why would a 6 cylinder with same displacement numbers provide more torque, itd just b smoother wouldnt?Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
Printable View
why would a 6 cylinder with same displacement numbers provide more torque, itd just b smoother wouldnt?Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
I'm not talking about peak torque (223Nm @ 4500rpm) but the actual torque at RPM lower than peak torque RPM. I find that in the Euro you get caught out with lack of torque at low RPM (waiting to hit about 3500rpm after which it pulls nicely), while a V6 or I6 of similar capacity doesn't have that problem and just revs up nicely. It's because a 6 cylinder has 1.5 times more power strokes than a 4 cylinder engine in each revolution of the crankshaft. At low RPM, the time in between power strokes in a 4 cylinder is longer than in a 6 cylinder, so you take longer to get the RPM up.Quote:
Originally Posted by phobolism
hence why the M3s I6 3.2L is such a beast!
just curious guys if i were to get the mild tune done and crashed one day etc would my insurance company be able to see that it has been tuned? and like not pay me out for the crash or whatever? thanks
Fark I wish theyd get on the the mild flash. Im super keen and my orders been in for a long time. Im hoping for a 15% increase with I/H and mild flash. As per their website. With the lighter weight of my standard and add 15% power I reckon ill be happy for my $1500 investment. Good BFB. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin086
I don't see the point of argument here to be honest, and without bothering to study the details of who is arguing with who and who has which point, to me, obviously a longer stroke engine (under-square) is designed to have more bottom end torque, so the torque curve distribution shifts towards the left side on a graph. In sacrifice, top-end power will be slightly restricted as the bore is narrower for top-end breathing, also, piston speed increases too much so it cannot rev as freely as a short stroke engine (such as F1 engines with around 2.5:1 bore to stroke, so the stroke is very short).
The theory goes that the ideal ratio is supposedly to be 1:1 as it has the balance of low end torque and high end revs, and the torque curve (which is 100% proportional to acceleration curve) will be flat. Think new 2.2L S2000 and the older Nissan SR20 engines. Good balance of everything.
Engine design, friction levels, number of cylinders, etc, are other parts of the equation but overall the bore/stroke ratio is quite relevant to the engine's performance.
And let's not be confused about 'peak torque' as I sense too many people get confused with. Here we're only talking bout torque distribution curve by design.
The Euro's success lies with the fact that it has good mid-range torque for a 4 cylinder NA but fairly adequate or even sporty top-end power/torque, with good revs on board for an 'under-square' design. Its not a conventional design but as a family sports car isn't usually over-revved, it satisfies 80% of Euro Accord buyers who need more low-mid range torque but still has high end torque.
Funnily enough, if you have driven the normal Accord 2.4L, in fact, that car has been tuned to have even more low-mid range torque than the Euro Accord version, despite basically same engine design, yet, that car lacks the high-end torque/power of the Euro Accord.
One could argue that the Euro Accord can be 'tuned' to have both better low-mid range torque like the Accord 2.4L as well as keeping the higher-end torque/power at higher RPMS. :p
^
Damn well written as a overall summary.........:thumbsup:
Shouldn't offend too many.....lol
I've driven the normal 2.4L Accord and found it had no balls at all anywhere in the rev range. It was an auto though but that is also comparing to an auto Euro.
The diifference is
06 Accord VTi 2.4.....218 Nm @4000 rpm
06 Accord Euro 2.4...223 Nm @4500rpm
The Accord 2.4L's engine has milder lowcams than the Euro and also smaller ports, narrower intake plenum and its highcam intake lobe much milder as well.
Thanks for pointing that out. So obviously that Accord is not meant to have been 'tuned' with as much higher end power by secondary design.
To me anyway, having driven a few Hondas to see the differences, the 2.4L Accord had more low end torque available than the 2.4L Euro Accord. Granted its not much.
BTW, I've always waited forever for Honda to release a performance coupe to outperform the M3s and AMGs and Audi S's. Now Lexus/Toyota has seen the dark side before Honda has.
Didn't they tell you when this would be ready when you ordered?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntzu