Does the engine on the SS/SC...
Does the engine on the SS/SC...
have a really short stroke? I mean 187 ft/lbs of torque just doesn't seem like much. What gives?
http://www.modernperformance.com/gm/...altss_dyno.wmv
http://www.modernperformance.com/gm/...altss_dyno.wmv
Originally Posted by b-spot
You got it, it has a very short stroke so it can rev faster 
Easy way to think of torque vs. hp.
HP= how fast you hit the wall
Torque = How far you go through it
The S2000 pumps out 162 ft-lbs (flywheel) from 2.2.
The SS is putting down 187 ft-lbs (wheels) from 2.0.
2.0 liters is not going to generate much torque, due to
physics, but GM is definately handling it better than the
folks over at Honda.
The SS is putting down 187 ft-lbs (wheels) from 2.0.
2.0 liters is not going to generate much torque, due to
physics, but GM is definately handling it better than the
folks over at Honda.
Originally Posted by PenguinPIE
is it because its supercharged...?
Originally Posted by horsepowersports.com
Horsepower is a calculation not a measurement. Think about that. It means you don't actually measure horsepower, you measure that force exerted over a period of time and make a calculation that results in a number, the number is horsepower. That force being measured is torque.
On my All-Motor 2.0L I made 202hp at the wheels, but "only" 154ft/lbs, because of the RPM at which I made peak HP was high (7200rpm). With my SRT-4 I made 272whp and 294wtq because the powerband started at 3300 rpm.
All Motor 2.0L Dyno-chart: http://www.azchatfield.net/NeonProject/20050316.jpg
SRT-4 Dyno-chart: http://www.azchatfield.net/miscpics/...o_20050413.jpg
Originally Posted by thehemi
The S2000 pumps out 162 ft-lbs (flywheel) from 2.2.
The SS is putting down 187 ft-lbs (wheels) from 2.0.
2.0 liters is not going to generate much torque, due to
physics, but GM is definately handling it better than the
folks over at Honda.
The SS is putting down 187 ft-lbs (wheels) from 2.0.
2.0 liters is not going to generate much torque, due to
physics, but GM is definately handling it better than the
folks over at Honda.

Don't compare it to the S2000 like it's a good thing. That car might as well have been a motorcycle with it's piddly little torque output. Shouldn't have to rev to 9 grand to beat a minivan in the next lane. I am not impressed at all by the Honda. I do like cars with Start buttons though, hahaha!
The Ecotec 2.0 has a:
Bore & stroke (mm): 86.00 x 86.00
*Generally* the longer the stroke , especailly if it is longer than the bore, the more torque an engine makes. The more weight you have to move, the more torque you want to have. It's all a balance of both world. We are right inthe middle.
Torque is great but so it's super high rev'ing HP (like in motorcyles)
Bore & stroke (mm): 86.00 x 86.00
*Generally* the longer the stroke , especailly if it is longer than the bore, the more torque an engine makes. The more weight you have to move, the more torque you want to have. It's all a balance of both world. We are right inthe middle.
Torque is great but so it's super high rev'ing HP (like in motorcyles)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
patooyee
Wanted - What to buy - All categories
0
Oct 1, 2015 01:07 PM



