if all these comes to reality then a CRZ turbo convertible would be sex

 

might trade in the ge for it:) the convertable, would it be hard top or cloth

 

The styling in the second pic is where Honda needs to actually be right now, or soon.

 

x2



This is hot. Hopefully this gets that 1.6T

 

id take both.

 

That CR-Z looks gangster, though it could lose the wing. I think that small of an engine with a turbo would be a good recipe, seeing how you don't need gobs of torque going through the front wheels, plus a similar combo (turbocharged 1.6-liter with ~170 hp) has done well for the Mini Cooper S.

The convertible in the second picture clearly looks futuristic and sporty, but its hood is too short. What's under there, a one cylinder engine!?!

 

Boosting a small engine is what creates torque.. torque is what makes for a fun street car.

A lot of people fail to realize that when they think HP and acceleration, they are thinking of torque.

HP is torque over time basically.

 

...but too much torque going through just the front wheels will overwhelm it. There's a reason why the Mazdaspeed 3 ECU limits the torque when in the lower gears... because 280 lb-ft is a recipe for torque steer. Why do you think there aren't any high-powered, high-torque FWD cars that were meant to turn in a sporty manner?

 

Because most people suck at driving.

I can leave the line with 15psi on a 65lb/min turbo on a cold, unprepped track running mismatched, worn all seasons and still cut a 1.8xx 60' time.

This is in a car making more than 500lb-ft through the front wheels. Also, that pedal on the right controls how much torque you have at a given point in time.

Or you can set up boost-by-gear using a solenoid to operate the wastegate.

 

Oh, is that why Camaros, Mustangs, 370Zs, Evos, STIs, etc. don't have FWD? Because if they did, most drivers wouldn't know how to utilize the power?

Or maybe at that point, people would rather just utilize RWD or AWD, assuming we are talking about a track that has turns, as you mentioned 60' times, presumably from a quarter-mile slip.

Remember, we are talking about a stock car here, as I doubt a CR-Z turbo from the factory is going to have V-6 rivaling torque... which it really doesn't need anyway. Anything beyond that is overkill.

Just my opinion.

 

Wow this is getting stupid in a hurry..

In fact yes, it is harder to drive a car with the drive axle also dealing with the steering and the majority of the braking. You only have so much friction, so you have to proportion it in a fashion that gets you through the corner at speed.

Also, that same 500lb-ft FWD I referenced does get taken to circuits as well. It is normally AWD but I am in the process of rebuilding my AWD trans and drivetrain so the rear subframe and transmission were swapped for the FWD pieces so I can use it while I get my funds together..

It definitely takes a great deal of skill to pilot a FWD around a given road/circuit/auto-x track vs. an AWD or an RWD with throttle controlled over steer on-demand. Which is why when the GE Fit overtook the mustang and mazda's at Thunderhill it was a big deal.

I made my comment about the 60' because you were blindly suggesting X amount of power is useless in a FWD.

You are right, it is your opinion. That doesn't mean such a sweeping statement like "Xlb-ft is too much torque for a FWD" is accurate or fair. And then suggesting that is the reason that we don't see so many power FWDs.

And really it's just the US market that doesn't get the high powered FWDs.

Why?

Because most Americans suck at driving.

 

With your particular vehicle, going around the same track with an otherwise identical set up, would it produce faster lap times with FWD or AWD?

 

That entirely depends on the track, really. But there are many reasons for this.

On a tight twisty course, definitely AWD. If there are a few straights, with longer sweepers between hard corners FWD stands a better chance.

Besides we are talking about a street vehicle, so you really shouldn't be using it in a fashion on the road where you would see any significant difference between the two outside of inclement weather or poor surface conditions.

My original post, which this all stems from is that torque = passing power, which is what most of us want in a street vehicle.

Whether the passing is done on the highway, or from a stoplight coming up to a merge, or getting to speed on an on-ramp. Torque is what does the job, and that is the main reason one would turbo a small displacement engine. It provides for a supernatural VE, and the VE is what determines your torque curve. Then the redline determines your peak HP.

Peak Torque will always be at VEmax. A turbo allows you to shift where VEmax occurs and for how long you hold it there.

 

I have to take a few steps back, since your previous posts had been edited.

I never said X amount was too much... to quote myself, I said that this potential car had a "good recipe" and that it "[wouldn't] need gobs of torque." Was I wrong? Even the 2012 Civic Si is supposed to have 170 lb-ft... that'll be plenty to get it to hustle forward, assuming you're not trying to do highway pulls against something with a V-8 while expecting to inch ahead of it.

Since the cars escape me right now, other than some of the higher-powered Ford Focus hatchbacks, what don't we get here that has FWD and a lot of torque?

Somebody should tell Bugatti, Ferrari, Lamborghini and Porsche that we suck at driving, because they're entrusting us with 500+ hp vehicles! Haha :P

But again, seeing how this is a street vehicle not to be driven in such a fashion, it obviously doesn't need truckloads of torque to get moving. That's what I've been saying all along... I welcome the turbocharged 1.6-liter and the benefits that come with it. I was just saying that whatever it has is probably a good amount for the car, especially since it'll be relatively light compared to a lot of cars, since even the current one is just a bit above 2500 pounds. In comparison, a fairly similar Cooper S that I mentioned before (turbocharged 1.6-liter four-cylinder with 175 hp weighing just under 2500 pounds) has good grunt that I wouldn't complain about for a daily-driven, but still quick, street vehicle. I don't see how it you deduced from my original post that I was opposed to boosting, torque or fun. I have a car that has boost, torque and is fun.

I agree with you there, but like I said before, I never said anything that refuted that.

 

If I could take a moment out of the thread derailment, I'd just like to say that both of those CR-Z's are dead sexy.... :)

 

Yes I edit my posts because I type fast at work or on the phone and go back to spell check/grammar usually. When I make huge changes I usually preface that portion with "Edit:"

It just seemed like perhaps you were blaming the excess torque in lower gears for torque steer or wheel hop instead of the person piloting the car.

My issue with the Fit is that even with the short gearing the passing times are like waiting for a bus. At only 2500lbs it should not take more than a couple seconds to get from 40-60 or 30-50, because everyone drives like a lunatic around here, traffic flows between 80-90mph on some of our highways on a given day.

So getting from a dead stop or from a tight curve up to match traffic often requires a heavy foot and side stepping the clutch through the first 3 gears with only me in the car.

And it is 2011, I realize that we are talking about an economy car, but if they are going to offer "sport" versions.. they should be "sporty"

200lb-ft at the crank out of a 1.6T would be about ideal, and it would allow for taller gearing and better fuel economy out of boost. And a power to weight ratio that would make it competitive with older V8's should be do able.

If I can get 28mpg combined and pump out 125whp/cylinder (not at simultaneously of course lol) from a garage built and street-tuned 2.0L 4 banger, an OEM should have no trouble making only 200HP SAE Net at the crank from a 1.6T.

You can be both fast and efficient, and counter-intuitively for some they tend to go hand in hand.

There are also Renault, Seat, Audi and Fiat's that put most of our USDM FF cars to shame from the factory.

 

A crz converticble would be such a hot seller, especially with the turbo engine.