range as opposed to having higher, peaky power around a certain RPM.
Check out umrswimr's Vette for instance:
Now that's FLAT!
What are you refering to as flat? His tq line or his power line cause I dont see anything special about his power line, its only flat for 1000rpms. His Tq line is long and flat but like you pointed out tq numbers dont accelerate a car.
STEPHEN
10-07-03, 04:55 PM
#43
Originally posted by sanfordman
And you say that the rx7 feels like a v6, is that supposed to be an insult? Ever heard of a 2jz-gte or better yet an rb26dett?
And you say that the rx7 feels like a v6, is that supposed to be an insult? Ever heard of a 2jz-gte or better yet an rb26dett?
10-07-03, 05:04 PM
#44
This has been an interesting read. I think the bottom line is that you need to chose a vehicle that is suited to the purpose that is intended for it. People don't buy RX-7s for raw low end power, people buy them because:
1) they look nice
2) handle better than anything in it's price range
3)they have unique, high-reving engines wich put out tons of power considering their volume.
4) the interior is one of the best ever designed.
If torque is what your really after, go invest in some aftermarket gearing and smaller wheels. If that still doesn't do it for you, sell the car and buy a Stang.
Rob
1) they look nice
2) handle better than anything in it's price range
3)they have unique, high-reving engines wich put out tons of power considering their volume.
4) the interior is one of the best ever designed.
If torque is what your really after, go invest in some aftermarket gearing and smaller wheels. If that still doesn't do it for you, sell the car and buy a Stang.
Rob
10-07-03, 05:42 PM
#45
Senior Member
Originally posted by DamonB
Now that's FLAT!
Now that's FLAT!
What you really need is good LINEAR torque in the area you need it Some people want a car to punt to the shops, so a torque curve like the one posted would feel ideal. People like me have a second car to get to the shops, so we want a car that has a nice flat pull near redline.
Everything is a compromise. There's arent many engines like the ones jim talks about that have solid torque from idle to redline and those that do invariably have a low redline so they suffer in the gearing stakes and end up with less impressive torque at the wheels.
-pete
10-07-03, 07:54 PM
#46
Shiftin' and Smokin'
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My first post has been taken all wrong. First, it's funny to see how most of you "rotary enthusiats" which I am one myself, are quick to jump on me with subject of torque in an FD. I am a HUGE fan of this car's quickness, speed, handling, braking, looks etc. I LOVE this car and said nothing to cut up an rx7. I spent enough money buying it. As an unbiased opinion....since I have only had this car a few months...I say we need to build more bottom end. I agree it's nice to have a big single turbo with wads of power making these cars scream!
I would like to hear more about a flatter torque curve and quicker 0-60 times than read another magazine article about an rx with "500 rwhp" that some guy drives around on 18" radials, that doesn't own a pair of slicks. It's a waste, and MOST racers know that you'll never USE that power it's overkill.
The reason my car is n-seq is because I bought it that way,..it was what I could afford at that time. To me, in my opinion or IMO (For you computer geeks..who hang out here waiting to post nasty and arrogant rebuttals) this car feels like a an un-supercharged GTP under 4500rpm. The GTP at best would run high 14's stock. TO ME, that's not fast. To others it might be. The car hits 4500rpm while I am passing someone at mid throttle, the boost hits and blows the car sideways. I love the power, but it would be nice to have that power lower in rpm.
With the 340 rwhp I have and radial tires 225f/245r on stock rims with the boost controller on "high setting, 17pounds" this is what happens: From a dead stop, I lay into it it revs up near 4000 and blows the car sideways and qucikly bounces the 8500 rev limiter. I powershift second only to realize 1st gear was completely wasted. Even feathering the clutch numerous ways can't stop the insane wheelspin as soon as the turbos both hit. In fact I have more fun with the boost controller set on "low" around town because I can actually use the boost and not shredding the tires off on each throttle hit. This car only has 340 rwhp. I can just imagine some of you with the big 450-500 rwhp on the street. Those cars must be just nuts!! I don't believe anyone can hook those cars on street radials with that much power, I'm sure it's the same as what I am dealing with.
The rx7 is one of my most admired cars. I am not "insulting it" by saying it feels undesireable under 4000rpm, because it really doesn't make power down there, let's get serious! Yes a V-8 does, but I wasen't comparing it to a Viper or a Vette. This thread was about trying to get more torque out of these motors, and that would really help these cars since it is a weak spot.
No, I barely hear mentions to torque, and yes, I hear hp #'s all the time.
Motor trend television's drivers tested the rx8 and said it felt good when being revved and sluggish when way under the powerband. Why? Because it makes such shitty torque. AGAIN, the RX8 feels sluggish around town(by MANY who have driven it)because the torque isn't there. The rx7 makes up for it more with it's turbos and light weight. This is a production car, it's purpose was all different types of driving, and in most cases around town, and that's where torque is used most.
I drive my car around town and keep it revving under 4000rpm, TO ME it just feels like there's very little down there! There's really no in between with this car, it feels like a 2 stroke, on or off, and I would love to see that transition smoothed out keeping the same power.
YES- speed is dangerous, streetracing is dangerous and illegal. If you want to put-put around buy a stock cavalier..(suckers!)
P.S. This site is to post info on people's own thoughts, opinions, and help for others with problems. If some, are too intelligent to waste their own time here, don't be here or reply something ignorant! Too many times I see honest people posting comments that everyone knows, and the person gets hammered for asking such an "Easy" question. Well NO **** SHERLOCKS...if the person asking the question knew the answer to the problem wouldn't bother posting! Most of the people on here are kind and helpful, it's the odd few that can't wait to bitch at threads. Go in a chat room, then you can cut people up all you want!
I would like to hear more about a flatter torque curve and quicker 0-60 times than read another magazine article about an rx with "500 rwhp" that some guy drives around on 18" radials, that doesn't own a pair of slicks. It's a waste, and MOST racers know that you'll never USE that power it's overkill.
The reason my car is n-seq is because I bought it that way,..it was what I could afford at that time. To me, in my opinion or IMO (For you computer geeks..who hang out here waiting to post nasty and arrogant rebuttals) this car feels like a an un-supercharged GTP under 4500rpm. The GTP at best would run high 14's stock. TO ME, that's not fast. To others it might be. The car hits 4500rpm while I am passing someone at mid throttle, the boost hits and blows the car sideways. I love the power, but it would be nice to have that power lower in rpm.
With the 340 rwhp I have and radial tires 225f/245r on stock rims with the boost controller on "high setting, 17pounds" this is what happens: From a dead stop, I lay into it it revs up near 4000 and blows the car sideways and qucikly bounces the 8500 rev limiter. I powershift second only to realize 1st gear was completely wasted. Even feathering the clutch numerous ways can't stop the insane wheelspin as soon as the turbos both hit. In fact I have more fun with the boost controller set on "low" around town because I can actually use the boost and not shredding the tires off on each throttle hit. This car only has 340 rwhp. I can just imagine some of you with the big 450-500 rwhp on the street. Those cars must be just nuts!! I don't believe anyone can hook those cars on street radials with that much power, I'm sure it's the same as what I am dealing with.
The rx7 is one of my most admired cars. I am not "insulting it" by saying it feels undesireable under 4000rpm, because it really doesn't make power down there, let's get serious! Yes a V-8 does, but I wasen't comparing it to a Viper or a Vette. This thread was about trying to get more torque out of these motors, and that would really help these cars since it is a weak spot.
No, I barely hear mentions to torque, and yes, I hear hp #'s all the time.
Motor trend television's drivers tested the rx8 and said it felt good when being revved and sluggish when way under the powerband. Why? Because it makes such shitty torque. AGAIN, the RX8 feels sluggish around town(by MANY who have driven it)because the torque isn't there. The rx7 makes up for it more with it's turbos and light weight. This is a production car, it's purpose was all different types of driving, and in most cases around town, and that's where torque is used most.
I drive my car around town and keep it revving under 4000rpm, TO ME it just feels like there's very little down there! There's really no in between with this car, it feels like a 2 stroke, on or off, and I would love to see that transition smoothed out keeping the same power.
YES- speed is dangerous, streetracing is dangerous and illegal. If you want to put-put around buy a stock cavalier..(suckers!)
P.S. This site is to post info on people's own thoughts, opinions, and help for others with problems. If some, are too intelligent to waste their own time here, don't be here or reply something ignorant! Too many times I see honest people posting comments that everyone knows, and the person gets hammered for asking such an "Easy" question. Well NO **** SHERLOCKS...if the person asking the question knew the answer to the problem wouldn't bother posting! Most of the people on here are kind and helpful, it's the odd few that can't wait to bitch at threads. Go in a chat room, then you can cut people up all you want!
10-07-03, 08:18 PM
#47
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by rpm_pwr
See how the whole thing just dies after 5k? (the torque curve). That means the car is going to lose accel and feel like it's dying as you rev it out.
See how the whole thing just dies after 5k? (the torque curve). That means the car is going to lose accel and feel like it's dying as you rev it out.
10-07-03, 08:26 PM
#49
Senior Member
DamonB:
so what are you going to do with that? Change up to the next gear? Unless you're running an 18 speed truck box, you're going to lose acceleration again, because you just dropped your torque multiplier.
What am I missing here?
Hardbodeez:
I think you've just got off on the wrong foot. What you sound like you really need is more low-end torque for city driving. Not more peak torque. It wont make your car go any faster (well not by much) but going back to sequential would be a bloody good start. Non-seq takes away a lot of the practical street enjoyment of these cars IMO
-pete
so what are you going to do with that? Change up to the next gear? Unless you're running an 18 speed truck box, you're going to lose acceleration again, because you just dropped your torque multiplier.
What am I missing here?
Hardbodeez:
I think you've just got off on the wrong foot. What you sound like you really need is more low-end torque for city driving. Not more peak torque. It wont make your car go any faster (well not by much) but going back to sequential would be a bloody good start. Non-seq takes away a lot of the practical street enjoyment of these cars IMO
-pete
10-07-03, 10:05 PM
#50
Originally posted by hardbodeez
My first post has been taken all wrong. First, it's funny to see how most of you "rotary enthusiats" which I am one myself, are quick to jump on me with subject of torque in an FD. I am a HUGE fan of this car's quickness, speed, handling, braking, looks etc. I LOVE this car and said nothing to cut up an rx7. I spent enough money buying it. As an unbiased opinion....since I have only had this car a few months...I say we need to build more bottom end. I agree it's nice to have a big single turbo with wads of power making these cars scream!
I would like to hear more about a flatter torque curve and quicker 0-60 times than read another magazine article about an rx with "500 rwhp" that some guy drives around on 18" radials, that doesn't own a pair of slicks. It's a waste, and MOST racers know that you'll never USE that power it's overkill.
The reason my car is n-seq is because I bought it that way,..it was what I could afford at that time. To me, in my opinion or IMO (For you computer geeks..who hang out here waiting to post nasty and arrogant rebuttals) this car feels like a an un-supercharged GTP under 4500rpm. The GTP at best would run high 14's stock. TO ME, that's not fast. To others it might be. The car hits 4500rpm while I am passing someone at mid throttle, the boost hits and blows the car sideways. I love the power, but it would be nice to have that power lower in rpm.
With the 340 rwhp I have and radial tires 225f/245r on stock rims with the boost controller on "high setting, 17pounds" this is what happens: From a dead stop, I lay into it it revs up near 4000 and blows the car sideways and qucikly bounces the 8500 rev limiter. I powershift second only to realize 1st gear was completely wasted. Even feathering the clutch numerous ways can't stop the insane wheelspin as soon as the turbos both hit. In fact I have more fun with the boost controller set on "low" around town because I can actually use the boost and not shredding the tires off on each throttle hit. This car only has 340 rwhp. I can just imagine some of you with the big 450-500 rwhp on the street. Those cars must be just nuts!! I don't believe anyone can hook those cars on street radials with that much power, I'm sure it's the same as what I am dealing with.
The rx7 is one of my most admired cars. I am not "insulting it" by saying it feels undesireable under 4000rpm, because it really doesn't make power down there, let's get serious! Yes a V-8 does, but I wasen't comparing it to a Viper or a Vette. This thread was about trying to get more torque out of these motors, and that would really help these cars since it is a weak spot.
No, I barely hear mentions to torque, and yes, I hear hp #'s all the time.
Motor trend television's drivers tested the rx8 and said it felt good when being revved and sluggish when way under the powerband. Why? Because it makes such shitty torque. AGAIN, the RX8 feels sluggish around town(by MANY who have driven it)because the torque isn't there. The rx7 makes up for it more with it's turbos and light weight. This is a production car, it's purpose was all different types of driving, and in most cases around town, and that's where torque is used most.
I drive my car around town and keep it revving under 4000rpm, TO ME it just feels like there's very little down there! There's really no in between with this car, it feels like a 2 stroke, on or off, and I would love to see that transition smoothed out keeping the same power.
YES- speed is dangerous, streetracing is dangerous and illegal. If you want to put-put around buy a stock cavalier..(suckers!)
P.S. This site is to post info on people's own thoughts, opinions, and help for others with problems. If some, are too intelligent to waste their own time here, don't be here or reply something ignorant! Too many times I see honest people posting comments that everyone knows, and the person gets hammered for asking such an "Easy" question. Well NO **** SHERLOCKS...if the person asking the question knew the answer to the problem wouldn't bother posting! Most of the people on here are kind and helpful, it's the odd few that can't wait to bitch at threads. Go in a chat room, then you can cut people up all you want!
My first post has been taken all wrong. First, it's funny to see how most of you "rotary enthusiats" which I am one myself, are quick to jump on me with subject of torque in an FD. I am a HUGE fan of this car's quickness, speed, handling, braking, looks etc. I LOVE this car and said nothing to cut up an rx7. I spent enough money buying it. As an unbiased opinion....since I have only had this car a few months...I say we need to build more bottom end. I agree it's nice to have a big single turbo with wads of power making these cars scream!
I would like to hear more about a flatter torque curve and quicker 0-60 times than read another magazine article about an rx with "500 rwhp" that some guy drives around on 18" radials, that doesn't own a pair of slicks. It's a waste, and MOST racers know that you'll never USE that power it's overkill.
The reason my car is n-seq is because I bought it that way,..it was what I could afford at that time. To me, in my opinion or IMO (For you computer geeks..who hang out here waiting to post nasty and arrogant rebuttals) this car feels like a an un-supercharged GTP under 4500rpm. The GTP at best would run high 14's stock. TO ME, that's not fast. To others it might be. The car hits 4500rpm while I am passing someone at mid throttle, the boost hits and blows the car sideways. I love the power, but it would be nice to have that power lower in rpm.
With the 340 rwhp I have and radial tires 225f/245r on stock rims with the boost controller on "high setting, 17pounds" this is what happens: From a dead stop, I lay into it it revs up near 4000 and blows the car sideways and qucikly bounces the 8500 rev limiter. I powershift second only to realize 1st gear was completely wasted. Even feathering the clutch numerous ways can't stop the insane wheelspin as soon as the turbos both hit. In fact I have more fun with the boost controller set on "low" around town because I can actually use the boost and not shredding the tires off on each throttle hit. This car only has 340 rwhp. I can just imagine some of you with the big 450-500 rwhp on the street. Those cars must be just nuts!! I don't believe anyone can hook those cars on street radials with that much power, I'm sure it's the same as what I am dealing with.
The rx7 is one of my most admired cars. I am not "insulting it" by saying it feels undesireable under 4000rpm, because it really doesn't make power down there, let's get serious! Yes a V-8 does, but I wasen't comparing it to a Viper or a Vette. This thread was about trying to get more torque out of these motors, and that would really help these cars since it is a weak spot.
No, I barely hear mentions to torque, and yes, I hear hp #'s all the time.
Motor trend television's drivers tested the rx8 and said it felt good when being revved and sluggish when way under the powerband. Why? Because it makes such shitty torque. AGAIN, the RX8 feels sluggish around town(by MANY who have driven it)because the torque isn't there. The rx7 makes up for it more with it's turbos and light weight. This is a production car, it's purpose was all different types of driving, and in most cases around town, and that's where torque is used most.
I drive my car around town and keep it revving under 4000rpm, TO ME it just feels like there's very little down there! There's really no in between with this car, it feels like a 2 stroke, on or off, and I would love to see that transition smoothed out keeping the same power.
YES- speed is dangerous, streetracing is dangerous and illegal. If you want to put-put around buy a stock cavalier..(suckers!)
P.S. This site is to post info on people's own thoughts, opinions, and help for others with problems. If some, are too intelligent to waste their own time here, don't be here or reply something ignorant! Too many times I see honest people posting comments that everyone knows, and the person gets hammered for asking such an "Easy" question. Well NO **** SHERLOCKS...if the person asking the question knew the answer to the problem wouldn't bother posting! Most of the people on here are kind and helpful, it's the odd few that can't wait to bitch at threads. Go in a chat room, then you can cut people up all you want!
I completely understand where you are comming from. This torque issue is one of the reasons I will be putting in a 20b in the near future. With more low end torque, the car doesn't have to be driven as hard to be enjoyed. I too have driven the Rx8 and was a little dissapointed about the low end power. However thats me comparing it to my stock 3rd gen that is running seq. My car feels so much faster down low. Have you driven an Fd thats running seq? Big differance.