# Which engine is torquey-er?



## Taofo03 (Sep 3, 2003)

KA/CA/SR/RB/ETc? for the s13 which is torqueyer?

thanks


----------



## dave_id (Aug 24, 2003)

*RB*

Race Bred baby!


----------



## joerc240sx (Jan 19, 2003)

well they all make good torque, thats something i like about nissan engines


----------



## vsp3c (May 15, 2003)

ka24/rb25/rb26/rb30(in aus) probably.. more displacment = more torque
ps. no nissan engines makes pussy torque like honda engines do


----------



## 180SX-X (Sep 21, 2003)

RB of course, than its KA, after that im 2 lazy.


----------



## 180SX-X (Sep 21, 2003)

my rotary never even made CA18DE tourqe...dat suckz.


----------



## esyip (Dec 19, 2002)

"etc"? well, the LS1s pack a pretty good punch on the torque scale. 

let me ask this. which question is stupider, mine or the or the original one? (i'll give you a hint, mine isn't. )


----------



## drift240sxdragqueen (Oct 23, 2002)

i like the KA


----------



## 180SX-X (Sep 21, 2003)

screw u guyz, im going home...


----------



## megaseth (May 18, 2003)

D15B......



oh, and you know RB doesnt stand for Race Bred. it stands for Really Beastly


----------



## drift240sxdragqueen (Oct 23, 2002)

180SX-X said:


> *screw u guyz, im going home... *



lol :wtf:


----------



## Joel (Jun 11, 2003)

mate of mine got 1330 ftlbs @ 4500 rpm out of his SR20DET


----------



## drift240sxdragqueen (Oct 23, 2002)

> mate of mine got 1330 ftlbs @ 4500 rpm out of his SR20DET


----------



## Kelso (Apr 29, 2003)

holy fuck......thats CRAZY.... i saw a saab at pikes peak with well over 900 horses at 32lbs of boost on twin turbo motor....thats the most badass car i ever saw....in real life at least

jeez 1330 is bad ass ....what wis his HP on that dyno run?! lol


----------



## Joel (Jun 11, 2003)

yeah... im wondering if he read his dyno graph correct now that you mention it...
I knew it was high so i rang him and asked him after reading this thread. 
I remember seeing his dyno graph and saying 'holy crap thats huge!' cos his power isnt that high at all - around 280hp at wheels.
ill see if i can get a copy of it. Sounds like a lot eh? 
Ive been in this car though and its one of the scariest ive ridden in.


----------



## esyip (Dec 19, 2002)

how did that work out? having 280RWHP and 1000+ ft lbs of torque? what the hell did he do?


----------



## silzilla (Oct 21, 2003)

Sorry to burst anyones bubble, but that is a mathematical impossability. I will explain why.

Your tourque and horsepower curves intersect at exactly 5252RPMs because horsepower is just an imaginary number derived from tourque.

So now do the formula 5252*280(max power)Devided by7000(RPM engine made 280 HP) =210 HP at 5252Rpms Now being that tourque would be the same. How would it have been 1330Ft.Lbs. at 4500?

I mean that formula isnt Exact but it is a good one for close estimates.


----------



## Joel (Jun 11, 2003)

Well i just checked - its correct and he has the dyno graph to prove it.
Now I think I have a reputation on these forums about not talking shit so maybe this gives that figure some credibility - if it was anyone else i wouldnt believe it either.
I will try and get a scan of the dyno graph because I know you guys will want proof!

The engine was actually built with high torque as a target - not high horsepower.


----------



## joerc240sx (Jan 19, 2003)

Well i would also like to belive that, but he would have had to have way more HP then 280. because the way you get HP is

torque * RPM / 5252 = HP

so 1300*4500/5252=1113HP

the only way you could still only have 280 is if you made that torque around 1.1k then droped off 100-150 at 1150rpm.

i am not saying that i dont belive you, but i feel you might have your numbers off because that number is almost imposable.

another thing, most SR engines will make more HP then torque as they flow better up past 5252rpm. the KA tends to flow much better lower making most of its torque around 3k-4k and leavles/dropes off. also the KA having the logest stroke by a long shot for those engines and being over square make it naturaly produce more torque then other engines. it just runs into the problem if air flow and lower redline. most torque in an engine is mathmaticaly limited to that engine. so say an engine NA makes 200lbs/ft built to the hilt of what the engine can do. no other modes can be done to make more torque, but you can make more HP by just moving the torque crove higher so instade of making that 200 at 3500 it makes it at 7000 going from 133hp to 266 hp at the same rpm as max torque. i am sure alot of you already knew this, but i was bored so i decided to write a long post. thats why when you want to build a NA KA engine you can get that 200rwhp, but your lbs/ft will still be around 170 and your bottom end will suck.

I plan on turbo charging my KA next spring, and plan on running a nice electrionic boost controler so i can set it up to hit maybe 14lbs at 3500, but then incress boost to say 18 by 6500 to keep my torque curve flat as i can. as the more usable torque you have the faster your car is. and torque is more effecient at high RPM.

Joe


----------



## Joel (Jun 11, 2003)

Well my only explanation is that turbo cars work differently to NA's. Like I said, ill try and get the dyno graph to work out what is going on.
I do know that the mechanic who did the dyno test and tuned the car was shaking his head at the torque figures he was getting. Its an s13 silvia with an s15 engine, HKS turbo, strange cams and a Wolf3d version 4 ECU
I suppose he could have run it in fourth for some reason!?!?


----------



## Joel (Jun 11, 2003)

Ok I may have an explanation.
If you run a car on a dyno using a 1:1 gear ratio then the final drive ratio is the only one that can alter the figure. His final drive is 4:1 so divide 1330 by 4 and you get 332.5 ft.lbs
Its the only thing I can think of... but the graph does peak at 1330


----------



## BlueBOB (Jan 29, 2003)

gearing makes a HUGE difference...

example... (sorry it's a ford)

buddy had a stock 02 mustang GT. forgot stock gear ratio. He put exhaust on it... every GT owner i've ever met said that made them more sluggish, even he said that. with my car, stock GT's don't shake me at all... unless they're good drivers with some great tires. my buddy would pull on Trans Am WS-6's (that was a crazy night) with his upgraded 3.73 gears. That made him a monster off the line... so he could have some crazy gear ratio like 4:1 which would increase his torque


----------



## megaseth (May 18, 2003)

the engine isnt making anymore torque, just the transfer is making more towards the wheels. like a transfer case in a 4wheeler or other car. your engine may only be making a ccouple hundred ft/lbs of torque, but the transfer case gears turn it into like a couple thousand.


----------



## jonpowell (May 27, 2003)

His horse power from [email protected] should be 1139. He read something REALLY wrong
326Ftlbs is more believeable


----------



## BlueBOB (Jan 29, 2003)

personally, like joel said, he's been here a while and he's never steered us wrong in the path, so if he says it put down that much, then i'll believe him... he's just gotta find that dyno sheet... i'd love to see it just for kicks...


----------



## joerc240sx (Jan 19, 2003)

oh i belive him to, and the gearing sounds like it could be it. I thought 4th gear pulls where done because they came the closest to 1:1 for gearing?? maybe they did it in frist gear? i was just stating that there is no way that much toruque can be made while so little hp was made if everything was done right on the dyno. if he was making 326lbs/ft would come out to 279hp at the same RPM. so that could be it. there is just math to this stuff that dosent lie like dyno's can.


----------



## joerc240sx (Jan 19, 2003)

Oh and Joel you car looks nice, lots better then mine.


----------



## silzilla (Oct 21, 2003)

Actually the dynojet at my shop does not care what your gearing is. it measures your horsepower by calculating how long it takes for the car to spin the 4000 pound barrels. Then takes into account your speed and automatically corrects for gearing differences. Unless a car is underpowered we always make our dyno runs in fourth gear. 

There is, however a dyno that does not correct tourque for gearing. This may have been the dyno that was used. I think the 330 number sounds a bit more accurate as that is the formula you would use to make the correction on that kind of dyno.


----------



## vsp3c (May 15, 2003)

but i believe joel. that's just insane..


----------



## Joel (Jun 11, 2003)

silzilla said:


> *Actually the dynojet at my shop does not care what your gearing is. it measures your horsepower by calculating how long it takes for the car to spin the 4000 pound barrels. Then takes into account your speed and automatically corrects for gearing differences. Unless a car is underpowered we always make our dyno runs in fourth gear.
> 
> There is, however a dyno that does not correct tourque for gearing. This may have been the dyno that was used. I think the 330 number sounds a bit more accurate as that is the formula you would use to make the correction on that kind of dyno. *


It was a Dyno Dynamics dyno which uses load generators I believe.
The run was done in 5th which is a 1:1 ratio on an s15 six speed.
The rear diff is a genuine Nismo 2 way mechanical diff.


----------



## joerc240sx (Jan 19, 2003)

lets see that dyno, i am interested


----------



## Joel (Jun 11, 2003)

im working on it - none of my mates has a scanner so we will have to take a photo of it!


----------



## MakiGTP (Oct 24, 2003)

the L67 motor is really torquey for what it is. hell im only running round 280 hp but it hits like 340+ torque.......ya i know its no nissan but im workin on it.....


----------



## megaseth (May 18, 2003)

most SC engines have boatloads of torque. why, even a civic can get some torque back when you go SCd.


----------

