For those of you who don’t know, the Honda plant near Toronto produces
Civic sedans with an Acura nameplate. The model I am looking at includes
all of the options and is driven by a 1.6 litre (127 hp) motor.
I would like to buy a car soon, but am torn between this Acura, and the
2000 Jetta which is alleged to be coming with the 1.8 litre (150 hp)
turbo charged motor that the Passat & A4 have.
My dilemma:
Acura
The car looks good
The acquisition cost is about $25,000 CAD
The red instrument cluster is difficult to see with sunglasses on
This car is a real kick in the pants to drive (gotta love Honda 5
speeds!)
The level of support at the dealer is fantastic (loaners always
available, or they pick up the car from work and return it by the end of
the day.. washed)
Black paint / black leather interior (too hot in the summer? easily
damaged?)
Available now
Volkswagen
The car looks fantastic
The acquisition cost is about $29,000 CAD
The purple instrument cluster is very attractive
It drives reasonably (I’m not partial to cable shifters)
Dealer support is poor (they don’t return phone calls)
Black paint / black cloth interior
Available in about a year (I don’t like the 115 hp 2.0 litre)
I’ve had a 10 year love affair with Volkswagen, but can’t stand the
local dealer. The Acura guys don’t give me any pressure, negotiate based
on their invoice (+ a reasonable profit) and are just nice guys.
Suggestions? Comments? Can somebody make the decision for me??
—
Steve
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
robe…@dsuper.net wrote:
> Some notes here:
> A 5-speed EL with leather is around 23000$CDN. It is available in Sport
> trim (with moonroof) for about 20500$CDN. Superb deal.
> For a negociated price of around 26500$CDN, you’ll have a 4-drs manual
> Accord EX full equipped with leather.
> The Jetta GLS with a V6 and Sport package could be something nice too for
> probably more money if you consider that the GLX is 30K$+CDN.
> If there is a problem with the EL and Jetta, they feel so small ("cramped")
> beside the Accord. Against all odds, the Accord doesn’t lose an ounce of
> agility. See current Car&Driver mag long-term report on an Accord EX Coupé
> 5-speed.
1.6 EL Premium, on the road – $25,600 (negotiated).
The Accord EX $26,500 – on the road?
The Accord coupe is going to push me over $30,000 though..
I know what you’re talking about when you say the EL and the Jetta feel
cramped inside, the Accord coupe will cost too much, the sedan appears
to be in my price range, but I’m still only 25 and don’t think I’m ready
to get back into my Dad’s kind of car.. if you know what I mean.
Your idea’s and comments are very much appreciated!
—
Steve
USER wrote:
> >1.6 EL Premium, on the road – $25,600 (negotiated).
> Negociated? I have doubts. The list price for a Premium manual is around
> 23000$. Substract easily 6% and you are about at 22K$.
Like I said… on the road. 1.6 EL Premium – $22K plus GST, PST,
Freight, PDI, air tax, gas tax, tire tax, blood money… $25,600 on the
road. Still a good value, considering the leather, alloys, heated seats,
roof, etc.
For this kind of money though, I think I’d rather stay away from the
Accord Sedan, can’t afford the Accord Coupe, might wait for the Jetta
1.8T, or could maybe spend the extra and get an Integra… Suggestions?
Steve
===
For those of you who don’t know, the Honda plant near Toronto produces
Civic sedans with an Acura nameplate. The model I am looking at includes
all of the options and is driven by a 1.6 litre (127 hp) motor.
I would like to buy a car soon, but am torn between this Acura, and the
2000 Jetta which is alleged to be coming with the 1.8 litre (150 hp)
turbo charged motor that the Passat & A4 have.
My dilemma:
Acura
The car looks good
The acquisition cost is about $25,000 CAD
The red instrument cluster is difficult to see with sunglasses on
This car is a real kick in the pants to drive (gotta love Honda 5
speeds!)
The level of support at the dealer is fantastic (loaners always
available, or they pick up the car from work and return it by the end of
the day.. washed)
Black paint / black leather interior (too hot in the summer? easily
damaged?)
Available now
Volkswagen
The car looks fantastic
The acquisition cost is about $29,000 CAD
The purple instrument cluster is very attractive
It drives reasonably (I’m not partial to cable shifters)
Dealer support is poor (they don’t return phone calls)
Black paint / black cloth interior
Available in about a year (I don’t like the 115 hp 2.0 litre)
I’ve had a 10 year love affair with Volkswagen, but can’t stand the
local dealer. The Acura guys don’t give me any pressure, negotiate based
on their invoice (+ a reasonable profit) and are just nice guys.
Suggestions? Comments? Can somebody make the decision for me??
—
Steve
-1.8T on the passat has performance chips that can easily take the HP to over
200.
-I got a 98DX Hatchback on the road $18,127 (including 160km warranty).
Plus, $700 to replace all the speakers with 3-way sony and a CD Changer. The
dealer charges alot more for the CD Changer.
(Prices are in Canadian)
Pars.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Stephen D. Todd" wrote:
> USER wrote:
> > >1.6 EL Premium, on the road – $25,600 (negotiated).
> > Negociated? I have doubts. The list price for a Premium manual is around
> > 23000$. Substract easily 6% and you are about at 22K$.
> Like I said… on the road. 1.6 EL Premium – $22K plus GST, PST,
> Freight, PDI, air tax, gas tax, tire tax, blood money… $25,600 on the
> road. Still a good value, considering the leather, alloys, heated seats,
> roof, etc.
> For this kind of money though, I think I’d rather stay away from the
> Accord Sedan, can’t afford the Accord Coupe, might wait for the Jetta
> 1.8T, or could maybe spend the extra and get an Integra… Suggestions?
> Steve
> ===
> For those of you who don’t know, the Honda plant near Toronto produces
> Civic sedans with an Acura nameplate. The model I am looking at includes
> all of the options and is driven by a 1.6 litre (127 hp) motor.
> I would like to buy a car soon, but am torn between this Acura, and the
> 2000 Jetta which is alleged to be coming with the 1.8 litre (150 hp)
> turbo charged motor that the Passat & A4 have.
> My dilemma:
> Acura
> The car looks good
> The acquisition cost is about $25,000 CAD
> The red instrument cluster is difficult to see with sunglasses on
> This car is a real kick in the pants to drive (gotta love Honda 5
> speeds!)
> The level of support at the dealer is fantastic (loaners always
> available, or they pick up the car from work and return it by the end of
> the day.. washed)
> Black paint / black leather interior (too hot in the summer? easily
> damaged?)
> Available now
> Volkswagen
> The car looks fantastic
> The acquisition cost is about $29,000 CAD
> The purple instrument cluster is very attractive
> It drives reasonably (I’m not partial to cable shifters)
> Dealer support is poor (they don’t return phone calls)
> Black paint / black cloth interior
> Available in about a year (I don’t like the 115 hp 2.0 litre)
> I’ve had a 10 year love affair with Volkswagen, but can’t stand the
> local dealer. The Acura guys don’t give me any pressure, negotiate based
> on their invoice (+ a reasonable profit) and are just nice guys.
> Suggestions? Comments? Can somebody make the decision for me??
> —
> Steve
How does torque/hp translate into FUN! Take the Acura EL, 127hp vs. the
current Jetta, 115hp. Which one is faster?? Which one has better pick
up? Better HP on the Acura, better Torque on the VW. Top end speed is
not a major concern for me, but lacklustre pick-up is not fun. I want to
be hold my own with traffic, have the ability to exceed traffic, and
still get good fuel economy (the Acura gets 45 mpg).
What dealer are you going to? I’ve been to Bramgate in Brampton..
suitably unimpressed. Acura 2000 by contrast is absolutely amazing,
should be though, I think they’re the largest Acura dealer in the
country.
If I do wait for the Jetta 1.8T, is it really going to be that long of a
wait? Is the roof really that low in the back seat?
I appreciate your comments.
—
Steve
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
fredvw wrote:
> I drove the 1.6EL and I personally did not like it. (I drove the 1997 model
> when they just came out.)
> I found the automatics not powerful enough. (the hp is there but at a
> rediculouly high RPM, with no low end torque at all!!!)
> The standard had really small gears and made the engine rev very high to get
> going at a decent rate and on the high way.( like a weed eater). The engine
> is a high reving engine and that is just not my style. (the VW are basically
> made to give you more torque no matter what engine, I guess that is a german
> thing cause all the Honda’s I drove are like that even an Acura Legend V6 I
> had)
> I found like you that the instrument cluster is not up to snuff.
> The Acura dealer was really pushy for me and when I had the Legend they took
> forever to do services on it. The parts people are "dumb".
> The leather was cheap feeling leather to me, very thin.
> Anyway enough of that. The drive was alright, but again I found there was
> not enough power to pass people on the roads.
> Don’t forget you are buying a civic with more trim and a different badge. So
> goes the ride, it is a japanese ride, different than the germans, which in
> my oppinoin are more solid feeling (the germans).
> To the VWs:
> I like my dealership so switch dealers!!!!!
> I ended up with a 1997 Jetta with the TDI engine. It had lots of torque at
> low RPM, which is the way I like it.
> (The gas engines are not bad either and I would pick the 2.0L over the Civic
> (oops EL) engine.)
> The TDI has been very good to me with no problems.
> I know you are dealing with a 1999 but the same thing applies. The new
> engines are even changed slightly to (here we go again) give more torque.
> HP does not cut it since it is at the high RPM range, when do you use 5
> thousand RPM and up, not too much. Torque is what gives you that oomph. Look
> at the Domestic engines a while ago. The 2.8L/3.1L engines of the GM company
> had torque because of it’s size but the horsepower figures were terrible
> like 125 to 150 hp or something.
> So anyway it is up to you to decide. Sure the 1.8T is a nice engine but I
> would not hold my breath on them coming to North America in the Golf/Jetta
> yet, they are scheduled for the Beetle this year.
> But that is my opinion for you.
> Fred V
> 1997 Jetta TDI
> Stephen D. Todd wrote in message <370D331B.D5BE0…@home.com>…
> >For those of you who don’t know, the Honda plant near Toronto produces
> >Civic sedans with an Acura nameplate. The model I am looking at includes
> >all of the options and is driven by a 1.6 litre (127 hp) motor.
> >I would like to buy a car soon, but am torn between this Acura, and the
> >2000 Jetta which is alleged to be coming with the 1.8 litre (150 hp)
> >turbo charged motor that the Passat & A4 have.
> >My dilemma:
> >Acura
> >The car looks good
> >The acquisition cost is about $25,000 CAD
> >The red instrument cluster is difficult to see with sunglasses on
> >This car is a real kick in the pants to drive (gotta love Honda 5
> >speeds!)
> >The level of support at the dealer is fantastic (loaners always
> >available, or they pick up the car from work and return it by the end of
> >the day.. washed)
> >Black paint / black leather interior (too hot in the summer? easily
> >damaged?)
> >Available now
> >Volkswagen
> >The car looks fantastic
> >The acquisition cost is about $29,000 CAD
> >The purple instrument cluster is very attractive
> >It drives reasonably (I’m not partial to cable shifters)
> >Dealer support is poor (they don’t return phone calls)
> >Black paint / black cloth interior
> >Available in about a year (I don’t like the 115 hp 2.0 litre)
> >I’ve had a 10 year love affair with Volkswagen, but can’t stand the
> >local dealer. The Acura guys don’t give me any pressure, negotiate based
> >on their invoice (+ a reasonable profit) and are just nice guys.
> >Suggestions? Comments? Can somebody make the decision for me??
> >—
> >Steve
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Pseudobrit wrote:
> >><< How does torque/hp translate into FUN! Take the Acura EL, 127hp vs. the
> >>current Jetta, 115hp. Which one is faster?? Which one has better pick
> >>up? Better HP on the Acura, better Torque on the VW. Top end speed is
> >>not a major concern for me, but lacklustre pick-up is not fun. I want to
> >>be hold my own with traffic, have the ability to exceed traffic, and
> >>still get good fuel economy (the Acura gets 45 mpg). >>
> >><< I appreciate your comments. >>
> Okay, appreciate these comments:
> -Who on the Honda board put you up to this?
> -If you’re seriously looking for fun, and you’ve driven more than one car in
> your life, you know that you’re not going to find fun in a goddamned Honda.
> BTW, 127 hp means jack shit to performance and fun. VW has a very quick
> throttle response, the revs don’t have to spool up to 20 million to get torque
> off the line, and I can exceed practically any traffic that I have the balls to
> on the open highway.
Yes I am seriously looking for fun, and have drive more than one car. I
find goddamned Honda’s handle quite well. You say the throttle response
is good on the Jetta, how does that compare with Honda? Is throttle
response time a measured indicator?
> -Get the Honda (sorry, ACURA!) and have fun downshifting to third and 8000 rpms
> to be able to go uphill while I can coast by you in 5th at 85mph.
Surely this is an exaggeration.
> -Torque is what gives you pickup. Duh.
Okay, let me simplify my question.. how does torque translate into
speed? No you still won’t understand that.. How about this: If torque
were measure on a graph, how does a torque value of X relate to a time
value of Y (perhaps 1 second) in acceleration from 0-100kph. Do you
understand? How does HP affect this relationship?
> -Fuel economy and fun are not synonymous.
I agree, but a good balance (for me) is quite acceptable.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m more than willing to pay for quality, I just
want to make sure I get the most bang for the buck. The rhetoric is not
necessary.
—
Steve
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Scott McGinn wrote:
> USER wrote:
> > Some notes here:
> > A 5-speed EL with leather is around 23000$CDN. It is available in Sport
> > trim (with moonroof) for about 20500$CDN. Superb deal.
> HaHaHaHaHaHa!!!
> The 1.6 EL has got to be one of the worst rip-offs on the road today!
> It’s nothing more than a honda civic with minor cosmetic changes.
> Naturally, they sell very, very well here in Ottawa. <sigh>.
> Do the Americans get this vehicle? I couldn’t find it in CR, not that
> I’d even consider wasting my money on that joke of a car.
> Scott (’88 Golf, which probably drives better than the acura civic EL)
Okay Scott, thanks for the constructive help. Is everyone at Nortel so
insightful?
Apart from the cosmestic changes, the EL is driven by the 127hp motor
found in the Civic Si coupe. I didn’t realise the price difference
between it and the Civic was so large. Perhaps I should be considering
the Civic coupe as an alternate.
The EL is sold in Canada only.
—
Steve
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> For those of you who don’t know, the Honda plant near Toronto produces
> Civic sedans with an Acura nameplate. The model I am looking at includes
> all of the options and is driven by a 1.6 litre (127 hp) motor.
> I would like to buy a car soon, but am torn between this Acura, and the
> 2000 Jetta which is alleged to be coming with the 1.8 litre (150 hp)
> turbo charged motor that the Passat & A4 have.
> My dilemma:
> Acura
> The car looks good
> The acquisition cost is about $25,000 CAD
> The red instrument cluster is difficult to see with sunglasses on
> This car is a real kick in the pants to drive (gotta love Honda 5
> speeds!)
> The level of support at the dealer is fantastic (loaners always
> available, or they pick up the car from work and return it by the end of
> the day.. washed)
> Black paint / black leather interior (too hot in the summer? easily
> damaged?)
> Available now
> Volkswagen
> The car looks fantastic
> The acquisition cost is about $29,000 CAD
> The purple instrument cluster is very attractive
> It drives reasonably (I’m not partial to cable shifters)
> Dealer support is poor (they don’t return phone calls)
> Black paint / black cloth interior
> Available in about a year (I don’t like the 115 hp 2.0 litre)
> I’ve had a 10 year love affair with Volkswagen, but can’t stand the
> local dealer. The Acura guys don’t give me any pressure, negotiate based
> on their invoice (+ a reasonable profit) and are just nice guys.
> Suggestions? Comments? Can somebody make the decision for me??
> —
> Steve
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Nick Markou wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:34:15 -0500, "USER" <robe…@dsuper.net> wrote:
> >Some notes here:
> >A 5-speed EL with leather is around 23000$CDN. It is available in Sport
> >trim (with moonroof) for about 20500$CDN. Superb deal.
> Robert..there is no way in hell Honda would get the over $20K asking
> price for a Honda Civic with minor styling changes from me…the Civic
> itself is a great deal at the mement, for $17K loaded. The Acura EL is
> a joke at best…$3 grand more for the Acura label? I don’t think so.
> >For a negociated price of around 26500$CDN, you’ll have a 4-drs manual
> >Accord EX full equipped with leather.
> I kind of find the base Accord (at $21ish) a darn good deal…loading
> it up is kind of a waste of time, and the leather seats really don’t
> last that long in our winter.
> >The Jetta GLS with a V6 and Sport package could be something nice too for
> >probably more money if you consider that the GLX is 30K$+CDN.
> I don’ think they’ll sell many GLXs…unless they do some deep
> discounting. The GLS VR6 is a good buy at $26K, although the SVT
> contour isn’t that much more, ($28K list) is sportier, and comes with
> a few more ass scratching devices.
> >If there is a problem with the EL and Jetta, they feel so small ("cramped")
> >beside the Accord. Against all odds, the Accord doesn’t lose an ounce of
> >agility. See current Car&Driver mag long-term report on an Accord EX Coupé
> >5-speed.
> The Accord is OK, but like the Passat is a bit bigish to zip through
> traffic with. Out of all of these though, used Audi A4 prices have
> fallen to around the $20K mark…and I’d still take a 2 year old A4 TQ
> over any of the cars discussed here brand new.
> Nick Markou
Nick,
I know what you mean about the Accord and the Passat being a bit big to
manoeuvre, but the Passat is the same car as the A4 isn’t it? or did
they use different platforms 2 years ago? (When was the B5 introduced?)
Anyway, I believe that Accord for $21 lacks ABS, not to mention that
it’s alot like my Dad’s kind of car! I still want something that feels
young, but looks respectable.. Any idea’s?
—
Steve
Stephen D. Todd wrote:
> Okay Scott, thanks for the constructive help. Is everyone at Nortel so
> insightful?
No. Our parking lot is littered with acura civics. More proof that
.
higher education doesn’t endow common sense.
BTW, the newer civics aren’t even rusty yet.
> Apart from the cosmestic changes, the EL is driven by the 127hp motor
> found in the Civic Si coupe. I didn’t realise the price difference
> between it and the Civic was so large. Perhaps I should be considering
> the Civic coupe as an alternate.
Maybe. My comment was directed at the acura civic not the honda civic.
If you like driving the honda version, then great — it’s IMO better
value.
Except perhaps for the type R, I consider the *entire* acura line to be
bad value for the money. It’s been a fantastic gravy train for honda —
take the *previous* generation civic/accord (the tooling is already
already paid for), do some cosmetic changes and maybe a slight
performance upgrade, style it sporty (or luxurious), jack up the price,
call it an acura and watch the money roll in. Do you really want to
participate in this?
In case you haven’t noticed, I’m biased. I don’t like hondas. Owning two
of them was enough.
> The EL is sold in Canada only.
Maybe they think Americans are smarter.
Scott
(’88 Glof — doesn’t pretend to be anything else)
My parents just recently bought a ’99 EL and I just love it. I have a
biased opinion though since I’m currently driving an EL and I’ve never
tested the VW.
The only thing that really bugs me about the EL is the lack of torque.
It accelerates just fine though … enough to get you going in most
traffic situations if you make use of the high RPMs which it is
designed for. Full throttle fun. ^.^ Hey .. you know … with that
$4000 price difference … how about getting a supercharger for the
EL? It should add about 40% more HP and torque … make it much more
fun to drive.
On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:52:14 GMT, "Stephen D. Todd"
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<stephent…@home.com> wrote:
>USER wrote:
>> >1.6 EL Premium, on the road – $25,600 (negotiated).
>> Negociated? I have doubts. The list price for a Premium manual is around
>> 23000$. Substract easily 6% and you are about at 22K$.
>Like I said… on the road. 1.6 EL Premium – $22K plus GST, PST,
>Freight, PDI, air tax, gas tax, tire tax, blood money… $25,600 on the
>road. Still a good value, considering the leather, alloys, heated seats,
>roof, etc.
>For this kind of money though, I think I’d rather stay away from the
>Accord Sedan, can’t afford the Accord Coupe, might wait for the Jetta
>1.8T, or could maybe spend the extra and get an Integra… Suggestions?
>Steve
>===
>For those of you who don’t know, the Honda plant near Toronto produces
>Civic sedans with an Acura nameplate. The model I am looking at includes
>all of the options and is driven by a 1.6 litre (127 hp) motor.
>I would like to buy a car soon, but am torn between this Acura, and the
>2000 Jetta which is alleged to be coming with the 1.8 litre (150 hp)
>turbo charged motor that the Passat & A4 have.
>My dilemma:
>Acura
>The car looks good
>The acquisition cost is about $25,000 CAD
>The red instrument cluster is difficult to see with sunglasses on
>This car is a real kick in the pants to drive (gotta love Honda 5
>speeds!)
>The level of support at the dealer is fantastic (loaners always
>available, or they pick up the car from work and return it by the end of
>the day.. washed)
>Black paint / black leather interior (too hot in the summer? easily
>damaged?)
>Available now
>Volkswagen
>The car looks fantastic
>The acquisition cost is about $29,000 CAD
>The purple instrument cluster is very attractive
>It drives reasonably (I’m not partial to cable shifters)
>Dealer support is poor (they don’t return phone calls)
>Black paint / black cloth interior
>Available in about a year (I don’t like the 115 hp 2.0 litre)
>I’ve had a 10 year love affair with Volkswagen, but can’t stand the
>local dealer. The Acura guys don’t give me any pressure, negotiate based
>on their invoice (+ a reasonable profit) and are just nice guys.
>Suggestions? Comments? Can somebody make the decision for me??
>—
>Steve
In article <370E2270.8B0CD…@home.com>, "Stephen D. Todd" <stephent…@home.com> wrote:
>> -Torque is what gives you pickup. Duh.
>Okay, let me simplify my question.. how does torque translate into
>speed? No you still won’t understand that.. How about this: If torque
>were measure on a graph, how does a torque value of X relate to a time
>value of Y (perhaps 1 second) in acceleration from 0-100kph. Do you
>understand? How does HP affect this relationship?
Hey that actually sounds quite interesting… How come this hasn’t done before
or no one uses it as reference to look at how people approach modifying their
cars.
monoman
In article <370E2270.8B0CD…@home.com>,
"Stephen D. Todd" <stephent…@home.com> wrote:
> Pseudobrit wrote:
> > -Torque is what gives you pickup. Duh.
> Okay, let me simplify my question.. how does torque translate into
> speed? No you still won’t understand that.. How about this: If torque
> were measure on a graph, how does a torque value of X relate to a time
> value of Y (perhaps 1 second) in acceleration from 0-100kph. Do you
> understand? How does HP affect this relationship?
OK – here goes. Torque is NOTHING without revs. It is a "static" figure
that simply tells what the angular force (aka leverage) is. Power is a
"dynamic" figure – and a direct function of torque times the engine speed.
In addition, torque means nothing unless you know what the torque is at
what RPM. Some engines have a peak torque at around 2500-3000 RPMS which
rapidly die off beyond that. And torque means nothing without gearing.
Auto designers spend oodles of time selecting gears to go with a particular
engine and chassis combination. For the most part, given that automatic
transmissions are the norm these days, an engine will good torque at lower
RPMS is going to be the best choice. But if you row through your own gears,
then the answer isn’t as simple.
There are also different kinds of torque. Big honkin’ diesel engines
have massive amounts of torque near idle, but die off at higher revs.
So what does it mean? Simply that you can haul a lot of stuff near idle
without stalling. Other cars have relatively lower torque, but it’s flat
all the way out to the redline. Most cars are somewher in between.
> > -Fuel economy and fun are not synonymous.
> I agree, but a good balance (for me) is quite acceptable.
> Don’t get me wrong, I’m more than willing to pay for quality, I just
> want to make sure I get the most bang for the buck. The rhetoric is not
> necessary.
There is no clearly superior solution. Some folks like a torquey engine
that needs minimal gear changes. Others don’t mind using gears and revs
to extract acceleration.
Yu-Ping Wang
Santa Clara, California
———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
In article <370E2270.8B0CD…@home.com>,
"Stephen D. Todd" <stephent…@home.com> wrote:
> Pseudobrit wrote:
I started thinking about this again – with a pencil and paper.
> > -Torque is what gives you pickup. Duh.
> Okay, let me simplify my question.. how does torque translate into
> speed? No you still won’t understand that.. How about this: If torque
> were measure on a graph, how does a torque value of X relate to a time
> value of Y (perhaps 1 second) in acceleration from 0-100kph. Do you
> understand? How does HP affect this relationship?
I don’t think the readily avaiable torque and per numbers will tell
you enough about how a car will accelerate. However – I can tell you
about instantaneous acceleration.
Here are your basic equations:
Force = mass * acceleration
Torque = force * length of lever (in this case wheel+tire radius)
wheel torque = crankshaft torque * revs * gearing * constant-factor.
This results in:
Acceleration = (wheel torque)/(mass * wheel radius)
– Assume we’re still in the same gear.
So the result is:
Acceleration = (crankshaft torque * revs * gearing * constant-factor)/
(mass * wheel radius)
Lumping all the constants together as C (gearing, factor, mass, wheel radius):
Acceleration = crankshaft torque * revs * C.
Well – guess what? crankshaft power = crankshaft torque * revs * (a
constant).
So your acceleration at any instant is directly proportional to the
crankshaft power at that instant. Of course for any of this to be relevant
in a real car, one must be able to change the gearing (i.e. shift).
Anyone is welcome to correct my math.
Yu-Ping Wang
Santa Clara, California
———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
TRamian wrote:
> I think many will agree with me on this. I am tired of seeing these stupid
> debates. If you wanna know what car to buy, go drive them yourself and make
> your decision.
> Tom
> 87 Jetta
I’m asking for input. If you have none then please go to the next
message and ignore the thread.
You must be extremely knowledgeable if you don’t seek any advice before
you make such an expensive purchase. Perhaps I would’ve been interested
in your opinion.
Steve
Yu-Ping,
Despite the "damning retort"’s you’ve been forced to endure. I have a
much better understanding thanks to your e-mail’s; as opposed to
"Pseudobrit"’s insightful comments like "duh".
Do you know if there is a graph which plots the (torque or
hp)/revolutions for the Honda 127hp VTEC engine? I would be very
interested in seeing this.
Steve
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
y_…@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <19990412235339.26703.00000…@ng59.aol.com>,
> pseudob…@aol.comdontmail (Pseudobrit) wrote:
> > << I usually try to stay out of these debates, but what you just said is flat
> > out wrong. >>
> > Okay, here’s what I said:
> > << HP is simply an indicator of power over time, not absolute twisting power,
> > > as torque is. >>
> > And here’s your damning retort! —
> > << HP (horsepower) is simply a unit of power equivalent to around
> > 700 watts. Power is a measure of work or energy over time – 1 watt equals
> > one joule of energy per second. Torque is more a measure of twisting force –
> > i.e. "leverage". >>
> > You just said in three sentences what I took only one to express.
> You said, "HP is simply an indicator of power over time". That is clearly
> not true. HP is a UNIT of power equivalent to 736 watts – or 736 joules
> per second – i.e. energy over time. And torque is not twisting power as
> you stated, but twisting (angular) force. Increasing the length of the
> lever doesn’t boost the power, but makes it easier to turn by concentrating
> the force over a shorter distance. That’s what allows large diesel engines
> to haul large loads – and is essentially why one starts off in a the lowest
> gear. And that’s why one grabs a breaker bar when taking off a particularly
> tight bolt head.
> > If an engine were friction free and stress free, your argument placing high
> > emphasis on HP would carry full leverage (no pun intended).
> > You could wind out an engine with 1 ft lb of torque to whatever RPMs you
> > need to get whatever power you wanted. In the real world, back on Earth,
> > most of the engine’s power is lost before it ever sees the wheels, and
> > 100,000 redlines are achieved only in high vacuums with precisely
> > constructed carbon fiber flywheels.
> But back in the real world, 8000 RPM doesn’t result in that much more
> loss. I thought the debate here was more over going for torque or power
> in reasonable passenger car engines. The high RPM engines that Honda
> makes have been proven to be quite reliable – especially compared to
> forced induction.
> Yu-Ping Wang
> Santa Clara, California
> ———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
In article <37142908.D3947…@home.com>,
"Stephen D. Todd" <stephent…@home.com> wrote:
> Yu-Ping,
> Despite the "damning retort"’s you’ve been forced to endure. I have a
> much better understanding thanks to your e-mail’s; as opposed to
> "Pseudobrit"’s insightful comments like "duh".
Actually I don’t think those equations I cranked out would stand up
to further scientific and engineering scrutiny. But I stand by my
assertion that you must consider power, torque, and gearing together
to get any meaningful assesment of how an engine will perform in a
car.
I think the "damning retort" was allegedly mine – i.e. allegedly I
tripped myself up. I simply corrected the "HP is power over time".
No – HP is power (period), while torque is angular force. You get
power only if you know how many times you apply that force (i.e. revs).
> Do you know if there is a graph which plots the (torque or
> hp)/revolutions for the Honda 127hp VTEC engine? I would be very
> interested in seeing this.
Only seen the B18C1 (Integra GS-R). Torque was about 90 lb-ft from
idle and was near the peak of 130 at about 3000. Peak was about
7200, and it quickly died off near the redline. The power climbed
steadily all the way to the top, and then died with the torque.
Yu-Ping Wang
———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
I’ll correct your math!
In article <7ep6io$nu…@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
y_…@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <370E2270.8B0CD…@home.com>,
> "Stephen D. Todd" <stephent…@home.com> wrote:
> > Pseudobrit wrote:
> I started thinking about this again – with a pencil and paper.
> > > -Torque is what gives you pickup. Duh.
> > Okay, let me simplify my question.. how does torque translate into
> > speed? No you still won’t understand that.. How about this: If torque
> > were measure on a graph, how does a torque value of X relate to a time
> > value of Y (perhaps 1 second) in acceleration from 0-100kph. Do you
> > understand? How does HP affect this relationship?
> I don’t think the readily avaiable torque and per numbers will tell
> you enough about how a car will accelerate. However – I can tell you
> about instantaneous acceleration.
> Here are your basic equations:
> Force = mass * acceleration
> Torque = force * length of lever (in this case wheel+tire radius)
> wheel torque = crankshaft torque * revs * gearing * constant-factor.
Umm.. I’m not sure why "revs" appears here.
Wheel torque = (crank torque) * (gearing) * (constant) Think of the drivetrain
as an elaborate system of levers.. In the static case, (instantaneous) it
doesn’t matter how fast the levers are flying around.
> This results in:
> Acceleration = (wheel torque)/(mass * wheel radius)
Okay..
> — Assume we’re still in the same gear.
> So the result is:
> Acceleration = (crankshaft torque * revs * gearing * constant-factor)/
> (mass * wheel radius)
Instantaneous acceleration has nothing to do with the speed of the engine,
which is what revs is. Lets throw in the units in your equation:
Accel. = ((crank torque [N * m]) * (revs [revolutions/s]) * (some constants
[unitless]))/(mass [kg])
Accel = (N * m * revs)/secs = ((kg*m)/s^2 * 1/s)/ kg
Accel = m/s^3 ? Unfortunately, no it doesn’t. Acceleration should be in
units of m/s^2.
> Lumping all the constants together as C (gearing, factor, mass, wheel radius):
> Acceleration = crankshaft torque * revs * C.
Leave revs out of this equation and what do you have?
Acceleration = crankshaft torque * C
> Well – guess what? crankshaft power = crankshaft torque * revs * (a
> constant).
> So your acceleration at any instant is directly proportional to the
> crankshaft power at that instant. Of course for any of this to be relevant
> in a real car, one must be able to change the gearing (i.e. shift).
Despite your flawed physics above, this is true, and it basically gets to the
root of this argument.. Honda’s don’t make torque until fairly high revs, and
as such you have to rev them hard in order to accelerate quickly. In a flat
out drag race, this is fine, you can go fast by reving the engine to 8000 RPM
and take advantage of low gearing. However, in a rolling start, or if you
just decide to get on at any given speed, (Unless you drive around with the
engine turning 7000 RPM, you are going to get dropped by a car with a flatter
torque curve.
> Anyone is welcome to correct my math.
Okay..
> Yu-Ping Wang
> Santa Clara, California
> ———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Greg T.
———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The 1.8T would probably give you better millage on the highway (real driving,
not the BS they post in the magazine)
The Honda/Acura would give alot better millage in the city.
If they can price the 1.8T a couple of grand under the base VR6 then it would
only be couple of grand more the Acura. The Jetta might have lousy back seats,
but it looks better then alot coupes.
Pars
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Stephen D. Todd" wrote:
> USER wrote:
> > >1.6 EL Premium, on the road – $25,600 (negotiated).
> > Negociated? I have doubts. The list price for a Premium manual is around
> > 23000$. Substract easily 6% and you are about at 22K$.
> Like I said… on the road. 1.6 EL Premium – $22K plus GST, PST,
> Freight, PDI, air tax, gas tax, tire tax, blood money… $25,600 on the
> road. Still a good value, considering the leather, alloys, heated seats,
> roof, etc.
> For this kind of money though, I think I’d rather stay away from the
> Accord Sedan, can’t afford the Accord Coupe, might wait for the Jetta
> 1.8T, or could maybe spend the extra and get an Integra… Suggestions?
> Steve
> ===
> For those of you who don’t know, the Honda plant near Toronto produces
> Civic sedans with an Acura nameplate. The model I am looking at includes
> all of the options and is driven by a 1.6 litre (127 hp) motor.
> I would like to buy a car soon, but am torn between this Acura, and the
> 2000 Jetta which is alleged to be coming with the 1.8 litre (150 hp)
> turbo charged motor that the Passat & A4 have.
> My dilemma:
> Acura
> The car looks good
> The acquisition cost is about $25,000 CAD
> The red instrument cluster is difficult to see with sunglasses on
> This car is a real kick in the pants to drive (gotta love Honda 5
> speeds!)
> The level of support at the dealer is fantastic (loaners always
> available, or they pick up the car from work and return it by the end of
> the day.. washed)
> Black paint / black leather interior (too hot in the summer? easily
> damaged?)
> Available now
> Volkswagen
> The car looks fantastic
> The acquisition cost is about $29,000 CAD
> The purple instrument cluster is very attractive
> It drives reasonably (I’m not partial to cable shifters)
> Dealer support is poor (they don’t return phone calls)
> Black paint / black cloth interior
> Available in about a year (I don’t like the 115 hp 2.0 litre)
> I’ve had a 10 year love affair with Volkswagen, but can’t stand the
> local dealer. The Acura guys don’t give me any pressure, negotiate based
> on their invoice (+ a reasonable profit) and are just nice guys.
> Suggestions? Comments? Can somebody make the decision for me??
> —
> Steve
Math from the driver Seat.
Torque=being flattened against the driver seat X C (the C is optional)
Horse Power=How fast the engine is reving while I’m being flattened against my seat
Pars
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
gregthr…@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I’ll correct your math!
> In article <7ep6io$nu…@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> y_…@hotmail.com wrote:
> > In article <370E2270.8B0CD…@home.com>,
> > "Stephen D. Todd" <stephent…@home.com> wrote:
> > > Pseudobrit wrote:
> > I started thinking about this again – with a pencil and paper.
> > > > -Torque is what gives you pickup. Duh.
> > > Okay, let me simplify my question.. how does torque translate into
> > > speed? No you still won’t understand that.. How about this: If torque
> > > were measure on a graph, how does a torque value of X relate to a time
> > > value of Y (perhaps 1 second) in acceleration from 0-100kph. Do you
> > > understand? How does HP affect this relationship?
> > I don’t think the readily avaiable torque and per numbers will tell
> > you enough about how a car will accelerate. However – I can tell you
> > about instantaneous acceleration.
> > Here are your basic equations:
> > Force = mass * acceleration
> > Torque = force * length of lever (in this case wheel+tire radius)
> > wheel torque = crankshaft torque * revs * gearing * constant-factor.
> Umm.. I’m not sure why "revs" appears here.
> Wheel torque = (crank torque) * (gearing) * (constant) Think of the drivetrain
> as an elaborate system of levers.. In the static case, (instantaneous) it
> doesn’t matter how fast the levers are flying around.
> > This results in:
> > Acceleration = (wheel torque)/(mass * wheel radius)
> Okay..
> > — Assume we’re still in the same gear.
> > So the result is:
> > Acceleration = (crankshaft torque * revs * gearing * constant-factor)/
> > (mass * wheel radius)
> Instantaneous acceleration has nothing to do with the speed of the engine,
> which is what revs is. Lets throw in the units in your equation:
> Accel. = ((crank torque [N * m]) * (revs [revolutions/s]) * (some constants
> [unitless]))/(mass [kg])
> Accel = (N * m * revs)/secs = ((kg*m)/s^2 * 1/s)/ kg
> Accel = m/s^3 ? Unfortunately, no it doesn’t. Acceleration should be in
> units of m/s^2.
> > Lumping all the constants together as C (gearing, factor, mass, wheel radius):
> > Acceleration = crankshaft torque * revs * C.
> Leave revs out of this equation and what do you have?
> Acceleration = crankshaft torque * C
> > Well – guess what? crankshaft power = crankshaft torque * revs * (a
> > constant).
> > So your acceleration at any instant is directly proportional to the
> > crankshaft power at that instant. Of course for any of this to be relevant
> > in a real car, one must be able to change the gearing (i.e. shift).
> Despite your flawed physics above, this is true, and it basically gets to the
> root of this argument.. Honda’s don’t make torque until fairly high revs, and
> as such you have to rev them hard in order to accelerate quickly. In a flat
> out drag race, this is fine, you can go fast by reving the engine to 8000 RPM
> and take advantage of low gearing. However, in a rolling start, or if you
> just decide to get on at any given speed, (Unless you drive around with the
> engine turning 7000 RPM, you are going to get dropped by a car with a flatter
> torque curve.
> > Anyone is welcome to correct my math.
> Okay..
> > Yu-Ping Wang
> > Santa Clara, California
> > ———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> Greg T.
> ———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Math from the driver Seat.
Torque=being flattened against the driver seat * C (the C is optional)
Horse Power=How fast the engine is reving while I’m being flattened against my seat
Pars
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
gregthr…@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I’ll correct your math!
> In article <7ep6io$nu…@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> y_…@hotmail.com wrote:
> > In article <370E2270.8B0CD…@home.com>,
> > "Stephen D. Todd" <stephent…@home.com> wrote:
> > > Pseudobrit wrote:
> > I started thinking about this again – with a pencil and paper.
> > > > -Torque is what gives you pickup. Duh.
> > > Okay, let me simplify my question.. how does torque translate into
> > > speed? No you still won’t understand that.. How about this: If torque
> > > were measure on a graph, how does a torque value of X relate to a time
> > > value of Y (perhaps 1 second) in acceleration from 0-100kph. Do you
> > > understand? How does HP affect this relationship?
> > I don’t think the readily avaiable torque and per numbers will tell
> > you enough about how a car will accelerate. However – I can tell you
> > about instantaneous acceleration.
> > Here are your basic equations:
> > Force = mass * acceleration
> > Torque = force * length of lever (in this case wheel+tire radius)
> > wheel torque = crankshaft torque * revs * gearing * constant-factor.
> Umm.. I’m not sure why "revs" appears here.
> Wheel torque = (crank torque) * (gearing) * (constant) Think of the drivetrain
> as an elaborate system of levers.. In the static case, (instantaneous) it
> doesn’t matter how fast the levers are flying around.
> > This results in:
> > Acceleration = (wheel torque)/(mass * wheel radius)
> Okay..
> > — Assume we’re still in the same gear.
> > So the result is:
> > Acceleration = (crankshaft torque * revs * gearing * constant-factor)/
> > (mass * wheel radius)
> Instantaneous acceleration has nothing to do with the speed of the engine,
> which is what revs is. Lets throw in the units in your equation:
> Accel. = ((crank torque [N * m]) * (revs [revolutions/s]) * (some constants
> [unitless]))/(mass [kg])
> Accel = (N * m * revs)/secs = ((kg*m)/s^2 * 1/s)/ kg
> Accel = m/s^3 ? Unfortunately, no it doesn’t. Acceleration should be in
> units of m/s^2.
> > Lumping all the constants together as C (gearing, factor, mass, wheel radius):
> > Acceleration = crankshaft torque * revs * C.
> Leave revs out of this equation and what do you have?
> Acceleration = crankshaft torque * C
> > Well – guess what? crankshaft power = crankshaft torque * revs * (a
> > constant).
> > So your acceleration at any instant is directly proportional to the
> > crankshaft power at that instant. Of course for any of this to be relevant
> > in a real car, one must be able to change the gearing (i.e. shift).
> Despite your flawed physics above, this is true, and it basically gets to the
> root of this argument.. Honda’s don’t make torque until fairly high revs, and
> as such you have to rev them hard in order to accelerate quickly. In a flat
> out drag race, this is fine, you can go fast by reving the engine to 8000 RPM
> and take advantage of low gearing. However, in a rolling start, or if you
> just decide to get on at any given speed, (Unless you drive around with the
> engine turning 7000 RPM, you are going to get dropped by a car with a flatter
> torque curve.
> > Anyone is welcome to correct my math.
> Okay..
> > Yu-Ping Wang
> > Santa Clara, California
> > ———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> Greg T.
> ———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
I think that may be the best explanation I have seen! I don’t think it’s
detailed enough for all those junior physicists out there.. But it’s probably
all they need to know.
In article <3716D02B.DB532…@interlog.com>,
Pars <pars…@interlog.com> wrote:
> Math from the driver Seat.
> Torque=being flattened against the driver seat * C (the C is optional)
> Horse Power=How fast the engine is reving while I’m being flattened against my
seat
(Snip!)
———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———-
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The 1.8T would probably give you better millage on the highway (real
driving,
not the BS they post in the magazine)
The Honda/Acura would give alot better millage in the city.
If they can price the 1.8T a couple of grand under the base VR6 then it
would
only be couple of grand more the Acura. The Jetta might have lousy back
seats,
but it looks better then alot coupes.
Pars
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Stephen D. Todd" wrote:
> USER wrote:
> > >1.6 EL Premium, on the road – $25,600 (negotiated).
> > Negociated? I have doubts. The list price for a Premium manual is around
> > 23000$. Substract easily 6% and you are about at 22K$.
> Like I said… on the road. 1.6 EL Premium – $22K plus GST, PST,
> Freight, PDI, air tax, gas tax, tire tax, blood money… $25,600 on the
> road. Still a good value, considering the leather, alloys, heated seats,
> roof, etc.
> For this kind of money though, I think I’d rather stay away from the
> Accord Sedan, can’t afford the Accord Coupe, might wait for the Jetta
> 1.8T, or could maybe spend the extra and get an Integra… Suggestions?
> Steve
> ===
> For those of you who don’t know, the Honda plant near Toronto produces
> Civic sedans with an Acura nameplate. The model I am looking at includes
> all of the options and is driven by a 1.6 litre (127 hp) motor.
> I would like to buy a car soon, but am torn between this Acura, and the
> 2000 Jetta which is alleged to be coming with the 1.8 litre (150 hp)
> turbo charged motor that the Passat & A4 have.
> My dilemma:
> Acura
> The car looks good
> The acquisition cost is about $25,000 CAD
> The red instrument cluster is difficult to see with sunglasses on
> This car is a real kick in the pants to drive (gotta love Honda 5
> speeds!)
> The level of support at the dealer is fantastic (loaners always
> available, or they pick up the car from work and return it by the end of
> the day.. washed)
> Black paint / black leather interior (too hot in the summer? easily
> damaged?)
> Available now
> Volkswagen
> The car looks fantastic
> The acquisition cost is about $29,000 CAD
> The purple instrument cluster is very attractive
> It drives reasonably (I’m not partial to cable shifters)
> Dealer support is poor (they don’t return phone calls)
> Black paint / black cloth interior
> Available in about a year (I don’t like the 115 hp 2.0 litre)
> I’ve had a 10 year love affair with Volkswagen, but can’t stand the
> local dealer. The Acura guys don’t give me any pressure, negotiate based
> on their invoice (+ a reasonable profit) and are just nice guys.
> Suggestions? Comments? Can somebody make the decision for me??
> —
> Steve