C30-C32 low torque compared to others?

[beqa16v]

dont you think NSX engines have low torqe compared to other N/A performance engines of same displacement and same years? Honda could make NSX more effective if it had more torque which upsets me so much. Its torque is equal to non performance engines of same displacement. what do you think?

 

[BD]

High reving engine...

Honda tuned the last generation Legend (RL) by having more of its torque around 2000 rpm, given it an illusion of a small V8, but the car was still a slug.

The NSX does have a very good torque curve, which make it a very good and trackable car. In stock form, or bolt on NA mods, most of the dyno charts I have seen are a little low around 4000 rpm....

Unless you go with muscle car to go with that instant torque, it will be very difficult or rather impossible for a small V6 engine to have instant torque and still create high HP output by high RPM.

Perhaps that is why even the German car makers are using large blocks.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[nsxotic911]

Which 3.0 and 3.2 are you comparing it to? Compared to my Taurus 3.0 V6, it feels twice as powerful (admidetly, 600 lbs less..)

I think the C32 has great torque. I mean, you can cruise around at 1000 - 2000 RPM in 5th and 6th gears and still pass cars comfortably.

 

[hofffam]

I think the NSX has more than adequate torque above 2000 rpm. It pulls nicely in 5th or 6th as said earlier. Remember it only has pull a 3200 lb car.

 

[beqa16v]

3.2 liter NSX has 303nm and 290hp
3.0 liter 1993 Eurospec M3 has 286hp and 320nm

dont you think this is discusting?

 

[MashimaroNSX]

The M3 you are talking about still doesn't redline at 8000 rpm's and even with that amount of torque it wasn't even faster then the C30 NA1 NSX in a straightline let alone a track even with the horsepower and torque advantage. It all comes down to the power to weight ratio.

 

[beqa16v]

The M3 you are talking about still doesn't redline at 8000 rpm's and even with that amount of torque it wasn't even faster then the C30 NA1 NSX in a straightline let alone a track even with the horsepower and torque advantage. It all comes down to the power to weight ratio.

I'm talking about engines alone, not power to weight ratio. i love NSX i just expressed my opinion. I think NSX would be much faster if it had similar torque. BMW engine redlines at 7400. later model 3.2 liter version has 321hp and 350nm torque. why does it have advantage in torque? higher compression? also what are the times for 1/4 mile for this euro M3

 

[N Spec]

I think you're reading into torque too much. Torque can be very deceitful. The new lines of 3.5-3.8 V6s company are adopting makes a considerable more amount of torque than a 3.0 V6. The first 350Z is good example. It felt fast with it's lower end torque(270lb-ft I believe), but punch it into the high RPMs and it struggled. So it felt very streetable and fast on the lowend, but who stays on the lowend when they are accelerating? The first 350z were generally in the low-mid 14 1/4 miles and the lightest models weighed about the same as the NA2. Given the engine specs and similar weight, you would think with more torque and HP, it would be faster, but it's not even faster than the NA1.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it takes the right combination of torque, hp and many other factors to be fast. The NSX has a nice balance, and it has a very flat torque curve where as many other cars, the torque falls off drastically after 4000 rpm. Then the gear ratios also play an important role. The NSX comes with a 4.062 final gear ratio whereas most cars with the same amount of power come with 3.6ish finals. The torque is multiplied more than most other cars. So the NSX's gearing and high revving allows it to acceleration faster with shorter gears and the extra revs makes up for the lower speeds from short gears. I'm sure you are already know all of that though.

You can't say engine alone, it doesn't make any sense. The engine can't propel itselt. It needs the drivetrain to deliver the power and the chasis to carry passengers, balance weight and cut the air the right way. There are too many factors to count in. Either way it does come down to the hp to weight ratio. If you make a certain amount of HP, you will make a certain amount of torque depending on your engine layout and timing. Torque is good for is the lowend, HP takes over in the higher RPMs. Honda stretched the torque curve out more so you can imagine a short high peaking torque curve that is stretched out to last longer and it loses only a lil bit of peak. This is more logical cause if you have a car that gives more torue than hp, you will only experience low end torque in first gear, cause after you hit redline, you will stay in the 5000RPM and up if you are trying to accerate to high speeds. If the engine is not built for high HP, than you will notice weaker and slower accerelation. The early C4 corvettes made more torque than HP (300 hp and 340 lb-ft) and with their 3400 lb curb weight could barely match a 283lb-ft torque 300ZX that was heavier(3500+lbs).

We are talking about 1980-1990s technology here compared to today's engines that all are increasing their displacement to match the heavier cars of today. I think the NSX engines are very well engineered even when compared to today's engines and their choice of chasis makes it an even better car compared to the really heavy GTs or sport cars of today.

 

[BD]

The M3 you are talking about still doesn't redline at 8000 rpm's and even with that amount of torque it wasn't even faster then the C30 NA1 NSX in a straightline let alone a track even with the horsepower and torque advantage. It all comes down to the power to weight ratio.

M3 has an I6. In general, I6 and Flat 6 usually product more torque than V6.

So if it is a discusting thing, why is the NSX still faster than the M3?

 

[MashimaroNSX]

Most M3 engines were inline 6's which meant that the engines power delivery is smoother due to less rotations per cylinder and inline 6 engines were predominantly used in front engined cars. The 93 BMW you were referreing to didn't redline at 7400, it redlines at 6400 rpm's. The E46 M3's and beyond are the high revving ones. BMW's have a different philosophy when it comes to making cars. They are more like luxury coups that can be sporty when you need them to be. They are generally heavy with a big inline 6 engine in the front and now a v8 in the new M3. You cannot really compare them to NSX's because they are just completely different, they were built to cater to completely different market segments. While comparing torque numbers with both of them clearly shows the M3 as being stronger, the NSX makes it up with a mid engine configuration, better power to weight ratio and better gearing.

p.s. it seems like Vance beat me to my post lol

 

[NSXFRIEND]

E36 92-94 with its individual throttle bodies redline was 7400rpm. It also had a 6 speed getrag if im not mistaken not the 5 speed. The accleration was the same with US spec and euro spec until 80mph as promised by BMW. US spec had far more lower end torque than the eurospec where most the torque was much higher in the rev band.

NSX is the 944 of Porsche and if you have owned both you will know the torque is very predictable and easy to drive street or track. If you want more power you don't need a big motor, you can go turbo only problem with this is "cooling" which is why most lemans cars are v8 or 10. Only exception to this rule was the Porsche 956 small engine massive power advantage low weight. Another advantage of high end torque engines is IMO saving gas, no need for massive power in stop and go traffic and if you need to race you can always take the rpms up and get the torque you want.


No the NSX does not lack in torque in "lower end" because it simply does not need it and if you "want it" you can rev the car to the desired power you want power to weight ratio aside. There is enough torque to take you to 170mph

Nice v6 torque monster Mercedes C36 AMG.

http://www.fantasycars.com/sedans/HTML/mercedes_c36_amg_w202.html

Thought a 3.6 276 horsepower at 5750 rpm and 284 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm, 82 more horsepower than the C280 and 36 more than the US spec BMW M3.

 

[02#154]

As is the case with so many posts here on Prime, the replies to the OP’s question are quick to the defense of issues that were never brought up.

The OP was just saying that for a 3.0 or 3.2 liter engine, the NSX seemed to always put out less torque than other 3.0 or 3.2 liter engines. He followed that with an opinion that the NSX might be more “effective” if it had the same torque as its contemporaries.

Engine placement (mid-engined), configuration (V-6), redline (8000 RPM), torque curve (pretty flat), power-to-weight ratio or track-readiness vs. other cars were never said to be in question or lacking.

I agree that a little more torque would have been welcome. If none of you agree, please send me all of your headers, exhausts, air filters, etc. so that I may have a garage sale on e-bay

J

 

[N Spec]

It would have been nice if Honda could have pulled off 250+ lb-ft with the same flat curve they make now. I don't think anyone would complain. When he said effective, many people thought speed and acceleration. What else would you use torque for? Are you going to be towing a boat with your NSX?

Either way, I would rather sacrifice a few torque numbers to have a flat torque curve than have a high number peak and fall off in the high RPMs. However I don't that it is possible to make high torque numbers that's flat with this displacement. You would have to increase the displacement significally and thus the redline would decrease unless you increase the number of cyclinders to make a small displacement V-8 or V10. FI is the only way to significantly increase torque and at the same time hp. It seems that the late model NSX should have came FI to become an even deadlier rival to today's supercars. The V-6 is nice balance of cost/maintenance, fuel economy, and performance. Perhaps a high rev V-8 could still maintain decent fuel economy, but it doesn't appear so for Ferrari's sake.

I'm interested to see Honda's new V-10 and it's efficiency. It's a shame they gonna make a front engine GT. That means it gonna be big, heavy and possibly a 4 seater. I hope they still weigh in the thought of a mid-engine platform. I like the idea of using the SH-AWD, but I think they should scrape it if they can't do it in mid engine form.

 

[MvM]

dont you think NSX engines have low torqe compared to other N/A performance engines of same displacement and same years? Honda could make NSX more effective if it had more torque which upsets me so much. Its torque is equal to non performance engines of same displacement. what do you think?

First of all, I am not an engineer at all.
But I think the relatively low torque simply comes from the limited displacement of the NSX's engine. 3.0 and 3.2 liters is NOT a very big engine.

Someone with more knowledge about this could maybe chime in here, but I believe that the amount of torque produced by an engine is the direct results of its displacement (or maybe: the total surface of it's pistons) combined with the compression and the stroke of the piston.
After all, in the end it's all simply a matter of applied physics.

A higher compression with the same displacement will give you more torque.
A bigger displacement will give you more torque.
A longer stroke will give you more torque.

Actually, I think the NSX has about the same torque compared with other engines of the same size but it DOES have the advantage of being able to spread that out of a very long RPM range.

 

[CarCrazed4Life]

3.2 liter NSX has 303nm and 290hp
3.0 liter 1993 Eurospec M3 has 286hp and 320nm

dont you think this is discusting?

I've driven a Non-US (which is the correct term since everyone except the US got the Evolution M3) M3 and have to tell you that engine is fun. But its not the torque that makes it fun. Its the higher revving nature of the engine. The M3 is heavier then an NSX so it NEEDS more torque to keep it moving.

If you've ever driven an S2000 you'd also note they are fun cars. But because they don't need as much torque, their engines focus on not just revs, but how quickly you can go through those revs. I've been in an RX-8 that also revs, but its doesn't move as quickly through its revs like the S2000 and NSX.

Torque is great, and HP is great... but they are both different. If you had more torque, you'd feel the "force" of acceleration more. But torque would also make it hard to keep the NSX accelerating under certain conditions (ie weather related traction under turns) especially down low. Thats why alot of race engines rev high, make a ton on HP, and have considerably less Torque.

Now I do agree the NSX would be an awesome car if instead of 290 in 3.2 V6 form it had small 4.x V8 making 4xx hp ... or something. But at the end of the day these are all if ands or buts. If someone wanted more HP and loved everything else about the NSX, they'd go get FI.

That said I have a 500+ hp E36 M3 with a Supercharger on it. Cars fast, but its still not as fun as the NSX. Yes its fun taking it to the strip or driving past a new Z06... but then what. The NSX excites all the different emotions involved when driving that the M3 only did to a certain extent.

 

[nsxtasy]

I think what's getting lost here is why torque matters, and why horsepower matters. Remember, what matters for acceleration is torque at the wheels, which is a function of torque at the crank, less drivetrain losses, times gearing. What variable valve timing accomplishes is that it extends the torque curve so that it remains flat at much higher revs. That means that any disadvantage in the torque numbers themselves is offset by the gearing advantage of not having to upshift to a higher gear. That's why the NSX has such high horsepower numbers along with relatively low torque numbers, and why the horsepower numbers matter as a measure for acceleration, more than the torque numbers do.

This writeup has a more lengthy and detailed explanation of this phenomenon.

 

[hofffam]

First of all, I am not an engineer at all.
But I think the relatively low torque simply comes from the limited displacement of the NSX's engine. 3.0 and 3.2 liters is NOT a very big engine.

Someone with more knowledge about this could maybe chime in here, but I believe that the amount of torque produced by an engine is the direct results of its displacement (or maybe: the total surface of it's pistons) combined with the compression and the stroke of the piston.
After all, in the end it's all simply a matter of applied physics.

A higher compression with the same displacement will give you more torque.
A bigger displacement will give you more torque.
A longer stroke will give you more torque.

Actually, I think the NSX has about the same torque compared with other engines of the same size but it DOES have the advantage of being able to spread that out of a very long RPM range.

If you remember that torque is really twisting force, it is easy to see that torque increases when the force (combustion) of an engine has more leverage over the drivetrain. Two 3.0 L engines will have different torque vs. hp characteristics if their bore and stroke are different. In general engines with a bore larger than the stroke (oversquare) will rev higher and produce lower torque. The opposite (undersquare) will produce more torque and rev lower. Stroke is increased by changing the crank to have a longer throw.

Long stroke engines have difficulty revving high because piston speed may be difficult to manage. The pistion must move farther per cycle and must change direction at the top and bottom of the stroke.

 

[beqa16v]

I think everybody is lost here.
i was comparing NSX engine to M3 engine. Non US E36 M3 revs very good untill 7400 where redline is. with 3 liters it puts 320nm NOT DOWN BELOW. it has 286hp at 7000rpms, its a high reving engine with torque up high, but it has more torque AT HIGH RPMS with 3 liters then NSX has with 3.2 and i asked why. thats all. i know that torque comes with displacement, i know torque is affected by bore-stroke ratio BUT, i brought examples of two HIGH REVING ENGINES one of which produces more power and torque with same displacement then the other.

 

[BD]

I think everybody is lost here.
i was comparing NSX engine to M3 engine. Non US E36 M3 revs very good untill 7400 where redline is. with 3 liters it puts 320nm NOT DOWN BELOW. it has 286hp at 7000rpms, its a high reving engine with torque up high, but it has more torque AT HIGH RPMS with 3 liters then NSX has with 3.2 and i asked why. thats all. i know that torque comes with displacement, i know torque is affected by bore-stroke ratio BUT, i brought examples of two HIGH REVING ENGINES one of which produces more power and torque with same displacement then the other.

So... did you read the earlier posts regarding the difference between I6 and V6?

 

[N Spec]

I think everybody is lost here.
i was comparing NSX engine to M3 engine. Non US E36 M3 revs very good untill 7400 where redline is. with 3 liters it puts 320nm NOT DOWN BELOW. it has 286hp at 7000rpms, its a high reving engine with torque up high, but it has more torque AT HIGH RPMS with 3 liters then NSX has with 3.2 and i asked why. thats all. i know that torque comes with displacement, i know torque is affected by bore-stroke ratio BUT, i brought examples of two HIGH REVING ENGINES one of which produces more power and torque with same displacement then the other.

It makes an extra 10 to 20 lb-ft (20-30 nm) of torque (compared to the NSX) in the high RPM because the timing and fuel mapping is designed so that the torque will peak in the high RPM. Inlines do not have lowend torque characteristics, they build up to the torque in the RPM like hp. V engines are known for their low end torque, which is why the NSX's engine is special because it exhibits high and low end torque, whereas most V-6 lose torque after 4000-5000 RPM. The NSX could have it's timing and fuel mapping changed to sharpen the torque curve for a higher peak number, but that is not balanced as it loses low end torque. The same can be done so that the torque curve comes in real early and falls off drastically in the higher RPMs. If you want to make a better comparison, find another 3.0 high revving V-6, not an I-6.

Why does it matter that it makes an extra 10 to 20 lb-ft of torque? I'll ask again, are you going to be towing stuff with your NSX? Otherwise, the only thing torque is good for is acceleration. The M3 makes more hp and torque, but it's still not faster than the NSX. The M3 and NSX torque curves are not the same. The M3's torque curve is not great when compared to the NSX, as it's only a highend torque motor. The M3 makes less torque than the NSX in the mid and lowend, so it technically does not make more torque. Why don't you compare the average of the two torque values per RPM and see which one makes a better average? It will mostlikely be the NSX.

If you want to be a dyno queen, then worry about the HP numbers, cause torque numbers are not always linear like HP. The extra few digits of torque is not a big difference and timing/fuel mapping can change it drastically. How the torque builds up and gets to the wheels is more important. A flat torque curve that peaks in the higher RPMs is ideal since there is power in the full range of the RPMs.

 

[BD]

HP to weight ratio is the bottom line.

Additional low end torque is a good thing to have but not an neccessity.

M3 is a five passenger car; with full load, the extra torque helps.

 

[N Spec]

This is a discussion about torque and it's uses and effeciencies. Yes, HP and weight is all you need to know about a car to generally base its performance. The E36 M3 and NSX power to weight ratios are very close so the torque characteristics and of course driving skill could decide the winner. The flat torque curve is a perk for the NSX and makes it unique and even better to drive. Not many cars can say they have a flat torque curve like the NSX. The S2000 has no torque whatso ever and it's sometimes a pain to drive on the street. You have to rev the hell out of it to get any power. So are you gonna complain if your car makes 200 lbs of torque at 2400 RPM abd keeps climbing to 230 lbs of torque at 7000 RPM? I don't think so. (this is a hypothetical situation, obviously the NSX would need mods to make higher torque numbers like this) Many engine tuners and builders (well, at least good ones) strive for a flat torque curve. This is the other piece of puzzle since it quite easy to make hp and it will always increase at a linear rate. Torque curves can be manipulated whereas HP curves can't.

What does a 5 passengers vehicle have to do with the torque of the car? When the performance measures were made, there were only one person in each car. All of the Bimmers except the Z series can hold at least 4 people. The 328s and less powered models don't make high torque, but they still can carry 4 passengers. It's more about class and performance. The M3 is higher class car and so it needs a 286hp engine. The 236 lb-ft torque was a result of a 286 hp high revving I-6. The 236ish lb-ft torque is still not enough to lug around a loaded M3. So that extra 10-20 lb-ft of torque would not make a noticeable difference, considering an average adult weighs 160 lbs. If the NSX could hold 4 people, it would be the same story for either car. It would get bogged down step by step as each person gets into the car.

Either way the E36 M3 is slower than the NSX and would be even worse with more people in the Bimmer. Torque's effect on performace should not be overestimated or underestimated. Otherwise they would not need to measure it.

 

[NSXFRIEND]

I think everybody is lost here.
i was comparing NSX engine to M3 engine. Non US E36 M3 revs very good untill 7400 where redline is. with 3 liters it puts 320nm NOT DOWN BELOW. it has 286hp at 7000rpms, its a high reving engine with torque up high, but it has more torque AT HIGH RPMS with 3 liters then NSX has with 3.2 and i asked why. thats all. i know that torque comes with displacement, i know torque is affected by bore-stroke ratio BUT, i brought examples of two HIGH REVING ENGINES one of which produces more power and torque with same displacement then the other.

Cars look different today because of safety and laws of economics, supply and demand profit margins etc.. Cars that are ROW(rest of the world) and not us spec are higher reving because they dont have the speed limits stop and go traffic to some extent as in USA. Makes perfect sense for German auto makers and some Japanese and Italian's to produce cars marketed towards open speed markets. I do see your point about Efficacy of a motor for its intended build purpose but bear in mind its all marketing strategy in as much so that Engineers had to detune some motors to export...Further more a Euro-spec M3 is not legal anywhere outside europe, an NSX is.

 

[nsxtasy]

The E36 M3 and NSX power to weight ratios are very close so the torque characteristics and of course driving skill could decide the winner.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by close, but the E36 has a worse power to weight ratio and is significantly slower than even the 3.0-liter NSX, assuming you're referring to USIM cars.

E36 M3: 240 hp, 3200 pounds
'91-94 NSX: 270 hp, 3010 pounds

The E46 M3 matches up more evenly to the 3.2-liter NSX, which is why testing in standardized conditions produces very similar acceleration figures.

E46 M3: 333 hp, 3400 pounds
'97-05 NSX: 290 hp, 3150 pounds

 

[N Spec]

I was refering to the Europe spec since that was the example used.