0-60 acceleration on C230 K, losin all the time :)
#76
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numbers don't lie
Originally posted by Outland
If you do an engine swap and trade the C-Coupes M111 for the high reving 200HP Honda mill, and vice versa, what do you think would happen? I'll bet that the RSX gets slightly faster, and the C-Coupe becomes slower. Only 8HP seperate them, but the M111's massive 208ft-lbs of torque come on sooooooo much lower than the RSX-S's rather weak 142ft-lbs. Look at the difference in the curb wieght! The C-Coupe is 400lbs heavier than the RSX...that's like racing in the RSX with two friends along!
If you do an engine swap and trade the C-Coupes M111 for the high reving 200HP Honda mill, and vice versa, what do you think would happen? I'll bet that the RSX gets slightly faster, and the C-Coupe becomes slower. Only 8HP seperate them, but the M111's massive 208ft-lbs of torque come on sooooooo much lower than the RSX-S's rather weak 142ft-lbs. Look at the difference in the curb wieght! The C-Coupe is 400lbs heavier than the RSX...that's like racing in the RSX with two friends along!
#77
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: HK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB CLK320
Originally posted by Outland
You guys are killing me with this stuff. Do you really think your car makes two kinds of power? HP and torque are the same thing...HP is merely the rate that torque is applied. What do you guys think the dynos measure? To get HP, you multiply torque by rpm/5252.
Torque is what gets you off the line. Torque is what gets you to 60...its all torque fellas.
You guys are killing me with this stuff. Do you really think your car makes two kinds of power? HP and torque are the same thing...HP is merely the rate that torque is applied. What do you guys think the dynos measure? To get HP, you multiply torque by rpm/5252.
Torque is what gets you off the line. Torque is what gets you to 60...its all torque fellas.
Power is Voltage and Torque is Amphere?
#78
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numbers don't lie
Originally posted by autobarn
It was brought out earlier how some people in Celicas are beating mag times and RSX's are slower than magazine times. Magazine times are calculated and run through complex algorithims using average times (both directions) and thousand dollar equipment. So mag times will almost ALWAYS be different and more accurate than your 0-60 time your friend clocked with his seiko chrono on a slightly inclined/declined road.
It was brought out earlier how some people in Celicas are beating mag times and RSX's are slower than magazine times. Magazine times are calculated and run through complex algorithims using average times (both directions) and thousand dollar equipment. So mag times will almost ALWAYS be different and more accurate than your 0-60 time your friend clocked with his seiko chrono on a slightly inclined/declined road.
I was the one that said my friends Celicas are beating magizine times and the RSX was slower than the magizine time. Those were all clocked on a drag strip at a real track. I was not the one who said my friend clocked it with his Seiko chrono watch, that was someone else.
Also would when eveyone is saying how the RSX might beat the C coupe please specify weather your talking about the RSX or the RSX Type-S, the coupe can definilty beat a RSX. Maybe not the Type S though.
#79
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally posted by goodman888
Well... can I put it that way?
Power is Voltage and Torque is Amphere?
Well... can I put it that way?
Power is Voltage and Torque is Amphere?
What water vapor injection kit to you have? Did you see a difference in power? Do you run pure water or water/alcohol?
#80
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Abingdon, MD
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass my bag....
This thread has gone beyond the point that I could be of any value. I thought I read that a few people had the problem of Cam Gear timing issue. I know that my Service Rep. had it checked out when my car was in for Service B. I don't know enough about the gearing. Here is the thread from csportcoupe. http://www.csportcoupe.com/forums/sh...1&pagenumber=2
posted by renncpe... "The higher diff has not really helped in the 1/8 mile it has a little but not that much. 0-60 times are much better 6.4-6.5. I can still top out at 130 mph but not in 5th like before. In a day of normal driveing which is normaly hard the way I drive. I get around 18-19 mpg around town and 26 or better on the highway."
Why did no one respond to KLEEMANN's post. Seemed to be an excellent real world comparison.
This thread has gone beyond the point that I could be of any value. I thought I read that a few people had the problem of Cam Gear timing issue. I know that my Service Rep. had it checked out when my car was in for Service B. I don't know enough about the gearing. Here is the thread from csportcoupe. http://www.csportcoupe.com/forums/sh...1&pagenumber=2
posted by renncpe... "The higher diff has not really helped in the 1/8 mile it has a little but not that much. 0-60 times are much better 6.4-6.5. I can still top out at 130 mph but not in 5th like before. In a day of normal driveing which is normaly hard the way I drive. I get around 18-19 mpg around town and 26 or better on the highway."
Why did no one respond to KLEEMANN's post. Seemed to be an excellent real world comparison.
Last edited by nukblazi; 02-26-2003 at 11:16 PM.
#81
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: HK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB CLK320
Originally posted by Buellwinkle
What water vapor injection kit to you have? Did you see a difference in power? Do you run pure water or water/alcohol?
What water vapor injection kit to you have? Did you see a difference in power? Do you run pure water or water/alcohol?
http://www.ahfung.com/car/clk320-02.html
I havent tried water/alcohol. Now testing if it can really save fuel on my car.
I always wonder how all this extra stuff can help my car when the engine has already been very fine-tuned. Still, I want to give a try.
#82
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1996 C36 AMG, 1995 Volvo 850 Turbowagon
hey x, did u c if one of ur sensors is reading something bad, and the ecu is interpretting this and cutting fuel? i mean it's only a c230k...but if u feel it losing power than what u first had, maybe the ecu's cutting back. also, check for leaks in the kompressor, that may also be another thing common in compressed air engines.
if u want to see something about this...the new s60r manual makes 300 hp and 295 lb-ft torque....the auto still makes 300 hp, but the torque is down 265 lb-ft or so...engine is basically the same..it's also a matter of gear ratios (which would also be related to rpm)...so...
didn't bmw also had the old 7-series 740iL (or was it 750iL) that u could buy with an option in different gearing that dropped the 0-60 acceleration down from around 7 to 5?
Originally posted by Outland
.... To get HP, you multiply torque by rpm/5252....
.... To get HP, you multiply torque by rpm/5252....
didn't bmw also had the old 7-series 740iL (or was it 750iL) that u could buy with an option in different gearing that dropped the 0-60 acceleration down from around 7 to 5?
#83
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2010 C300 4matic
Originally posted by steve s
if u want to see something about this...the new s60r manual makes 300 hp and 295 lb-ft torque....the auto still makes 300 hp, but the torque is down 265 lb-ft or so...engine is basically the same..it's also a matter of gear ratios (which would also be related to rpm)...so...
if u want to see something about this...the new s60r manual makes 300 hp and 295 lb-ft torque....the auto still makes 300 hp, but the torque is down 265 lb-ft or so...engine is basically the same..it's also a matter of gear ratios (which would also be related to rpm)...so...
Although, I don't actually get how gear ratios can affect hp anyway. But these different numbers for auto and manual must have something to do with engine tuning.
#84
Super Member
It's obvious that no one read the links I posted about the hp/torque issue. Try and learn something and read them otherwise you are being ignorant to the facts. Torque is a force and hp is a rate. All the torque in the world will not help if you can not deliver it at a fast enough rate (hp). READ THE LINKS!
Outland you are wrong. READ!
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_755/article.html
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_744/article.html
Get some facts before you make WRONG statements, you are polluting these people with misinformation.
Outland you are wrong. READ!
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_755/article.html
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_744/article.html
Get some facts before you make WRONG statements, you are polluting these people with misinformation.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
#85
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numbers don't lie
Originally posted by Outland
[B]Its true. Think how long it takes you to make that extra shift, the time the car falls off the power, and how long it takes to go from 53-60. The C is actually quicker to 30 and 40 than the RSX...at 50 they are dead even. By sixty a rather large .8 second gap has arisen. A slighty taller 1st, and slightly taller second would bring the coupe to 60 with only two shifts...same as the RSX, the Cooper S and the Celica. I'd expect at least a half second better time- just because of the saved shift.
Don't go quoting the auto times, automatics do not behave the same way as manual transmission cars...its not an apples to apples comparison. Automatics are not manuals that shift themselves.
[B]
Something I also mentioned.
[B]
If you do an engine swap and trade the C-Coupes M111 for the high reving 200HP Honda mill, and vice versa, what do you think would happen? I'll bet that the RSX gets slightly faster, and the C-Coupe becomes slower. Only 8HP seperate them, but the M111's massive 208ft-lbs of torque come on sooooooo much lower than the RSX-S's rather weak 142ft-lbs. Look at the difference in the curb wieght! The C-Coupe is 400lbs heavier than the RSX...that's like racing in the RSX with two friends along!
Where? Did I say that?
[B]Its true. Think how long it takes you to make that extra shift, the time the car falls off the power, and how long it takes to go from 53-60. The C is actually quicker to 30 and 40 than the RSX...at 50 they are dead even. By sixty a rather large .8 second gap has arisen. A slighty taller 1st, and slightly taller second would bring the coupe to 60 with only two shifts...same as the RSX, the Cooper S and the Celica. I'd expect at least a half second better time- just because of the saved shift.
Don't go quoting the auto times, automatics do not behave the same way as manual transmission cars...its not an apples to apples comparison. Automatics are not manuals that shift themselves.
[B]
Something I also mentioned.
[B]
If you do an engine swap and trade the C-Coupes M111 for the high reving 200HP Honda mill, and vice versa, what do you think would happen? I'll bet that the RSX gets slightly faster, and the C-Coupe becomes slower. Only 8HP seperate them, but the M111's massive 208ft-lbs of torque come on sooooooo much lower than the RSX-S's rather weak 142ft-lbs. Look at the difference in the curb wieght! The C-Coupe is 400lbs heavier than the RSX...that's like racing in the RSX with two friends along!
Where? Did I say that?
If only life was as simple as you make it out to be. Obviously changing the gearing to allow the C-coupe to get to 60 in 2nd gear changes the acceleration rate within those 2 gears. I'm not doubting that a C-coupe MIGHT post a better acceleration to 60 if it did the feat in 2nd gear, but it also MIGHT NOT. There is no way to prove this objectively.
Again, swapping an engine into another car that is not meant for it will likely produce off the wall results. You make some huge presumptions in your fairy tale land of engine swaps and transmission gearing changes. If you actually knew anything about cars, you wouldn't make those presumptions without some sound evidence.
If you want to make out your car to be faster than it is, I understand that. You want to make your car seem as great as possible. Unfortunately I think this is coming at the expense of accurate information to other board members. Basically if you can't post accurate information, you shouldn't post at all.
#86
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The blue white rock, third out.
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Originally posted by mdp c230k
Torque is a force and hp is a rate. All the torque in the world will not help if you can not deliver it at a fast enough rate (hp). READ THE LINKS!
Outland you are wrong.
Torque is a force and hp is a rate. All the torque in the world will not help if you can not deliver it at a fast enough rate (hp). READ THE LINKS!
Outland you are wrong.
Originally posted by OutlandHP is merely the rate that torque is applied. What do you guys think the dynos measure? To get HP, you multiply torque by rpm/5252.
#87
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The blue white rock, third out.
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numbers don't lie
Originally posted by autobarn
If you actually knew anything about cars, you wouldn't make those presumptions without some sound evidence.
Basically if you can't post accurate information, you shouldn't post at all.
If you actually knew anything about cars, you wouldn't make those presumptions without some sound evidence.
Basically if you can't post accurate information, you shouldn't post at all.
Anyone who compares automatic times to manual times and says that they are proof of his or her theory doesn't know anything about cars. "An engine that the car is meant for"? Jeez, that's lame.
Last edited by Outland; 02-27-2003 at 07:19 PM.
#88
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The blue white rock, third out.
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Originally posted by Matt230K
Since these numbers stated by manufacturers are the horsepowers at the engine, the gear ratios can have no effect on hp whatsoever, right? This is the amount of power they make before it even goes through the gearbox, so how can gear ratios have any effect?
Since these numbers stated by manufacturers are the horsepowers at the engine, the gear ratios can have no effect on hp whatsoever, right? This is the amount of power they make before it even goes through the gearbox, so how can gear ratios have any effect?
#89
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2010 C300 4matic
Originally posted by Outland
Gear ratios have nothing to do with how much torque or HP a motor makes.
Gear ratios have nothing to do with how much torque or HP a motor makes.
#91
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numbers don't lie
Originally posted by Outland
I suggest that you burn your keyboard then.
Anyone who compares automatic times to manual times and says that they are proof of his or her theory doesn't know anything about cars. "An engine that the car is meant for"? Jeez, that's lame.
I suggest that you burn your keyboard then.
Anyone who compares automatic times to manual times and says that they are proof of his or her theory doesn't know anything about cars. "An engine that the car is meant for"? Jeez, that's lame.
"heavy right foot (user installed)". That is the LAMEST thing I've ever seen. How long did it take you to come up with that oh-so-witty line? The sad thing is you were probably proud of yourself for thinking it up.
There's also no need for your foul-mouthed community college language here.
#92
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The blue white rock, third out.
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numbers don't lie
Originally posted by autobarn
If you want to see lame, take a look at your sig.
There's also no need for your foul-mouthed community college language here.
If you want to see lame, take a look at your sig.
There's also no need for your foul-mouthed community college language here.
Look whose throwing stones now? My sig? That's your great comeback? Just goes to show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You're worse than the guy posting pictures of his gun.
Come back when you get a clue.
Last edited by Outland; 02-27-2003 at 11:29 PM.
#93
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Abingdon, MD
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok-
So now let's talk about RWHP.
Will altering the gearing, increase the HP measured at the rear wheels?
Does the same formula to calulate hp at the crank apply? Which one matters more to you?
So now let's talk about RWHP.
Will altering the gearing, increase the HP measured at the rear wheels?
Does the same formula to calulate hp at the crank apply? Which one matters more to you?
#94
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1996 C36 AMG, 1995 Volvo 850 Turbowagon
easy guys...![EEK!](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
i must've read it somewhere, bout the torque and gear ratio...oh well. guess gearing may not help with torque. but what it does do is to either have a bonneville type car or a rabbit-out-of-the-hole car.... a more closely spaced gear ratio will allow u to constantly be in a tighter rpm range of max engine power (like f1 cars, thus no need for a large flat torque plateau) and accelerate like a mad man...or a cruiser, where acceleration is not that important but max speed is, then the gears can be stretched out so the car is either aerodynamically hindered or something rather than simply running out of gear, but u should have larger torque plateau...this way, u can have an engine that feels more flexible across a larger rpm range since u r now spending longer times in each gear (the opposite of this would be the early honda v-tec engines which were very powerful, but u had to crank it way up in the rpm to feel anything ...actually...kinda like the current s2000). what i said about the s60r may not be true (torque diff reasons anyway), but i know for sure that bmw had the same 7-series offered with an optional sports gearing package that made the car accelerate faster than the standard gearing...
![EEK!](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
i must've read it somewhere, bout the torque and gear ratio...oh well. guess gearing may not help with torque. but what it does do is to either have a bonneville type car or a rabbit-out-of-the-hole car.... a more closely spaced gear ratio will allow u to constantly be in a tighter rpm range of max engine power (like f1 cars, thus no need for a large flat torque plateau) and accelerate like a mad man...or a cruiser, where acceleration is not that important but max speed is, then the gears can be stretched out so the car is either aerodynamically hindered or something rather than simply running out of gear, but u should have larger torque plateau...this way, u can have an engine that feels more flexible across a larger rpm range since u r now spending longer times in each gear (the opposite of this would be the early honda v-tec engines which were very powerful, but u had to crank it way up in the rpm to feel anything ...actually...kinda like the current s2000). what i said about the s60r may not be true (torque diff reasons anyway), but i know for sure that bmw had the same 7-series offered with an optional sports gearing package that made the car accelerate faster than the standard gearing...
Last edited by steve s; 02-28-2003 at 04:00 AM.
#95
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numbers don't lie
Originally posted by Outland
You must know all about community college. Probably where you were sleeping thru class.
Look whose throwing stones now? My sig? That's your great comeback? Just goes to show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You're worse than the guy posting pictures of his gun.
Come back when you get a clue.
You must know all about community college. Probably where you were sleeping thru class.
Look whose throwing stones now? My sig? That's your great comeback? Just goes to show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You're worse than the guy posting pictures of his gun.
Come back when you get a clue.
Funny how you quoted everything I said except for the part about your lame pre-pubescent sig line.
It really doesn't matter what you say at this point. One look at that line sums up your intelligence. In case anyone missed it, I'll post it again:
"heavy right foot (user installed)". That is the LAMEST thing I've ever seen. How long did it take you to come up with that oh-so-witty line? The sad thing is you were probably proud of yourself for thinking it up.
#96
Super Member
Outland, its obvious that you would rather throw around names than get the facts straight. If it was torque that was the factor in a cars speed then why have we always talked about how much hp an engine makes? How is the S2000 so fast with only 154ftlbs of torque and why didnt they build the engine for more torque and less hp? The reason is hp makes a car accelerate. Your conversion factor adds the element of time creating a rate. The higher the rate of power delivery the faster the accel of the car. Didn't you learn that in school? I learned all about it in one of my physics classes at UCLA, were they wrong? Anyway, I posted those links so you could understand a simple concept with simple words you could grasp, you still didn't get it! Try this one : http://www.mustangsandmore.com/ubb/D...orqueVsHP.html
#98
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: HK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB CLK320
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Numbers don't lie
Originally posted by autobarn
Funny how you quoted everything I said except for the part about your lame pre-pubescent sig line.
It really doesn't matter what you say at this point. One look at that line sums up your intelligence. In case anyone missed it, I'll post it again:
"heavy right foot (user installed)". That is the LAMEST thing I've ever seen. How long did it take you to come up with that oh-so-witty line? The sad thing is you were probably proud of yourself for thinking it up.
Funny how you quoted everything I said except for the part about your lame pre-pubescent sig line.
It really doesn't matter what you say at this point. One look at that line sums up your intelligence. In case anyone missed it, I'll post it again:
"heavy right foot (user installed)". That is the LAMEST thing I've ever seen. How long did it take you to come up with that oh-so-witty line? The sad thing is you were probably proud of yourself for thinking it up.
We usually dont argue with jerks or pig-headed, do we?
#99
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The blue white rock, third out.
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Originally posted by mdp c230k
If it was torque that was the factor in a cars speed then why have we always talked about how much hp an engine makes?
If it was torque that was the factor in a cars speed then why have we always talked about how much hp an engine makes?
What I said earlier is still true...the ONLY FORCE your engine makes is torque. That's it. ITS ALL TORQUE.
How is the S2000 so fast with only 154ftlbs of torque and why didnt they build the engine for more torque and less hp? The reason is hp makes a car accelerate.
The Hondas 240HP is very impressive. But its a factor of the high rpms multiplying the torque...don't you get it? Its still torque that accellerates your car. Here's something for you to consider....ALL engines have a 'crossover' point at 5252rpms...where the torque curve drops below the calculated HP curve. Why do think this is? The two are more than just related....without torque, there is no HP. Get it yet?
The higher the rate of power delivery the faster the accel of the car.
Didn't you learn that in school? I learned all about it in one of my physics classes at UCLA, were they wrong? Anyway, I posted those links so you could understand a simple concept with simple words you could grasp, you still didn't get it! Try this one : http://www.mustangsandmore.com/ubb/D...orqueVsHP.html
The reason you keep posting these links is that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HP IS. OR TORQUE. Is HP unimportant? No, not at all. But HP isn't a force your engine makes...that's been the whole point all along.
#100
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: sf bay area
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'03 C320 coupe-manual, '07 530i
Newton's Second Law of Motion:
Force=Mass times the acceleration (F=M*A) , or restated: Force/Mass= Acceleration
Therefore, with a constant mass, force is DIRECTLY related to acceleration.
Torque is a measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
Thus, given a constant radius vector, torque is DIRECTLY related to acceleration.
Force=Mass times the acceleration (F=M*A) , or restated: Force/Mass= Acceleration
Therefore, with a constant mass, force is DIRECTLY related to acceleration.
Torque is a measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
Thus, given a constant radius vector, torque is DIRECTLY related to acceleration.
Last edited by Wheens; 02-28-2003 at 08:18 PM.