The new Mazda 3 MPS.

[Treza360]

Are you forgetting Intergra Type-R, Euro Type-R, NSX... I would not consider those cars whitegoods

What NSX? No longer made and no replacement is coming (cancelled). What Integra? No longer made and I haven't heard anything about a replacement? Euro Type-R also no longer in production.
Honda is too concerned with their earth car BS and being on the green band wagon. No more soul no more passion just being politically correct.
Same goes for Toyota. We can also talk about Toyota and the Supra and MR2 but I'm referring to here and now. And they are bland whitegoods for the soul purpose of getting from A to B. Yes this is all well and good and is a necessary evil but you also need the performance vehicles, the cars that do have passion and soul.
But anyway back on topic.
Cheers,
Trent

[Manaz]

they may either use the all-wheel-drive system from the 6 MPS or borrow the Revo-Knuckle FWD system from the Ford Focus RS to reduce torque steer.

Incredibly unlikely on both counts unfortunately. AWD will make this car too heavy and too expensive, and the link between Ford and Mazda is practically severed these days, and I can't see Ford giving Mazda yet another reason for people to buy a 3 over a Focus when Ford *really* need to Focus to do well. I'd be very surprised to see Ford continue to have access to Volvo's 5-pot turbo beyond the new generation Focus/Mondeo as well (which will be a shame for Ford, because it's a nice engine).

The torque steer in the MPS is rediculous. It's not completely undrivable but you definately have to be cautious when unleashing the beast.

And it'd be worse if they ran full boost in 1st and 2nd gear...

Are you forgetting Intergra Type-R, Euro Type-R, NSX... I would not consider those cars whitegoods

Ah, cars which run high revs to make up for a lack of torque...

[Swallowtail]

And it'd be worse if they ran full boost in 1st and 2nd gear...

Ah, cars which run high revs to make up for a lack of torque...

The 3MPS has lots of power in a FWD configuration. Be prepared for that and the tq steer is perfectly manageable. Be unprepared and yes it can bite you. So can any car with that amount of power. You are dead right though Manaz - it would be a shocker without the 1st / 2nd gear and steering angle limiters...

The Honda engines are a completely different mindset to a turbo'ed 4 like the MPSs... some people like em that way. I don't LOL... there's something about the 230ish KW and 450NM that my 6MPS is producing kicking you in the back when you hit 2500rpm rather than waiting for 5000+rpm to come around.

To be picky torque is only a mathematical function from power produced at a given rpm, so the Honda engines are not running high revs to make up for a lack of torque, it's because they produce power so high in the rev range that the torque figure is low.

[gregozedobe]

To be picky torque is only a mathematical function from power produced at a given rpm, so the Honda engines are not running high revs to make up for a lack of torque, it's because they produce power so high in the rev range that the torque figure is low.

Being picky with other people posts is always fraught with danger - you have to be so careful to be 100% correct, otherwise someone may correct your correction

You have grasped the concept of power and torque being related, but you might want to have a look at this site for an explanation of the generally accepted relationship between torque and power :

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine...and_torque.htm

As they say :

"Do you want your engine to make HORSEPOWER or TORQUE ? "

And the question is posed in a tone which strongly suggests that these experts believe power and torque are somehow mutually exclusive.

In fact, the opposite is true, and you should be clear on these facts:

POWER (the rate of doing WORK) is dependent on TORQUE and RPM.

TORQUE and RPM are the MEASURED quantities of engine output.

POWER is CALCULATED from torque and RPM, by the following equation:

HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252

The constant (5252) varies according to what units you choose to work with (in this case horsepower and ft/lbs of torque) .

The conventional view is that you measure torque and revs, and use that to calculate the power produced. Not the other way around, although it is certainly possible to calculate torque from a given power and revs combination, as with any simple mathmatical formula.

In the case of the high-revving NA Honda motors, they produce little torque at low revs simply because they can't process much air at low revs due to 3 main factors:
1 their small engine capacity,
2 lack of forced means of increasing air flow ( supercharger or turbo), and
3 they are generally optimised for better air flow at high revs.

This lack of torque at low revs means they also produce little power at low revs.

Even at high revs they still produce a relatively small amount of torque, but because the torque figure is multiplied by the rpm, once the revs get above 5252 the power figure gets increasingly larger. So they may produce maximum power at 7,700 rpm (or even higher, depending on tuning).

Other engines (eg diesel with a small turbo) may be designed to produce relatively large amounts of torque at low revs, but decreasing amounts of torque as the revs rise (due to turbo and inherent diesel limitations), so they may produce their maximum power at only 3,200 rpm.

I hope that clarifies things, and I await the correction of my correction (I'm sure to have gotten something wrong)

[Swallowtail]

LOL... thanks. I'm not going to correct your correction because you are correct... LOL. Although I think we are both on the same side of the discussion... I am aware of the relationship between power and torque, including the relevant equations, constants and scales.

My point was that the design of the Honda engines in question as you have said is directed at top end power - I don't believe the engines "run high revs to make up for a lack of torque" which was the original comment, rather, the engine's production of higher effort thru better breathing, timing, etc, at a higher rpm range (equating to lower torque numbers due to the constant being related to rpm) is the intent of the design. Modern engine design can produce high(ish) torque engines without FI. Honda have chosen a slightly different route to many others. Some like it, some don't. As I said I prefer the feeling or urge produced either by FI or higher capacity (both generating higher torque at lower rpm) to revving out a screamer. Although an RX8 rotary at 9000rpm is a sound to die for, but that's an entirely different story again...

I'm bowing out of this one now.... fundamentally because I agree with you... By the way, I didn't bring in the equations and constants in my post cos I thought it would appear heavy handed...

Cheers
Simon

[gareth_oau]

put very simply, power is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you

[Preen59]

put very simply, power is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you

Hahahahaha! Very well stated.

[Swallowtail]

put very simply, power is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you

LOL.. I likee lots...

[Treza360]

put very simply, power is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you

You forgot the beginning of that where oversteer is where the rear of the car hits the wall first and understeer is where the front of the car hits the wall first.

[anarchycamp]

put very simply, power is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you

sigworthy