Torque hole discussion

[fenton]

Originally Posted by TurnOne

Not sure I can help, but interesting to me is that I have 2012 Ducati (new engine design) and it has a torgue dip as well. About 4500 RPM or so. I have just learned to keep the revs above it. I presume I will learn to do the same on this car.

Wonder what is going on with these new engine designs.

This car has great low end torgue and drives real easy around town.

Chris

Its hard to keep above the torque dip in this car without getting starred at by everyone on the street. In stock form it litterly starts at 3500rpm and goes to 5000. So you either stay below in the torque, or above and redline every shift.

My biggest pet peeve is when i want to drive a little spirited(not redline), the dip just KILLS it. Cant wait to get tuned so that at least the dip is narrower and less deep because at 3500ft+ sea level i am already down on torque

[jeebus]

Originally Posted by Dimman

It's not a hole. It's a shit-ton of torque (for a 2.0L) at low rpms.

yes, yes...I know that's one way of looking at it. But it feels WEIRD. I just drove my buddy's NC miata this weekend and the powerband feels so much better.

[jeebus]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

71% mileage at worst. This engine is direct injected and high compression, I think 75% is closer to what people will actually see.

Aside from that, the only way you'll change the shape of the powerband in this regard is changing the intake manifold to one with different length runners.

yeah, and I'm curious about this as a possibility. Are aftermarket intake manifolds going to be attainable? Is anyone currently engineering one?

Originally Posted by 2forme

My car averaged 29-30 mpg on e85 with mostly hwy driving. Visconti's tune of course.

really? Was this calculated at the pump or by the car? That doesn't really make much sense considering the energy density difference....unless Visconti is really able to run it that much leaner.

[2forme]

Originally Posted by CBR600RR

Whats your take on how the car feels with ~198 WHP in comparison to ~160 WHP?

What do you estimate the 0-60 and 1/4 times might be now? breaking the 14's?

I'm pretty sure the car was in the 14's stock. I hit 14.9 in my old celica GTS while stock... and this is a little faster than that.

But here's a video I posted over in the e85 thread. It doesn't have the intake so its probably around 192-193.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7GdGTjup4o"]acceleration1 - YouTube[/ame]

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

71% mileage at worst. This engine is direct injected and high compression, I think 75% is closer to what people will actually see.

Aside from that, the only way you'll change the shape of the powerband in this regard is changing the intake manifold to one with different length runners.

Header design, too.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by jeebus

yeah, and I'm curious about this as a possibility. Are aftermarket intake manifolds going to be attainable? Is anyone currently engineering one?

really? Was this calculated at the pump or by the car? That doesn't really make much sense considering the energy density difference....unless Visconti is really able to run it that much leaner.

Haven't heard of an intake manifold yet.

The energy difference is made up for by the fact that running ethanol can significantly increase the efficiency of the engine, especially with high compression ratios where the charge temperature gets quite high, and double especially with direct injection which utilizes the heat of vaporization much better than port injection. I don't think the Visconti tune is going ultra lean (much beyond stoichiometric, which can increase mpg quite a bit depending on conditions). Long story short, direct injection + alcohol = win. Rather than losing 29% of your mpg, you lose perhaps like 20%. 29-30 almost sounds like a stretch, but if you think about how cruising along at 65-70mph gets you 35-40mpg, it's about right.