All my cars are 2.0L !

[Einstein]

1988 Accord LXi
120HP@5000, 122ft*lb@4000
Bore=82.7mm, Stroke=91mm (1955cc)
Comp Ratio= 9.3:1
SOHC 12-valve
Min octane=86
MPG=22/28 (auto)

1999 CRV EX
146HP@6200, 133ft*lb@4500
Bore=84mm, Stroke=89mm (1973cc)
Comp Ratio= 9.6:1
DOHC, 16-valve
Min octane=86
MPG=22/25 (auto)

2002 S2000
240HP@8300, 153ft*lb@7500
Bore=87mm, Stroke=84mm (1997cc)
Comp Ratio= 11.0:1
DOHC, 16-valve, VTEC
Min octane=91
MPG=20/26

[89AccordNate]

Boner.

Nate.

[ACCORD EX]

S2000 !


man you ROCK !!

MIKE

[smufguy]

dude are you like the lost son of god or something???? and is the torque for the lx-i 122lbs/ft?? i thoought it was just 108lb/ft.

[CARBurn]

torque for EFI accords
86-87 114 ft/lbs
88-89 130 ft/lbs

Carbed accords
86-87 109 ft/lbs

[Einstein]

Originally posted by CARBurn
torque for EFI accords
88-89 130 ft/lbs

Then MOTOR TREND must have been wrong...

http://www.geocities.com/jdpenttinen/3greview.html

And also note that it's ft*lb or even lb*ft, never ft/lb or lb/ft.

Torque is length TIMES force, not divided by. If you divide you're talking spring rates.

[A20A3Power]

2002 S2000s suck....they added tweeters and a shiftknob and some crome rings around the lights....and made the shifting so slick it makes me sick....plus, they changed the clutch around some....so u can rev the car for all its worth, and drop the clutch and u cant spin the tires.....
To me, I think the 2001 model was an entirely better car in its own right, not only cuse it was lighter, but the clutch pressure plate was stronger and so was the disc itself...meaning even on a stock motor, dropping it at 6K on the tach results in some crazy tire spinning....plus the shifting felt perfect....

[Jims 86LXI HB]

When I see a scan of the 88-89 brochure spec page, I'll believe 130ft lbs.

[Einstein]

Originally posted by A20A3Power
2002 S2000s suck....they added tweeters and a shiftknob and some crome rings around the lights....and made the shifting so slick it makes me sick....plus, they changed the clutch around some....so u can rev the car for all its worth, and drop the clutch and u cant spin the tires.....
To me, I think the 2001 model was an entirely better car in its own right, not only cuse it was lighter, but the clutch pressure plate was stronger and so was the disc itself...meaning even on a stock motor, dropping it at 6K on the tach results in some crazy tire spinning....plus the shifting felt perfect....

Sounds like you kinda know what you're talking about.

There were many changes. You haven't included things 2001 owners drool over like a glass rear window, full center console trim, a better stereo (not just tweets), tweaked suspension, and the list goes on. Yes the shifting is great. If you think the car is a drag car you've missed the point. Go get a Corvette if you want to waste your money burning tires. The car is a track car, where you never stop. Trust me, if this is your car, you'll never want to stop The clutch is awesome. An for this year... still no TSB's

Oh, and lighter? We must be talking about the difference in weight for 4 trim rings, tweeters, and glass instead of plastic window. The time I save not getting out of my car halfway through the roof drop to fold the window properly, I can use to get underway while the 2001 is spinning its tires! :flipa:

[ACCORD EX]

Originally posted by A20A3Power
plus, they changed the clutch around some....so u can rev the car for all its worth, and drop the clutch and u cant spin the tires.

that's called traction control !
anyway A20A3Power i 'll have it any way !


MIKE

[Einstein]

Comon guys, it takes a lot more torque to spin a rear wheel drive with sticky tires than it does to spin a front wheel drive car's all season tread....

[smufguy]

And also note that it's ft*lb or even lb*ft, never ft/lb or lb/ft.
hey Einstein, thanks man. Its "pound feet of torque" so its true its supposed to b lb*ft or ft*lb. Thanks for the correction man, i feel stupid to be a mech. engg student

[Einstein]

Originally posted by smufguy
[B Thanks for the correction man, i feel stupid to be a mech. engg student [/B]

Don't worry about it. By the time you finish dynamics, it'll be beat into your head just fine! I should know

[CARBurn]

Originally posted by Einstein


Then MOTOR TREND must have been wrong...

http://www.geocities.com/jdpenttinen/3greview.html

And also note that it's ft*lb or even lb*ft, never ft/lb or lb/ft.

Torque is length TIMES force, not divided by. If you divide you're talking spring rates.

Thanks for the correction on torque. But in regards to your motortrend article THEY must be wrong, because I got my info from carpoint.com, check for yourself:http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Engines/...ccord/1989.asp

I'll be happy to dig up more info to settle this issue but since our cars are so old anyway it is not like they are making anyway near as the amount of torque 122 ft* lb as you say or 130 ft *lb as I say as when they were new.

[smufguy]

u know what, we gotta find out the true HP and the True torque for our cars, when they were new and how they are now. The specs now are kinda hard since not many have access to a dyno. Hope someone gets it up.

but i have a real pic of the Se-i owner's manual (just the drive train and engine specs) saved from the old forum (AF). it says the hp is 120@5800 and torque is 122@4000. look at for ur self. seems like the only place to have a piece of mind is a honda's owners manual.

[CARBurn]

Cool, nice to refer back to the owner's manual for accurate information.