To be honest I don't think i'd ever be able to take anything seriously from any website which had replaced an s with a z in it's own name!

Which is why they are so superior round corners

 

And I think they had seem welded chassis and double wishbones all round.

 

Compare that to other makes - my Polo GTI for example - some shorter springs with different dampers, maybe a  thicker ARB, bigger brakes and a different engine, otherwise the same as standard models. I guess that's one of the lucky ones - at least the engine was unique to the car and not another 1.8t powered car!

Yeah the fully independent suspension is good. I've driven a few EK civics and boy do they handle well out of the box.

Came with an LSD as standard too - something only the most £££ hot-hatches seem to have even now!

 

If they come with LSD it would explain the wild numbers... 

B16A, the first VTEC, from 1989, 158BHP, why jump to the middle of the series when you can have that from 24 years ago!

 

We've been producing over 100 bhp per litre from N/A multivalve engines since the last war, the landmark was the invention of VTEC.

 

You can go and buy a motorcycle with a 1000cc engine with 185BHP.

 

Cars are heavy so torques where it's at, torque = acceleration.

"Cars are heavy so torques where it's at, torque = acceleration."

 

 

BHP = acceleration.

 

A topic I'm not going to go into, but can be proved with actually the above mentioned cars.... Honda.

 

The honda S2000 has 240 BHP but no torque at all - 153 lbft

 

Will a Fabia with 300 lbft be faster?

 

No, it will get its arse torn apart BIG TIME because the fabia would only have about 170 BHP.

 

Usually a car with more torque will have more BHP at lower revs and thats why they can feel fast. All out though its the peak BHP that determines acceleration.

 

Arguably BHP is purely an equation involving torque so it is about torque... but you know what I mean.

Edited 9 July, 201312 yr by Fred44

The differences with the Hondas though is they achieve peak torque at like 7000rpm which isn't far off their peak BHP level either. Have to rev the nuts off them to get anything out of them.

 

Phil

You do have to rev them, no question.

 

But for acceleration the BHP is still the reason its fast.

 

The fact its torque is at a high revs is just the nature of it, thats why the BHP is so high.

"Cars are heavy so torques where it's at, torque = acceleration."

 

 

BHP = acceleration.

 

A topic I'm not going to go into, but can be proved with actually the above mentioned cars.... Honda.

 

The honda S2000 has 240 BHP but no torque at all - 153 lbft

 

Will a Fabia with 300 lbft be faster?

 

No, it will get its arse torn apart BIG TIME because the fabia would only have about 170 BHP.

 

Usually a car with more torque will have more BHP at lower revs and thats why they can feel fast. All out though its the peak BHP that determines acceleration.

 

Arguably BHP is purely an equation involving torque so it is about torque... but you know what I mean.

 

I do, I was oversimplifying, however the spirit of my answer is still true and there will be plenty of roadspeed/gear combinations where the Fabia will absolutely destroy the S2000 due to it's vastly larger peak torque being generated at much lower RPM. The S2000 has a track engine made streetable by VTEC and clever engine management. Comparing petrol and diesel engines is very difficult because they behave so differently.

 

When I look at a dyno plot I look at the area under the torque curve not the headline figure, this is always the best indication of how efficient the engine is and how well various modifications may be working, any tuner can steal torque from one part of the curve and tack it on somewhere else.

 

So in a sense we're both right.

Your sort of correct.

 

Its the area under the BHP line thats important, not the area under the torque line.

 

Specicially the area under the rev zone that each gear would drop and then go to.

 

BHP is the key.

 

Having an engine with lots of torque means this BHP area will be high - a good thing of course.

 

A 240 BHP honda might do 240 BHP at 9000 RPM, but at 7000 it could have just 200.

 

If you had a sililar engine but with a turbo the torque would be higher over the range meaning the drop would not be to 200, it would be more like 230.

Your sort of correct.

 

Its the area under the BHP line thats important, not the area under the torque line.

 

Specicially the area under the rev zone that each gear would drop and then go to.

 

BHP is the key.

 

Having an engine with lots of torque means this BHP area will be high - a good thing of course.

 

A 240 BHP honda might do 240 BHP at 9000 RPM, but at 7000 it could have just 200.

 

If you had a sililar engine but with a turbo the torque would be higher over the range meaning the drop would not be to 200, it would be more like 230.

 

Fred, I am correct, the ONLY thing a dynamometer measures is torque, nothing else.

 

BHP is simply calculated from that measured torque at any given engine speed. The only way to tell how an engine is performing is to measure the torque and measure the difference various modifications make to determine whether you're actually improving the efficiency or simply shuffling the deck.

It measures torque, but BHP is a set calculation so from torque and revs is easy for it to calculate.

 

BHP was made to represent a force and thats why revs are part of its calculation.

 

This force is the force that makes a car accelerate.

Owner of fabia and s2000 here, if your in the wrong gear fabia leaves the s2000 till you get in vtec then it still pulls away. If in vtec I destroy my remapped fabia.

Owner of fabia and s2000 here, if your in the wrong gear fabia leaves the s2000 till you get in vtec then it still pulls away. If in vtec I destroy my remapped fabia.

So in reality you have to drive them pretty hard to get decent power out of them which results in poor mpg, suppose that's why the new ctr is going to be a turbo, and have to say it does look really nice and only £24k!

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/honda/civic/63043/new-honda-civic-type-r

Yeah got to really rag the **** out of the Honda can be frustrating at times but that's why I'm fitting a turbo to it.

Love both cars for different reasons.

How is that remotely a reasonable comparison. The S2000 is a 2 seater sports car with no roof, comparing it to a lardy diesel Fabia isn't useful in comparing bhp vs torque. Even if you put the same diesel engine in the S2000 its still be quicker.

How is that remotely a reasonable comparison. The S2000 is a 2 seater sports car with no roof, comparing it to a lardy diesel Fabia isn't useful in comparing bhp vs torque. Even if you put the same diesel engine in the S2000 its still be quicker.

 

Exactly... if they were going to compare it to anything then surely it should be a Fabia 2.0....