S2000 vs. WRX - Page 4
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 54 of 54

This is a discussion on S2000 vs. WRX within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; ****....

  1. #46
    Registered User Master Of Pain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    460
    ****.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by RSXracer200 #2


    close but not quite....cam lobes are only at their maximum potential at one small part of a power band. the high lift lobe is ment for high rpm power, thats why vtec only kicks in at high rpm. but the small lobe (off vtec) is not ment for low end power realy, its realy there for fuel economy more then anything else. thats one for the reasons why honda motors dont make great numbers down low. but a good set off aftermarket cams will not only greatly improve top end power but it will also give the off vtec cam lob a performance minded grind greatly increasing low rpm power.......what did you think honda cant make torque if it didnt want too? they make the engines this way so they get good fuel economy. once the cam lobe is changed along with a few other tings they make just as much low rpm power as any other small displacement motor.

    dont mean to be a **** but just wanted to set things strait.
    Hehe, thanks for the info, didn't think you were a **** about it.

    My main point was that using the big cams at 3000rpm would result in much less torque than using the small cams so when I said that the small cams were tuned for more low end torque, I meant "compared to the big cams".

    However, I'm not quite convinced that the low cams don't produce good torque for low rpms however this is a point I'm TOTALLY willing to admit I'm wrong about!

    I did find a site with lots of dynos and I looked at dynos on 1.8L and 2.0L NA gasoline engines and compared torque ratings at 3000rpm (long before any VTEC engine goes onto big cams).

    Nissan Sentra SE 2.0L: 105lb/ft
    Mazda MP3 2.0L: 105lb/ft
    RSX-S 2.0L: 115lb/ft
    S2000 2.0L: 113lb/ft
    Integra Type R 1.8L: 105lb/ft

    If you can find any other 1.8L or 2.0L NA gasoline engines that make significantly more, I'd like to see them because I could be totally wrong. VTEC cars are ridiculed because of their weak low-end torque, but that is only because they are normally compared to much larger or FI engines. Compare the RSX-S and ITR to other equivalently sized engines and they actually make significantly more low end torque. Maybe the other cars are tuned for even better gas mileage?

    Anyway, thought it was interesting to see how it stacked up with other engines of the same size and we don't do too badly!
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  4. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Delray Beach, Fl. USA
    Posts
    446
    I think the perception of poor low end on the vtec engines is really exactly that..perception. The *problem* is that the engines make so much more power when up on the cam and in the power band that the low end seems very weak because of the big difference in power output..much like a turbo engine when at low rpms off boost. This is really evident in a car like the S2000 where there is such a big discrepancy between low rpm power output and high end output. Plus it isnt a linear power curve so you really feel the difference between low end and high end..much the same a turbo car...I dont think anyone would argue that the wrx feel sluggish under 3500rpms off boost either.
    For me, I can put up with that, but waiting until 6k rpms to make power just plain sucks on a street car..for a track car it is completely different but on the street drivability really suffers.



    Originally posted by RSXSucks


    Hehe, thanks for the info, didn't think you were a **** about it.

    My main point was that using the big cams at 3000rpm would result in much less torque than using the small cams so when I said that the small cams were tuned for more low end torque, I meant "compared to the big cams".

    However, I'm not quite convinced that the low cams don't produce good torque for low rpms however this is a point I'm TOTALLY willing to admit I'm wrong about!

    I did find a site with lots of dynos and I looked at dynos on 1.8L and 2.0L NA gasoline engines and compared torque ratings at 3000rpm (long before any VTEC engine goes onto big cams).

    Nissan Sentra SE 2.0L: 105lb/ft
    Mazda MP3 2.0L: 105lb/ft
    RSX-S 2.0L: 115lb/ft
    S2000 2.0L: 113lb/ft
    Integra Type R 1.8L: 105lb/ft

    If you can find any other 1.8L or 2.0L NA gasoline engines that make significantly more, I'd like to see them because I could be totally wrong. VTEC cars are ridiculed because of their weak low-end torque, but that is only because they are normally compared to much larger or FI engines. Compare the RSX-S and ITR to other equivalently sized engines and they actually make significantly more low end torque. Maybe the other cars are tuned for even better gas mileage?

    Anyway, thought it was interesting to see how it stacked up with other engines of the same size and we don't do too badly!
    IHI VF-34, ECUTEK Tuned
    290whp@6300rpms@15.8psi
    247tq@5200rpms@16.9psi
    ( Dynapack Hydraulic dyno )

  5. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    78
    also honda didnt design the block for torque either, they made it to rev high instead. the honda motors have a reletively short stroke which is great for high rpm speeds but suffers at low speeds where a longer stroke would make more power down low but suffer in the top end. rpm will multiply the torque so a high revving motor can produce more hp then a lowwer revving motor. this case taken to the extreme would be formula 1 cars some with i believe 3.0L V12's that make only about 300lb-ft. but can put out 7-800hp since the engine is built to rev so high.

    the motor was designed to be the most powerfull low displacement N/A motor in its class....look at the competitors celica gts 180hp and 180lb-ft. (i think) and the sentra spec-V 175hp and 180lb-ft. the honda motor is far behind in the torque catigory but easily outdoes its compitition in the hp ratings. and of these cars the rsx still manages to be the quickest in the 1/4 and even further shines at highway speeds.


    you have to keep in mind what the car was designed for (AutoX) where low end power is virtualy meaningless because when the race gets started the car will NEVER be in those low rpm again.
    iiiiiiiim baaaaaaack!
    __________________________
    i-vtec.....do you?

  6. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by RSXracer200 #2
    the motor was designed to be the most powerfull low displacement N/A motor in its class....look at the competitors celica gts 180hp and 180lb-ft. (i think) and the sentra spec-V 175hp and 180lb-ft. the honda motor is far behind in the torque catigory but easily outdoes its compitition in the hp ratings. and of these cars the rsx still manages to be the quickest in the 1/4 and even further shines at highway speeds.
    F1 cars have 3.0L V10s.

    Your torque number for the Celica is way off. Peak torque at the wheels is 110lb-ft (130 at the crank). At 3000rpm, the Celica is putting down about 100lb-ft, a little less than the ITR (which is also a 1.8L I4). Also, I wouldn't say that the RSX-S easily outdoes the Celica GT-S, they are both very very close performance wise.

    The Nissan SpecV has so much more torque because it is a 2.5L engine.

    This was my point though and is one of the huge advantages of a VTEC type system (engine with 2 sets of cam lobes). You can tune the car for both low end torque and high end torque. Compare VTEC engines to other <= 2.0L engines and you can see that no sacrifice to low end torque was made at all. VTEC engines only seem to have such weak low end torque because they are almost always compared to engines with more displacement or engines with FI.

    PS I don't mean to say that VtEc oWnz U!! It is simply a different approach to making power, one that typically gives you better gas mileage and makes the car lighter (which, everything else being equal, is better for handling), but there are definite limitations to what you can do to an NA 2.0L engine while still keeping it streetable! FI or increasing displacement still gives you far far more power potential.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  7. #51
    Registered User WRXed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Macon, GA
    Posts
    3,073

    Thumbs up

    Wanted to chime in and say "cudos" to you two RSX guys. You are showing a level of maturity that becomes you! Keep it up.
    All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand. - Steven Wright

    Moderator, of the "Super" persuasion

  8. #52
    Registered User SobeWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Reykjavík iceland
    Posts
    504
    Originally posted by RSXSucks

    Nissan Sentra SE 2.0L: 105lb/ft
    Mazda MP3 2.0L: 105lb/ft
    RSX-S 2.0L: 115lb/ft
    S2000 2.0L: 113lb/ft
    Integra Type R 1.8L: 105lb/ft
    probably not a fair comparison but the rx8's 1.3L is supposed to make 130lb/ft of torque at 3000

  9. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    w/s, North Carolina
    Posts
    6
    And in getting back to the original topic, it's simple IMO, the WRX is a much better daily driver. Yeah, I've seen s2ks take off and I'm not impressed, and the point is they were made to mirror the ITR.......high revving, great handling cars. Yea they have really high compression, and they are very limited to serious engine mods and overall speeds, but thats not what they were made for. If you want that go buy a vr4, rx7, 300ztt, or an overpriced supra.

    By the way, this thread is very different, on most other forums there would be a lot of flaming by now, keep it up!

  10. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by SobeWRX


    probably not a fair comparison but the rx8's 1.3L is supposed to make 130lb/ft of torque at 3000
    Haha, gotta love rotary engines!! Yeah, rotary and diesel engines do not have the same properties as gasoline piston engines, so it is kind of hard to compare. I don't think anything beats the output of a rotary engine though, not for the displacement it has anyway. I really don't know too much about them other then theoretical stuff on how they work.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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
  •