4.6 head doesn't work/(duratec zetec discussion)

MerkXRTurbo · Post by **MerkXRTurbo** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:21 pm

I would say that is a very good 4 cylinder. With a 6300 RPM redline I'm sure it is a nicely performing street car.

MerkXRTurbo · Post by **MerkXRTurbo** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:24 pm

xr4tiguy wrote:I don't think this makes it any less streetable. The car loves to rev, just use those 6 gears to your advantage and keep her close to redline and you're golden (you won't hurt anything, it's a honda)

As for tooling around town it has plenty of torque for that. When you wanna go play kick in the afterburner.

No, it does make it less streetable. I have driven one, and you have to get it wound up to move. You can't get off the line in a hurry.

The reason I say it sucks, is because if it had more torque along with that same RPM it would have HUGE hp. Let's say it just had 200 ft/lb (which wouldn't be a problem for anybody except Honda

):

200 ft/lb X 8500 RPM / 5252 = ~323 HP.

I guess what I'm saying is that ANY car that turn 9K should be faster and more powerful than the S2000.

xr4tiguy · Post by **xr4tiguy** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:30 pm

I suppose, however to be able to turn at that kind of speed requires a short stroke and light components (not really a good recipe for torque) Obviously if they strap a turbo on it then you'd get more power, but I think they kinda wanted the braggin rights of making lots of power without it.

As for the porsche motor, that is indeed a great motor (very reliable as far as porsche's go, however in all reality that is a huge bloody four banger!! How many 3.0 liter four cylinder engines do you see kicking around?? Just in displacement is has a 50% advantage over a 2.0L so you'd think it would make 50% more power. Of course that's just what you would think by looking at it on paper.

rocks · Post by **rocks** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:32 pm

Well the s2000 has no real power below 5-6k rpms. So its not fun to drive aroud town. Big displacement 4s are better, look at the example from porsche 3.0l inline 4, im not sure if anyother company has made one that big in a production car. The ones before that were a 2.7l and a 2.5l. The 2.5 was turboed from the factory. My 84 928 v8 had a redline of 6500rpms, but it would do 7500, it was a 4.6l.

xr4tiguy · Post by **xr4tiguy** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:38 pm

don't get me wrong for a second, I agree. There's no replacement for displacement. And torque is indeed the key to fun. I was just saying that I think honda did something that no one ever did before, they made a mini indy car for the street, and I tip my hat to them for that. There's just something about running a car up to 9 grand, flicking the shifter and rocketing back up till the tach kisses the redline and repeating. It's sort of like the rx7 (of course rotary) They made 0 power off the line however once you got that little bastard hummin it was a neat little car.

MerkXRTurbo · Post by **MerkXRTurbo** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:42 pm

xr4tiguy wrote:I suppose, however to be able to turn at that kind of speed requires a short stroke and light components (not really a good recipe for torque)

You sure? Our 2.3T is a VERY short stroke engine and it produces big torque, and the S2000 actually has a longer stroke than we do.

BoreXstroke:

2.3: 3.78 X 3.12
S2K: 3.43 X 3.31

xr4tiguy · Post by **xr4tiguy** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:58 pm

Disconnect your turbo and see how much torque you get. Of course you'd have crappy compression but... We have the torque advantage because we have a turbo throwing air down our throat.

The s2000 has lightwieght components. along with a head, exhaust and intake design built to get air in and out superfast, to allow for great throttle response and rev-ability. When it comes to naturally aspirated engines you can't have your cake and eat it too, especially when dealing with small displacement. You can either have great flow, light components and thus great response and high rpms. Or you can have heavy components, and a little less flow and get good torque.

I'm not sure you will be able to build a 2.0L motor capable of producing a need for a tachometer to read to 9000 rpm while still making loads of torque, even with variable valve wizardry. I believe that was what honda wanted more than anything was show off their ability to produce a revving motor that would be durable, dependable, and powerful.

MerkXRTurbo · Post by **MerkXRTurbo** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:01 pm

xr4tiguy wrote:Disconnect your turbo and see how much torque you get. Of course you'd have crappy compression but... We have the torque advantage because we have a turbo throwing air down our throat.

Have you ever looked at the dyno sheets for the 500+ hp turbo Hondas? They still have less torque than a lightly modded 2.3T. A low torque engine is a low torque engine. A turbo is going to increase the number, but it won't change the characteristics of the engine.

EDIT: I just found the specs of the '84 carbed 2.3 Ranger:

88hp@4800 RPM
118TQ@2800 RPM

This shows that, in our case, even N/A the engine has way more torque than HP.

xr4tiguy · Post by **xr4tiguy** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:08 pm

And what do those motors rev to? I'm assuming it's more than our piddly 6-6500 rpm (most of our power is made closer to 5000)

A low torque engine is a low torque engine for a reason. I'm assuming those cars have excellent throttle response (us... not so much) super light components (us... not so much) and a design that allows them to rev til dooms day. They are designed for the power to come on later where they are designed to run.

Do you think it is possible for a 2.0L naturally aspirated (hell I'll even give you the turbo) motor to rev to 9000 rpm, have great throttle response and still make loads of torque?

MerkXRTurbo · Post by **MerkXRTurbo** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:15 pm

xr4tiguy wrote:Do you think it is possible for a 2.0L naturally aspirated (hell I'll even give you the turbo) motor to rev to 9000 rpm, have great throttle response and still make loads of torque?

I think so, but to get a voice with real experience ask Phil Marshall. I'm sure he's done it with our 2.3s.

I met a guy recently that was into circle track racing with the 2.3 N/A. He was running 12K RPM on that, and he said that some of the guys were running 14K+. The 2.3 is a large bore and short stroke, which is PERFECT to turn into a high revving engine... even with stock pistons. The only thing holding us back from 10K are our unbalanced rods and our crappy valve train.

And NO, those Hondas don't have excellent throttle response. If it's throttle response you're after then get a V8. A turbo never has great response, and neither does a car with a high power curve. Combine the two (like the Hondas I'm speaking of) and it will have nearly no throttle response.

xr4tiguy · Post by **xr4tiguy** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:19 pm

Do guys who run the esslinger notice a higher redline?? I always kinda wondered how high our engine would rev. I wonder what just an esslinger, and better rods could produce. (obviously with high flow exhaust, intake etc.)

MerkXRTurbo · Post by **MerkXRTurbo** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:22 pm

It really has little to do with the head... it's about valve train (lifters, followers, valve springs, etc.), ignition, and having the right equipment down on the bottom. Just with stiffer valve springs, I truly beleive that our engines would be safe to rev over 7K.

Also don't forget you have to have a cam that will actually raise your power curve if you're intending on spinning an engine high RPM.

xr4tiguy · Post by **xr4tiguy** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:28 pm

I would think the head would have to have an impact. You have to be able to get a lot of air in and out very fast. To be able to rev high you need lots of unadulterated air flow otherwise you end up starving the motor for air, and causing a bottle neck on the exhaust side. The engines redline is directly correlated to how well it can cycle through its intake and discharge of air.

At least that would make sense, and what I've always believed.

xr4tiguy · Post by **xr4tiguy** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:31 pm

I didn't see you said to 7000rpm. Oh, yes, I believe that you could get to 7 without any problem without head mods, However to get up to 8 or more lots of flow would be needed.

thesameguy · Post by **thesameguy** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:46 pm

MerkXRTurbo wrote:Dynos measure torque, and calculate HP from there. There is NO device to measure HP. I didn't say it was completely meaningless... just nearly. Torque gives you a much better idea of how powerful an engine really is.

If HP is the number to look at, then don't buy a diesel truck. They don't even put out 200 crank HP.

Chassis and wheel dynos measure torque. Horsepower brakes measure - wait for it - horsepower. What you've said above is that there is no way to measure, say, a lightbulb's power consumption or a generator's output. There are absolutely ways to measure horsepower, and horsepower is absolutely important.

In terms of a car (or a truck, diesel or otherwise), neither horsepower or torque is more important inherently, unless through some madness your chosen vehicle has no transmission . The fact that we have gear reduction and multiple ratios to choose from gives us all great flexibility in terms of what engine we want moving us around, and nine times out of ten the car with a major horsepower bias vs. a car with a major torque bias is going to be faster assuming the folks in the powertrain shop are doing their job. Gearing allows us to take advantage of horsepower, which leads to more flexible power, and better performance out of smaller, less torquey engines.