Danger to wallet - Miata ND content

nderwater wrote: ...For example, my parents Nissan Leaf...

Illustrates exactly what I'm saying. According to your claims it feels 'perky' in the high torque/low hp area of the curve, and not so much across the peak hp area where the torque continues to fall off.

.

rcutclif wrote: hp is still what accelerates your car, not torque.

While horsepower may be a convenient way of describing the the combination of torque and rpm, or work, the physical acceleration is always being directly caused by an applied torque. What was that about not saying silly things?

.

Knurled wrote: I like Toyota's metric for developing the 4AGE: Engine must rev from zero to redine in a second.

Don't get me wrong. I love a great revving engine as much as the next guy. But I'm sure how quick free revving provides character while driving, aside from during shifts, as how quickly the revs change during acceleration is virtually unaffected by that.

TORQUE!! I can't tell you how many Miata owners that were used to driving US iron I've known who complain about lack of power and torque. So I say let's go for a drive & see what's wrong. They always seem to shift up at 3,000-3,500 or even less. So I say let me try it for a few blocks and shift at 6,000 or so, but no more as its' their car I'm driving. They almost always respondMY CAR ISN'T THIS FAST!! HOW DID YOU DO THAT??

Typically I tell them 3,500 is a pretty good shift point. If you are downshifting, not shifting up. Then I encourage them to try it my way and typically if they even touch 5,000 RPM, they freak out. But they still have more enjoyment out of their car than ever before. I can't imagine what their reaction would be in a hot stock Honda car.

Driven5 wrote:

rcutclif wrote: hp is still what accelerates your car, not torque.

While horsepower may be a convenient way of describing the the combination of torque and rpm, or work, the physical acceleration is always being directly caused by an applied torque. What was that about not saying silly things?

Sure, its a simplification. But F=ma has no time/distance element to it (torque is a force in a rotational manner), and therefore needs the time or distance element (power/work) in order to be relevant (because cars are always measured in time and/or distance). Power is the ability to do work, and work is force across a distance. It takes work to move a car, and power is the ability to do that work in a certain amount of time.

Again, a 10 foot bar and I can apply a giant torque. But a ten foot bar and I can't do it enough times PER SECOND to get any car down the 1/4 mile quickly. And again, that's because the bar and I are power limited, not torque limited.

In reply to clutchsmoke:I like my 2014 Skyactive 3. Of course I have the stick and am not afraid to use it. Gearing wise, it's not bad either except in low.

In reply to rcutclif:

Ironically, your criticism of the common practice of using torque to describe low end and power to describe top end is essentially a similarly rationalized simplification. Regardless of differences of opinion on semantics, it still doesn't change the fact that peak HP is not the best feeling point of acceleration in the RPM range. The peak torque is. Rate of change of acceleration is even more important to what we feel and perceive than the actual rate of acceleration itself.

Driven5 wrote: In reply to rcutclif: That's great and all if you want to think of your lack of ability to apply the same amount of torque at speed and at rest as being 'power' limited, but that still doesn't change the fact that peak HP is not the best feeling point of acceleration in the RPM range. The peak torque is. Rate of change of acceleration is even more important to what we feel and perceive than the actual rate of acceleration itself.

The problem with saying that peak torque feels better than peak power is you ignore the part immediatly past that. Past peak torque, the acceleration rate is still good, because the engine still (genreally) is getting to peak power. But past peak power, it's always less than just before.

So feel wise, peak torque point will always feel better than peak power.

Doesn't mean it's actually faster, just feels that way.

Driven5 wrote: Illustrates exactly what I'm saying. According to your claims it feels 'perky' in the high torque/low hp area of the curve, and not so much across the peak hp area where the torque continues to fall off.

You can't just point to a section the rev band though and assume it directly corresponds to the overall driving experience of a car. Overall, the Leaf is a car that 'makes good torque' and yet is also slow and not particularly engaging to drive.

Rupert wrote: In reply to clutchsmoke:I like my 2014 Skyactive 3. Of course I have the stick and am not afraid to use it. Gearing wise, it's not bad either except in low.

Oh I use the gears as much as I can in the 3 it's got miata DNA in the shifter and pedals. Merging on the highway I noted that 3rd was a pretty tall gear. Seems to be part of the good gas mileage equation.

alfadriver wrote: Doesn't mean it's actually faster, just feels that way.

Yep! That's the point. Racers are the typically the only ones that will prefer driving a car that's actually faster even when it feels slower. Pretty much everybody else will prefer driving the car that feels faster even when it's actually slower.

nderwater wrote: You can't just point to a section the rev band though and assume it directly corresponds to the overall driving experience of a car.

On cars with single speed transmissions you can. That actually makes it the perfect example. It's no coincidence that your description of feel at various speeds very closely matches what's happening in the torque curve at those same points in time.

Driven5 wrote:

nderwater wrote: You can't just point to a section the rev band though and assume it directly corresponds to the overall driving experience of a car.

On cars with single speed transmissions you can. It's no coincidence that your description of feel at various speeds very closely matches what's happening in the torque curve at those same points in time.

Not sure whether you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've been saying. In either case, I'm bowing out.

nderwater wrote: Not sure whether you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've been saying. In either case, I'm bowing out.

How passive aggressive of you. Are you really that unwilling or unable to explain yourself in a way that somebody as thick as I am might be able to better understand what you've been trying to say? Are you really that certain you haven't been misinterpreting any of what I've been trying to say?

Driven5 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Doesn't mean it's actually faster, just feels that way.

Yep! That's the point. Racers are the typically the only ones that will prefer driving a car that's actually faster even when it feels slower. Pretty much everybody else will prefer driving the car that feels faster even when it's actually slower.

So what you really want is a peaky engine. Not more power, but one non linear.

I'll add to this arguement by saying that peak power in the previous gear feels better than peak torque in the next one.

clutchsmoke wrote: it's got miata DNA in the shifter and pedals.

My impression of the new 3 was exactly that: "Wow, they really wanted the shifter to be like the one in a Miata"

Driven5 wrote: How passive aggressive of you. Are you really that unwilling or unable to explain yourself...

Nice.

Vehicles designed for torque at the expense of power: most EVs, older diesels, box trucks, tractors

Vehicles designed for power at the expense of torque: VTEC Hondas, Most Ferrari's, sport bikes, naturally aspirated F1 cars

Will adding torque make an existing car more fun? Sure!
Will adding power make an existing car more fun? Sure!

But if I have to have one at the expense of the other, and I'm looking for the more engaging driving experience, I'll choose power.

... and then you'll call up Flyin' Miata and ask for more power down low.

LOL.

Tim, I apologize for helping derail your thread. I'm in the same camp as your wife - the ND looks fantastic and I'd love to own one. Make mine a Club edition with the LSD, Brembos, Bilsteins and aero bits. I cant wait to start seeing these cars hit the street.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

The more things change, the more they stay the same

In reply to nderwater:

Thanks for your comments. Sure anything taken to extremes will will require massive compromises in other areas. But that's not what I'm talking about. I also don't disagree with you (or others of similar opinion) that, specifically in regards to the 2.0L Skyactive in the Miata, some drivers would gladly give up torque/power in the primary (low-mid) rpm range to get more torque/power in the secondary (mid-high) rpm range...Hell, I might even be one of them. However, I wouldn't be surprised if in the long run more owners will get more enjoyment more of the time the other way around.

Driven5 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Doesn't mean it's actually faster, just feels that way.

Yep! That's the point. Racers are the typically the only ones that will prefer driving a car that's actually faster even when it feels slower. Pretty much everybody else will prefer driving the car that feels faster even when it's actually slower.

I was using my phone to answer this the first time...

So the non linear engine isn't something new that I've heard- a little over a decade ago, I went to a turbo conference at Volvo as part of FoMoCo, small group, but all over the globe. One of them was a friend I met while working with AML, and he was representing the SVT for the upcoming Focus RS. At the time, Volvo was our most experienced group with turbos- and they were really good at making totally flat torque curve. My friend mentioned that THEY (SVT) wanted all of the bumps and humps for the torque, as that is what their customers wanted- not linear but very non linear.

And I think many people with turbos think that as well- which is perfectly acceptable.

But most customers like smooth and linear power delivery. And by most, I mean trucks, C/D sized cars, and small CUVs- which are the most popular vehicles for sale. The only ones who like the non-linear delivery are the <1% enthusiast market.

Nothing wrong with that, but I better understand what you mean.

rcutclif wrote:

Desmond wrote: Something that makes decent torque, while still being able to spin at a high rpm.

Or you can just say 'horsepower'. Like you said, torque * RPM/5252 = horsepower, why bog ourselves down in all that math?

And horsepower AND torque have E36 M3-all to do with a fun engine.

More horsepower/torque is either for racing, or the people who don't get any driving enjoyment but a quick stomp on the pedal for a little WHEE and then it's over. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that those people exist. Heck they have paid for at least three of my cars so it is beneficial to me that they exist.

Look at it like three pedal manual transmissions. They aren't good because they are faster (they aren't, by all measure they suck compared to a DSG or even a well set up planetary auto) but the point is that they make the driver happy.

I'm not worried about racing. Racing has nothing to do with having fun. I'm thinking about street use where even 60hp is really more than you can legally use.

Rupert wrote: TORQUE!! I can't tell you how many Miata owners that were used to driving US iron I've known who complain about lack of power and torque. So I say let's go for a drive & see what's wrong. They always seem to shift up at 3,000-3,500 or even less. So I say let me try it for a few blocks and shift at 6,000 or so, but no more as its' their car I'm driving. They almost always respondMY CAR ISN'T THIS FAST!! HOW DID YOU DO THAT?? Typically I tell them 3,500 is a pretty good shift point. If you are downshifting, not shifting up. Then I encourage them to try it my way and typically if they even touch 5,000 RPM, they freak out. But they still have more enjoyment out of their car than ever before. I can't imagine what their reaction would be in a hot stock Honda car.

So, what you are saying is, the problem isn't the car, the problem exists between steering wheel and seat

Even Buick 3800s will rev to 4000-4500 between shifts.

(Jeez shift AT 6000? When I shift the brappy car the revs drop TO 6000... if I shift early)

alfadriver wrote: So the non linear engine isn't something new that I've heard- a little over a decade ago, I went to a turbo conference at Volvo as part of FoMoCo, small group, but all over the globe. One of them was a friend I met while working with AML, and he was representing the SVT for the upcoming Focus RS. At the time, Volvo was our most experienced group with turbos- and they were really good at making totally flat torque curve. My friend mentioned that THEY (SVT) wanted all of the bumps and humps for the torque, as that is what their customers wanted- not linear but very non linear. And I think many people with turbos think that as well- which is perfectly acceptable.

Very telling, and accurate. My Volvo definitely feels like my RX-7 in that neither one has a discernable torque curve peak or valley. The turbo on the Volvo is spooled up by the time my foot hits the floor and the car just goes. The only difference is, the Volvo runs out of breath at about 5500 (and then it shifts) and I run out of cojones when the Mazda hits 10,000. Either way there isn't any sense of "power band", it just moves and then you look down and see that you've dialed up a lot more speed than you thought you were getting.

Smooth but utterly boring. Not involving in the least. This actually works to both cars' benefits. In the Volvo's case, it's a commuting appliance so the purpose is so you don't think about it, you just point and grunt. In the Mazda's case, it's meant to cover a mile of rapidly-degrading course in a minimum amount of time so it is best if the driver doesn't have to pay attention to the mechanics of driving, just point and grunt.

Peaky powerbands that require driver involvement are more interesting to drive. Requiring driver involvement, however, is counterproductive for appliances or motorsports. Perverse, isn't it? We do motorsports to have fun but if we want to be GOOD at motorsports we need to kill off the fun factor in favor of things that work towards an actual goal. (I still refuse to own a truck. I'll be damned if I start TOWING to events)

In reply to alfadriver:

I wasn't really referencing linearity in my comments, so please forgive my confusion. I've never seen a torque curve that is linear from idle all the way to redline...Although constantly linearly increasing might be interesting to see and/or experience. There may be linearly increasing, constant, or linearly decreasing sections, but there always seems to be a change in direction at some point. So I'm not quite sure what necessarily makes a non-linear overall torque curve so undesirable.

However, I am in no way describing torque curves that are "peaky" either, unless you simply mean it might have any definable peak torque point rather than a totally flat plateau...And I'm certainly not advocating for having "humps and bumps". Quite the opposite actually. A smooth torque curve is as beneficial to sporty cars as it is soulless appliances. But if by linear you mean that regardless of whether that portion of the 'curve' is increasing, constant, or decreasing it is generally doing so linearly rather than exponentially, then yes I think we're in agreement on that issue too. The cars that have exponentially increasing torque curves generally seem to not even start doing so until higher rpm ranges than are used in typical street driving rpms...Which again, is the opposite of what I'm describing as being best suited to most buyers of even sporty cars.

Anyone see the Club Sport that's just been announced? Squeeeee!