I've noticed that other 2.0L or higher displacement turbo motors other than the 4G63t, have low torque numbers. Is this because most people are tuning for peak power rather than balance? Take for instance an SR20DET is capable of cranking out numbers that would be considered balance. Such as 400whp; 400wtq but you have turbo H22a, F20c and K20a's with the same "whp", but the "wtq" in the 200 or low 300 range. You even have EVO's with the same "unbalanced" numbers. Is this because of the tuning involved? I like it when I see tuning with numbers like 400whp; 400wtq or even 600whp; 550wtq. It just looks more attractive to me (just my opinion) than 700whp and 400wtq....where is the balance?

 

since when do power numbers have to be attractive to produce resolutions

the 4g63 is high horsepower capable motor not a torque monster

if you want torque get a vette

 

I agree with you about producing results. I was just curious in the difference between the other motors.

 

good question, i'd like to know as well!

 

I always understood with bigger displacment you got more torque.....?
Is that wrong?

I.E. Stroking your motor to a 2.3 resulted in more torque...?

 

correct

 

Torque produced will depend on the turbo system and/or displacement. You'll see some rally cars with 400+ ft lbs of torque and maybe 300 whp and that's because they're breathing through a restrictor-plate. There was a good dyno chart up in one of the threads of a european rally Evo that showed this. If anyone can remember the thread post it up.

 

HP = (torque*RPM) / 5250 at any RPM. This means that torque produced at the low end will not produce the high HP numbers, if it falls off quickly.

400lbs/ft of torque at 2K rpm = 152HP. 400lbs/ft @ 7,000 RPM = 533 HP, even though it's the same torque. In general, larger displacement engines produce more low end torque.

Edit:

SCC had a good article about this a long time ago. HP is pretty much crap and doesn't tell you much. The actual amount a horse was able to pull out of a well (1HP) is actually less than what we consider 1HP. The 5,250 number is also a random number that seems like it came out of no where. I guess you could argue that HP represents how well the torque stays at high end RPMs, without having every car show a dyno graph. Anyway...wish I still had the article. It was pretty funny. They converted one car with a dyno to show MP (monkey power) instead of HP.

 

its just hard with a 2.0l motor like you said the sr200 motor is bigge. So if you want tea get a v8 and still be slow

 

Good info.

 

The evo can produce a good amount ot tq. Most of the 2 liters are made to rev higher. So they produce less torque. It all depends on what you want out of the car.

When I did all my research on my car, i look for certain results. I wanted a fun street car. I was not truely worriyed about what it revs to or can trap. My car makes very good power on pump gas, but also has the torque to push the car through the gears. Hence why I went with the stroker.

Don't get me wrong....There have been a large amount of 2 liters that make great torque.

As for most of the hondas...They are tuned to make power up top for a reason. The more tq they produce the more wheel spin they get.

 

A short stroke and smaller displacement both reduce the torque capacity of an engine but enable it to safely rev higher, short stroke because of leverage, and displacement because of the reduced capacitly to move air at a given rpm. Since we have a turbo we overcome displacement by forcing more air into the combustion chambers, but turbo's dont operate well at low rpm so our engines are designed to operate at substantially higher rpm than an average V8.

Considering the displacement of our 2L engines were making amazing torque. Use an example of a mildly modified 2L making 300ft/lbs and use 3x multiplier for the lower displacement (6L / 2L = 3). How many 6L V8's with mild mods do you know that make 900ft/lbs of torque?

 

Appreciate the info, I just hope I didnt ask a stupid question. I know guys that are concerned with just peak power and not really interested in torque. I just excepted the fact thats just how they wanted they're motors tuned, but I rather have a balance of both.

 

id also like to mention that the motors you commented on that have low torque numbers were h22s, f20s and k20s.... which come from the factory naturally aspirated, not turboed.... simply adding a turbo will not increase torque much at all.. turbos produce power (depending on turbo size) around 3500-4000 so your only getting 1200 rpms of pull before torque turns into horsepower... and since these motors are typically much higher compression then the 4g63, they have to run low boost..so you will really only see an increase in highend horsepower... as for the 4g63 or many other lower compression motors equipped with a turbo, you can run much higher boost...

so if a 4g63 running 23lbs of boost get full boost at 4000rpms that will register as torque on a dyno until it reaches 5250 rpms in which it switches to horsepower... and the same goes for a k20 w/ a turbo.. but the lower boost will keep the torque numbers down.. 23lbs of boost versus 10-15lbs of boost will be dramatically different when it comes to torque..



also turbo size plays a huge role... some like smaller turbos that create a good linear amount of torque to horsepower which is great for road racing and such... and other like ***** out drag racing where giant turbos with gobs of peak horsepower is where you need it.... so there are many variables

 

That's what I was going to say, that a smaller turbo will have more impressive tq #'s than say a gt42r.