I did a search for this subject but found nothing. I was just curious as to why the torque (128 ft-lbs) on integras gs-r's or generally all integras is so low. Is there a good reason? Lemme know. Thanks!

 

well to make a long story short, our cars main purpose life beside us building the shit out them, was that they were to help you save on better fuel comsumption, thats why we can have 300+ hp and still get 30-32mpg think of it this way...2006 ford f350 powerstroke 14-15 cityand 17-18 hywy 2006 acura tsx 27-28 city 31-32 hywy mainly motorsize and displacement bigger motor means more fuel so back to your question, we have smaller motors so we dont put out that much torque straight of the bat, again displacement....

 

SO, when stroking the motor your building TQ...thus making your MPG drop?

 

Any modification is going to affect gas mileage.

The only way you will get a decent amount of low end torque is with a small, quick spooling turbo.

 

Das Schmoo, what kind of turbo set up are you running and did you do it yourself? and how much is the setup?

 

I'm running a Greddy kit with some extras and better fuel management. The basic turbo kit without blow off valve and half assed tuning was 2750. The total cost of my setup is unknown, but too damn much that I try not to think about it. I installed everything myself and street tuned it myself, so the cost is cut significantly since I don't have to pay any labor.

It sure is nice having over 180 ft/lbs of torque by 4000 rpm, though. If you want low end torque with a decent high end, a small turbo like the 18G or equivalent is something that you should look into.

 

the reason the torque is down is because it's a low displacement engine.


horsepower is what tells you the true power of an engine. torque is a misconception that many people have

say one engine makes a constant 100 ft-lbs of torque up to 8000 rpm and another makes 200 ft-lbs up to 4000 rpm

when gearing is applied, both engines have the same exact power. and infact will have the same horespower reading-- the reason behind this is the first engine can do 100ft-lbs twice at twice the speed the second can make 200ft-lbs.


it's also the reason why people are not correct when they say that compared to the LS the GSR has no low end torque, the dearing is completely diffferent, the gsr has more power thourhgout the band.

 

Here is a good article on one tuners take on hp and tq.
http://www.evans-tuning.com/tech2.html
another decent article
http://www.team-integra.net/sections...?ArticleID=467

I wouldnt take low tq to mean that the car cant be fast. A lot has to do with gearing also. The gearing needs to match the power band of the engine as well as the racing conditions. Also typically to get high torque you need to increase the throw of the crankshaft. When this happens it increases the loading on the side of the piston and thus on the cylinder walls. You can also make the ports smaller to increase velocity of the air to give better low end responce but then you usally give up breathing in the top end thus dont make as much power in the top. For example ls engine vs gsr engine. Anyways, you can increase throw or as with low displacement engines you spin them very fast and then gear the transmission closer so the engine can stay in its powerband. Here is another good link. There are good links at the bottom of the first page. I hope some of this helps.

http://www.team-integra.net/forum/di...urnPage=Search

 

Here is another good thread.

http://www.team-integra.net/forum/di...PagePosition=3

 

uhhh.. :ugh: horsepower alone is just as valid a measurement as torque alone, given that one is just a calculation of the other. neither alone tell you "the true power of an engine."not sure what you're getting at here except showing that the weaker engine will have to work twice as hard to put out the same horsepower. so what's the point?meaning there are more factors than horsepower alone, or torque alone, to consider.


your post there sounds like something a honda fanboy would say to justify their low torque engine.