I think I've been misunderstood......
what I posted was a QUOTE from a site on the web, not my own
words......I only WISH I had that kind of personal experience with
either one of those cars. I guarantee I'd not be picky about where the
power showed up!!!
Pete
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas - Sweden [mailto:csp311@telia.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 5:19 PM
> To: Peter Long
> Cc: roadster list
> Subject: Re: horsepower vs. torque
>
>
> You forgot about the difference in displacement.
> It's a 1200 cc difference between Honda and
> BMW (and 2 pistons). There's no substitute for
> cubic inches, unless you have a turbocharger
> or supercharger.
>
> The S2000 is 87x84 mm bore & stroke = 1997 cc.
> The Z3 M is (used to be) 86.4x91 mm bore & stroke
> = 3201 cc. They are both high rpm. engines even if
> the S2000 is extreme. Long stroke = more friction
> (and heat) and short stroke = higher piston speed
> (not piston stroke) at the same rpm. Both are critical
> factors in engine design. The BMW M engine have max.
> piston speed almost the same as Formula 1 engines.
>
> Here's another one. Shorter connecting rods gives
> more low rpm torque but higher friction (and heat).
> Longer rods gives less low rpm torque but more power
> and less friction at high rpm.
>
> Thomas
>
> Peter Long wrote:
>
> > Came across this today and found it interesting - sums up
> very well the
> > trap we all fall into when discussing engine output....the 'I've got
> > bigger numbers than you' syndrome. Why Nissan engines *feel* better
> > than Honda engines....torque, baby, torque!
> >
> > "A long (er) stroke engine tends to produce more torque,
> (torque is what
> > directly affects the rate of acceleration), and over a
> larger RPM range.
> > What this means to you is the car will be easier to drive.
> > A good example of the difference torque makes is the
> current Honda S2000
> > vs. a 98-00 BMW Z3 //M Roadster/Coupe. Both the S2000 and the //M
> > Roadster/Coupes generate 240 hp and are within 200 lbs. of
> each other in
> > total weight. However, the S2000 produces about 150-160 ft-lbs. of
> > torque, while the BMW's have nearly 240 ft-lbs. The 0-60
> times and 1/4
> > mile times are fairly close, with the BMW's taking the
> lead. Yes, the
> > S2000 will go 0-60 in less than 6 seconds (5.9), but you
> have to rev the
> > engine to nearly 9000-rpm and drop the clutch. A more
> reasonable (daily
> > driven, real world) launch at say 4000 rpm will put 0-60 in
> the high 6
> > to low 7 second range. Now, the BMW's can be coaxed to near
> 5.0 seconds
> > 0-60 by using a high-rev launch, but the average person can almost
> > always produce a sub 6-second time with the same 4000 rpm
> launch . It's
> > a function of the extra torque, and that it's available lower in the
> > powerband. The rate of acceleration is greater. These are
> two extreme
> > examples to show you that 240 hp is not equal to 240 hp.... peak
> > horsepower ratings sell magazines, torque wins races."
> >
> > /// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
> > /// Send admin requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or go to
> > /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> > /// Send list postings to datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
/// datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net mailing list
|