wagon vs. rsx type s - Page 2
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

This is a discussion on wagon vs. rsx type s within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally posted by RSXSucks Um, don't know if this was in response to my post but if it is, then ...

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370
    Originally posted by RSXSucks


    Um, don't know if this was in response to my post but if it is, then replace 170 with 190 and repeat.
    Oops sorry. I thought I had quoted you at first and then realized that I hadn't but was to lazy to go back and redo the post.

    Yeah I see what you are saying and that's cool - it makes since. I was only saying that the 170whp was kinda too generalized by some folks.
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    139
    Originally posted by RSXSucks


    Um, don't know if this was in response to my post but if it is, then replace 170 with 190 and repeat. My point wasn't that the stock WRX has 170whp, I couldn't care less if one WRX had a 190hp dyno. My point was only to answer why the WRX 'seems' weak at higher speeds. It isn't that it is weak at higher speeds, just that it is exceptionally strong at low speeds. It is able to compete against cars with much better whp/weight ratios at low speeds but not at high speeds. At high speeds, it is only competetive with cars of relatively equal whp/weight. Okay?

    Well said....

    I think that an RSX S driver weakness is torque to a certian degree, also is it harder to drive, since a WRX power curve comes on sooner...If the RSX S is not up there b/t 6-7 K RPMS the wrx will walk on it, even at high speeds...

    Wheareas the WRX's power comes on pretty quick after ~3100 RPMS
    2002 Blue WRX w/ Factory Body Kit

    -UTEC TXS Tuned @17 PSI
    -Samco Hoses
    -MRT Catless Uppipe
    -BPM 3" Turbo Back Exhaust
    -Whiteline Front and Rear Strut Bar

    239.9 AWHP 246.4 AWTQ
    Graphs here:
    http://community.webshots.com/album/70782887sLVXId

  4. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    128
    Originally posted by RSXSucks


    It's not that the stock WRX is weak at high speeds, it just acts a lot more like a 170WHP vehicle than it does at lower speeds. AWD launches and aggressive 1st and 2nd gear ratios allow the WRX to beat on cars that it simply has no chance against at higher speeds. It has nothing to do with downshifting.
    Oops, yes you're right. Stock, the WRX is pretty icky, or rather flat up top, when it's stock and especially if it's not broken in (like 10k+ miles).

    Getting an EBC/MBC and keeping stock boost levels up to redline makes a huge difference, rather than the 8-12 psi that it falls off to with the FBC.

    Just as a roundabout comparison, on my old 92 SE-R I got 142whp (back in like 94-95) with various bolt ons and I could sort of hang with 325's (various mods) till about 110...then they dropped me. I could tease a stock M3 from 60-100 because of my light weight. In my 94 325is (full supersprint (headers too), no cats, chip, etc) I got 181whp. M3s were dynoing then around 204-210whp. Several times I could beat an M3 anywhere I wanted to, it was close though (so I loved getting them to run). I could pull an M3 on the freeway starting around 110 if we were even...and it would do it ever so slightly. (I so loved the look on some M dorks face when that happened). My reasoning is I was breathing better up top than they were (full exhaust, and probably a better driver), I had a larger area under the curve, but less than their peak HP. I knew how to use my machine. I had an M Roadster which, due to it's less restrictive, stock exhaust put out about 250hp, I also had the chip which mainly improved area under the curve, but not peak. I could beat a stock S4 on the highway from 60+, the Roadster was a very, very quick little car. Recently I raced a stock M Roadster for at least 10-15 miles from 60-140 and I could pull him after a second or two of initial acceleration. I walked away from him while he was behind me from 110-115 on up to 140. It was totally obvious, and related to me by the M driver that my wagon was faster any time we were able to open it up for more than few seconds. To me, my wagon feels as responsive and just as quick up top as my old roadster (which was good to 150+) and was confirmed by that encounter. I might be putting out somewhere around 200whp on the wagon, I know it's close to the M Roadster (both cars weigh about the same, 3100ish lbs). I do feel that I've got more area under the curve, especially after 5k than the M.

    I'd say that if an RSX can beat an M Roadster on the highway from 60+, doing it several times, then I'd be very interested in sussing out some Acuras!
    03 WR Blue WRX
    Factory Short Shifter
    Stock

  5. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by madwagon


    Oops, yes you're right. Stock, the WRX is pretty icky, or rather flat up top, when it's stock and especially if it's not broken in (like 10k+ miles).

    Getting an EBC/MBC and keeping stock boost levels up to redline makes a huge difference, rather than the 8-12 psi that it falls off to with the FBC.
    Okay, this is a question I have for you guys because I see it one way, but almost everyone seems to see it another. I, of course, think I'm right but I want to try and have a level headed discussion about it.

    To me, how fast you are at high speeds has nothing to do with how much torque you make near redline. People seem to confuse acceleration "up top" (at high speeds) with keeping torque high "up top" (near redline). IMO, these are two completely different concepts that are almost totally unrelated.

    When you add an EBC/MBC, do you increase your HP? Yes, I believe you do. Lets just pick a couple numbers: stock = 170WHP, MBC = 200WHP. Stock, you could hang with 200WHP cars in the 1/4 but only 170WHP cars at 80+mph. With MBC, you can now hang with 230WHP cars in the 1/4 and 200WHP cars at 80+mph. It's true that you've gained power at 80+mph because you can now beat cars at highway speeds that you couldn't before. But I think it is more accurate to say that you've gained power at all speeds. Maybe not REALLY low speeds if all you've done is flattened the curve above 5000rpm, so let's say all speeds above 20mph which, in my books, is still not a really high speed. Could you have accomplished the exact same thing by increasing peak torque without moving it to a higher rpm? Yes, I think so. This is why I don't think there has to be a correlation between high speed acceleration and high rpm torque.

    I think this idea came from Honda fanboys who, while losing down low, certainly would catch up at higher speeds. I think this is because Integras/Civics, with FWD and low low-end torque, show the opposite characteristic of the WRX. If the stock RSX-S has 170WHP, we can hang with 150WHP cars in the 1/4 ET, but with MOST 170WHP cars at 20+mph. It has more to do with the fact that we are FWD and therefor can't launch worth SH*T than because we have good high-end torque. Even worse, if we bog our launch, well, I have a saying "Eternity is waiting for my car to go from 2500 to 6000rpm".

    Are Camaros slouches at high speeds? Corvettes? They have torque curves that drop a lot near redline, doesn't seem to hurt them.

    I'll end by asking 1 question (and if you skipped my long diatribe up top, at least read this): Does your ENGINE make less power at 6000rpm in 1st gear than it does in 4th gear? I think the answer is no. The only difference is that AWD and a strong 1st/2nd gear are no longer helping you beat cars that are more powerful.

    Anyway, there is my beef for the day. I might be wrong and I encourage any non-flaming comments.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  6. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370
    Originally posted by RSXSucks


    Okay, this is a question I have for you guys because I see it one way, but almost everyone seems to see it another. I, of course, think I'm right but I want to try and have a level headed discussion about it.

    To me, how fast you are at high speeds has nothing to do with how much torque you make near redline. People seem to confuse acceleration "up top" (at high speeds) with keeping torque high "up top" (near redline). IMO, these are two completely different concepts that are almost totally unrelated.

    When you add an EBC/MBC, do you increase your HP? Yes, I believe you do. Lets just pick a couple numbers: stock = 170WHP, MBC = 200WHP. Stock, you could hang with 200WHP cars in the 1/4 but only 170WHP cars at 80+mph. With MBC, you can now hang with 230WHP cars in the 1/4 and 200WHP cars at 80+mph. It's true that you've gained power at 80+mph because you can now beat cars at highway speeds that you couldn't before. But I think it is more accurate to say that you've gained power at all speeds. Maybe not REALLY low speeds if all you've done is flattened the curve above 5000rpm, so let's say all speeds above 20mph which, in my books, is still not a really high speed. Could you have accomplished the exact same thing by increasing peak torque without moving it to a higher rpm? Yes, I think so. This is why I don't think there has to be a correlation between high speed acceleration and high rpm torque.

    I think this idea came from Honda fanboys who, while losing down low, certainly would catch up at higher speeds. I think this is because Integras/Civics, with FWD and low low-end torque, show the opposite characteristic of the WRX. If the stock RSX-S has 170WHP, we can hang with 150WHP cars in the 1/4 ET, but with MOST 170WHP cars at 20+mph. It has more to do with the fact that we are FWD and therefor can't launch worth SH*T than because we have good high-end torque. Even worse, if we bog our launch, well, I have a saying "Eternity is waiting for my car to go from 2500 to 6000rpm".

    Are Camaros slouches at high speeds? Corvettes? They have torque curves that drop a lot near redline, doesn't seem to hurt them.

    I'll end by asking 1 question (and if you skipped my long diatribe up top, at least read this): Does your ENGINE make less power at 6000rpm in 1st gear than it does in 4th gear? I think the answer is no. The only difference is that AWD and a strong 1st/2nd gear are no longer helping you beat cars that are more powerful.

    Anyway, there is my beef for the day. I might be wrong and I encourage any non-flaming comments.
    RSXSucks -

    You've got quite a few ideas in this post so I'll try my best to reply.

    Let me start with an MBC (manual boost controller): It gives you power everywhere. Yes it's only raising the boost but it also makes the power come on lower.

    How you ask? Because the stock boost controller is a bleeder type mechanism, where the average MBC is a ball and spring boost controller with a breaking point. It allows boost to rise much more quickly this way.

    The second advantage is that it holds boost at a constant. The stock boost controller raises boost to a certain level and later in the power band it bleeds it back off while adding ignition advance to compensate (which is not as effective).

    As far as torque up high and down low, it's relative to the gearing at hand and the engine in question. Torque only gets you going and HP keeps you going. Torque drops off usually around the 5200 rpm mark and HP takes over on any gas engine. There is no arguement to that. It is what it is! The rest is based on geraing and vehicle weight.

    Camaros and Vettes: They have excellent torque and they may have only another grand on the tach but they are already moving quite well. They are different animals in the way they deliver power.
    Last edited by boosted 4; 08-18-2002 at 03:32 PM.
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  7. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by boosted 4
    As far as torque up high and down low, it's relative to the gearing at hand and the engine in question. Torque only gets you going and HP keeps you going. Torque drops off usually around the 5200 rpm mark and HP takes over on any gas engine. There is no arguement to that. It is what it is! The rest is based on geraing and vehicle weight.

    Camaros and Vettes: They have excellent torque and they may have only another grand on the tach but they are already moving quite well. They are different animals in the way they deliver power.
    Thanks for the info on the MBC.

    I'm curious where you got the rest of your info since it doesn't sound right at all. 5200rpm is where torque and HP cross, not where torque starts falling off. And it really doesn't make much sense to say that HP takes over for torque since the two measure completely different things. Finally, how are Camaros and Vettes different animals in the way they deliver power? They have gas engines that make lots of torque, just like a Z24 on steroids. I don't think the laws of physics make an exception for those 2 cars. Sorry if I don't understand your point, but I don't.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  8. #22
    Registered User wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    606
    This is a great thread!

    So many people making sense and not talking out their arses.
    I love reading educated and informed discussion regardless of the cars invloved. I have to say I agree with you guys about torque and horsepower. I particularly like the term torque gets you going horsepower keeps you going. nice simple way of explaining it

    (this thread reminds me of some of RSXSucks sillier torque related threads, by virtue of the fact that is is so vastly contrasted it makes me laugh )

  9. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370
    Originally posted by wombat
    This is a great thread!

    So many people making sense and not talking out their arses.
    I love reading educated and informed discussion regardless of the cars invloved. I have to say I agree with you guys about torque and horsepower. I particularly like the term torque gets you going horsepower keeps you going. nice simple way of explaining it

    (this thread reminds me of some of RSXSucks sillier torque related threads, by virtue of the fact that is is so vastly contrasted it makes me laugh )
    wombat, I'm glad you got what I was saying.

    RSXSucks, 5252rpms on a dyno is usually where the torque and HP cross. Torque begins to fall as HP begins to rise. You know that one, right?

    As far as the domestic V8's, yes they are a combustion engine but do remember that they (at least a lot of them) are 2 valves a cyl. They have crap loads of torque but suffer up high where they aren't able to breath fast enough. They do work a little differently than 4 or 5 valve motors in the way that they breath. Thus, making lots of power down low and dying up high.

    This is from www.howthingswork.com

    "Have you ever looked at the specs of an engine in a magazine and seen something like "this engine makes 300 pound-feet of torque at 4,000 RPM," and wondered how much power that was? How much horsepower are we talking about here? You can calculate how many foot-pounds of horsepower this engine produces using a common equation:

    (Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower
    The engine that makes 300 pound-feet of torque at 4,000 RPM produces [(300 x 4,000) / 5,252] 228 horsepower at 4,000 RPM. But where does the number 5,252 come from?

    To get from pound-feet of torque to horsepower, you need to go through a few conversions. The number 5,252 is the result of lumping several different conversion factors together into one number.

    First, 1 horsepower is defined as 550 foot-pounds per second (read How Horsepower Works to find out how they got that number). The units of torque are pound-feet. So to get from torque to horsepower, you need the "per second" term. You get that by multiplying the torque by the engine speed.

    But engine speed is normally referred to in revolutions per minute (RPM). Since we want a "per second," we need to convert RPMs to "something per second." The seconds are easy -- we just divide by 60 to get from minutes to seconds. Now what we need is a dimensionless unit for revolutions: a radian. A radian is actually a ratio of the length of an arc divided by the length of a radius, so the units of length cancel out and you're left with a dimensionless measure.

    You can think of a revolution as a measurement of an angle. One revolution is 360 degrees of a circle. Since the circumference of a circle is (2 x pi x radius), there are 2-pi radians in a revolution. To convert revolutions per minute to radians per second, you multiply RPM by (2-pi/60), which equals 0.10472 radians per second. This gives us the "per second" we need to calculate horsepower.

    Let's put this all together. We need to get to horsepower, which is 550 foot-pounds per second, using torque (pound-feet) and engine speed (RPM). If we divide the 550 foot-pounds by the 0.10472 radians per second (engine speed), we get 550/0.10472, which equals 5,252.

    So if you multiply torque (in pound-feet) by engine speed (in RPM) and divide the product by 5,252, RPM is converted to "radians per second" and you can get from torque to horsepower -- from "pound-feet" to "foot-pounds per second."
    You might want to see, http://www.howstuffworks.com/engine.htm It talks about how combustion motors work.
    Last edited by boosted 4; 08-18-2002 at 05:17 PM.
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  10. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by boosted 4

    RSXSucks, 5252rpms on a dyno is usually where the torque and HP cross. Torque begins to fall as HP begins to rise. You know that one, right?
    Interesting reading, I love that site.

    Anyway, I don't think it is a rule that torque falls as HP rises. That certainly isn't true in my engine, or any engine I've seen that revs substantially above 5252rpms. It is true with the WRX and with the big V8s like you talked about but that doesn't make it a rule. My torque curve is actually extremely flat from 3000-5500, jumps about 10%, then is flat or slightly fading from 6000-8000. If anything, my torque curve is RISING at 5252.

    The way I view it, torque is the actual 'force' (no, not a vector quantity, but close enough to force) that the engine produces. Horsepower describes how quickly the engine is able to make that force. Because HP = Torque*RPM/5252, HP basically starts falling when torque is falling faster than RPM is rising. I don't picture it as one value taking over for another since the two basically describe quite different concepts... and yet they are definately linked.

    A good example I read was of a bike. Put a really strong guy on a 10 speed and a really weak guy on another 10 speed. Now, the really weak guy might not be able to push as hard on the pedals, but he can pedal much much faster than the strong guy. Because the weak guy can't push as hard, he only uses gears 1-5 because they are easier to pedal in. The strong guy finds that using gears 1-5 is too slow for him because he quickly finds that he can't pedal fast enough to go fast in those gears, so he only rides in gears 6-10. Which one is faster? Interestingly enough, depending on how you play with the numbers, neither is. If the weak guy can pedal fast enough in gears 1-5 to keep up with the slow pedalling strong guy in 6-10, they both produce the same HP, even though the big guy produces much more torque. They both accelerate as quickly as the other, and they both have the same top speed.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  11. #25
    Registered User wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    606
    Interesting, I am not sure about the way you guys measure torque but here in the decimal world we use N-m
    Newton meters. Now Newtons are the Measurement of force
    as invented by sir isaac newton. this is multiplied by the distance over which the force (from the engine)is applied or rotated in the case of a car (through the Driveshaft) to get the torque.

  12. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo
    Posts
    47
    As I understand:

    Horsepower is a measure of torque over time. So they are measuring the same thing. A little less torque at a higer RPM usually equals more power.

    This is why torqey v8s somtimes arent as fast, they cant continue to make power @ higher RPMs like the man said.

    -Dave

  13. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370
    Originally posted by wombat
    Interesting, I am not sure about the way you guys measure torque but here in the decimal world we use N-m
    Newton meters. Now Newtons are the Measurement of force
    as invented by sir isaac newton. this is multiplied by the distance over which the force (from the engine)is applied or rotated in the case of a car (through the Driveshaft) to get the torque.
    From what I've seen, 1 Ausie HP is stronger than 1 American HP. By how much I don't know but everytime you see an Aus car putting down 500whp they always seem quite a bit quicker than an American 500whp car.

    Anybody want to try and explain the differences?
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  14. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370

    RSXSucks

    Hopefully I'm not coming across as being abrasive. That's not they way I want to be perceived by anybody on the board. Sometimes it's difficult to get a point across as well as expression in a 1D venue.

    With that said, I'm glad I could help in clarifying an MBC vs the stock EBC on the WRX. Most people think it's about boost levels alone and it's not so.

    Concerning your car, I know what you're talking about as I've seen VTEC engines on dyno graphs. So that doesn't exactly follow the rule. It should however, cross at 5252 wheather it continues to rise or fall. It's just the principle I guess.
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  15. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410

    Re: RSXSucks

    Originally posted by boosted 4
    Hopefully I'm not coming across as being abrasive. That's not they way I want to be perceived by anybody on the board. Sometimes it's difficult to get a point across as well as expression in a 1D venue.

    With that said, I'm glad I could help in clarifying an MBC vs the stock EBC on the WRX. Most people think it's about boost levels alone and it's not so.

    Concerning your car, I know what you're talking about as I've seen VTEC engines on dyno graphs. So that doesn't exactly follow the rule. It should however, cross at 5252 wheather it continues to rise or fall. It's just the principle I guess.
    No, you aren't coming across as abrasive at all.

    You are absolutely right about the lines crossing at 5252 regardless of the shape of either curve. This is by definition of the relationship between HP and torque. It simply can't cross at any other point.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  16. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by wombat
    Interesting, I am not sure about the way you guys measure torque but here in the decimal world we use N-m
    Newton meters. Now Newtons are the Measurement of force
    as invented by sir isaac newton. this is multiplied by the distance over which the force (from the engine)is applied or rotated in the case of a car (through the Driveshaft) to get the torque.
    Yes, torque is not the same as force because force is a vector quantity (it has a direction) whereas torque is not. I believe the 'm' part of N-m is the distance between the center point of rotation and the point at which the force is applied. The longer the 'lever', the more torque that a certain amount of force will create (or at least this is my understanding). However, if you consider the fact that Work = Force * distance = Torque * distance (in radians), there are a great deal of similarities between torque and force. Technically speaking, they cannot be used interchangeably, but in everyday conversation, I don't feel bad about doing it.

    Of course, like always, I could be wrong so if I am, any chance at correcting my own misinformation is more than welcome!
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •