I think that there are really two different arguments here.
1. Why dont hondas make much torque relative to other engines? This is mostly just physics. They choose to make engines that make less torque but can keep it up to a lot farther out in the rev range.
2. Which is better? As my teacher would say "yeah". How much an engine characteristic impacts how fast the car is dependends on a lot of other factors.

 

the real measure of a motor is the area under horse power curve over the usable range of the motor.

 

wrong, because 100 horsepower at 8xxx rpm will accelerate the same as 60hp at 4xxx rpm because the torque is the same

the true measure would be the integral of the torque curve between 0 and the max RPM, or the area under the torque curve.

 

Your teacher is right. There is no "better". There is only what you prefer. Big engines make mad torque but can be about as efficient as a pile of poop(not good gas mileage). Small engines make no torque, but can be just at fast if you are willing to wait until the powerband hits. They also get better gas mileage.

 

the GSR and LS have completely different gearing. yes the LS engines might have more low end torque but the gearing changes that torque value when calculated at the wheels.

the reason horsepower is more valid is because it's calculated from both torque and engine RPM. the inclusion of engine rpm in the equation allows for gearing to be considered in the number, making it more valid than a peak torque number.

a smaller engine needednt work twice as hard, merely twice as fast. it's just like anything else.

[spoiler=analogy.. please read if you really don't get it]
heres an analogy. you are sitting at a table with your little brother. you are 10 and he is 4, there is a bowl infront of you with 4 peices of candy in it.

his hands are small, so he can only grab one peice at a time. you have bigger hands so you can grab two. imagine this as your "candy torque"

now imagine he is twice as fast as you are. this is the "candy RPM"
you grab 2 peices as he grabs one.
he grabs another.
there is now no more candy left and you are both left with two peices.
[/spoiler]
what i am saying is not that a small engine must work twice as hard, but i'm saying if it does it will be able to make up for the loss in torque. it's the reason why it's inconsequential to just know and compare torque values.

not that it is perfect comparing horsepower values, but they are much more correct than torque values. the absoloute would be the integral of the torque curve from 0 to the maximum rpm.

using horsepower is just a shortcut which assumes many things to be true because technicians dont want to deal with calculating integrals and the area under a curve. and gear ratios...

 

thanks.. i "get it". i don't think you do. but i appreciate you talking down to me with your silly candy analogy.

you obviously do realize that horsepower is a calculation of torque and rpm. well, by the same definition, you do realize that it's vice versa for torque as well, right?

hp = (torque * rpm) / 5252
torque = (hp * 5252) / rpm

now think about that for a little, then read this statement of yours.. "the reason horsepower is more valid is because it's calculated from both torque and engine RPM. "

 

what i should have said was contains a "per time" element

:edit:

hp:ft-lbs is the same as j/s:j --but the problem is that i'm trying to simplify things here... if you understand why are you giving me such a hard time?