is it an integra type R or a GSR?

[borisdookie7]

yea but ill have about 30f/lb more tq and it comes with an lsd too, ur SN is makin me think of cheese sticks lol im hungry now, doesnt the h22 also rev to 8200? i read that somewhere

[DaBzzMn]

It can, but the with the possibility of throwing something, if stock. There is actually a video on youtube somewhere with a cb7hybrid ans a type R. It was close al the way till end of third and the cb7 inched ever so slightly. One of my boys in Maryland used to have one, and froma roll could hang with a stock S2K, and teg at the same time. We tried to see on 495, and teg was just a fender ahead of the cb7 and half a cars length from the S2K. IT all matters on whose the better shifter, getting the power to the wheels, and the road. If the H22 has Lsd, it would be down to the wire everytime. BOth are good motors in good cars. THe teg might at an advantange for being lighter but the 2.2L offers more torque to pull the extra load.

[b-bomb]

1/4 mile Type R tuns mid to high 14's. H22 CB7's run high 14's to low 15's. So yeah it would be close, but I think the Type R would win more times than not.

I'm assuming those times are for a 2 door cb7, or at least when people say only 200lbs more they're referring to the coupe.

[Accord R33]

yea but ill have about 30f/lb more tq and it comes with an lsd too, ur SN is makin me think of cheese sticks lol im hungry now, doesnt the h22 also rev to 8200? i read that somewhere

you obviously dont know what torque is then.

Horsepower = (Torque X RPM ) / 5252

So to increase power, you can increase torque, or you can increase RPM. the H22 does so by increasing torque, the b18c does so by increasing RPM.

Its a proven fact that its better to make torque at a higher RPM, so you can take advantage of close ratio gearing. The TypeR motor does this extreemly well. even though the h22 has 25-30ft/lbs of torque more than the R, it makes its peak torque much lower. the TypeR makes peak torque at a 7000rpms, just short of the H22s readline. hence, the R can take better advantage of gear ratios, and will perform just as well, with lower raw numbers.

So, as long as the revs are kept high (e.g in a race) the R is just as capable, if not moreso than the H22. if you were towing a boat around town, the H22 would have the upper hand.

and if the H22 can rev to 8200, then the B18c(r) can rev to at least 9k

[owequitit]

you obviously dont know what torque is then.

Horsepower = (Torque X RPM ) / 5252

So to increase power, you can increase torque, or you can increase RPM. the H22 does so by increasing torque, the b18c does so by increasing RPM.

Its a proven fact that its better to make torque at a higher RPM, so you can take advantage of close ratio gearing. The TypeR motor does this extreemly well. even though the h22 has 25-30ft/lbs of torque more than the R, it makes its peak torque much lower. the TypeR makes peak torque at a 7000rpms, just short of the H22s readline. hence, the R can take better advantage of gear ratios, and will perform just as well, with lower raw numbers.

So, as long as the revs are kept high (e.g in a race) the R is just as capable, if not moreso than the H22. if you were towing a boat around town, the H22 would have the upper hand.

and if the H22 can rev to 8200, then the B18c(r) can rev to at least 9k

There is common misconception about torque. It is a force, but it DOES NOT imply work. Work is force over time. So 1,000 lb/ft of torque at 0 RPM is the same as 0lb/ft at 0 RPM. Neither one does anything for us.

That is why we still use horsepower. The two are linked together as one.

High torque allows us to make more HP at a lower RPM, but more RPMs allows us to make more HP from less torque, so both can achieve the same results.

Torque all by itself means nothing. Once you factor in the element of time, then you are now dealing with HP.

As far as which would win...

It sort of depends on the setup.

Either car could win. The actual phyiscal designs are actually pretty similar in terms of suspension design so it would depend on setup. IMO.

Typically, all things being equal, the lighter car will win in the mountains, just by virtue of Newton's 1-3rd laws.

However, if the Type R were mostly stock, and the CB7 were not, it would depend on the CB7's setup. If a lot of time was put into buying quality parts, and actually setting them up to work together, the CB can do some very fun things in the turns. It is heavier, but not ungodly so.

The TypeR's weight got to below 2600lbs with a diet that would also benefit a stock CB7.

Where the Type R does have an advantage however is chassis stiffness. You could gusset and spot weld the CB7 chassis, but most people aren't going to do it, and if they do, most won't do it right.

Honda put a LOT of R&D into the ITR. Probably far more money than anyone on this site has.

I have also come to realize how much help the CB7 can use in the front. Losing my Neuspeed front strut tower bar has really highlighted its effectiveness at stiffening the front of the car.

Now, as far as power vs torque vs gearing.

There are several ways to approach the problem. They are all equally effective.

Since gears are effectively a torque multiplier, we can solve the problem is several ways.

**First a note. Taller gearing is numerically lower than shorter gearing. Gearing is the ratio of crankshaft turns to wheel turns. Basically, a 3.73:1 is taller than a 4.30:1. Basically, the 3.73:1 would mean that the crankshaft turns 3.73 times for each time the wheel spins.

It gets a little more complicated when you factor in an actual gear ratio plus a differential, because then you are dealing with multiple ratios which must be multiplied together to get an overall ratio.**

Anyway, back to the discussion.

Method #1) Have more torque at lower RPMs. This way we can leverage taller gearing. Since taller gearing multiplies torque less, the 2 compliment each other very well.

Muscle cars are a good example of this. They have a ton of torque, and usually have a 2 or 3 speed transmission. They still get up an move a lot of weight very quickly, even though those gears are taller (in most cases, a LOT taller).

Method #2) We can have more HP at higher revs and use this in combination with lower gearing to get more effective torque at the wheels. The lower gearing gives us a larger torque multiplication, so we get more torque at the wheels.

Either combination is really equally effective.

You will also hear a lot of discussion in the forums and just among car guys in general about "more area under the curve." This is completely true.

With regard to theory.

In real life, if you maximize the gearing for the torque curve of your engine that you will end up with the best package possible.

Here are some examples:

A muscle car does its best work at lower RPMs. We are leveraging the large displacement to make lots of low end torque, and thus we are most likely to want our gearing to take advantage of this.

We can afford to put higher gearing in the car because the torque down low allows us to still accelerate rapidly.

If we have a lower redline too (which typically they do), then the taller gearing also allows us to stay in one gear longer, which saves time because shifting takes time.

Integra Type R: We have a relatively peaky, small displacement, high output engine here. It's power peaks at 8,000 RPM. It's torque peaks at 7500RPM.

You can see right away that it would be good for us to keep the revs up, so we can keep it on boil.

So we throw in lower gearing. The lower gearing mulitplies our torque, and helps keep our revs where they need to be.

This allows us to extract maximum performance from less overall output.

The higher redline allows us to get more acceleration out of each gear, so we can spend more time in each gear because shifting costs time.

So why does does gearing matter in the real world, and why does it have such a large effect on overall setup?

Because if we can keep the engine in its effective powerband, then the rest of the power band is not as important.

Lower gearing is not necessarily better, nor is taller gearing.

If we have a low redline, and really low gearing, we are going to have to shift more frequently, as well as have a lower top speed. Even though the result may feel MUCH faster, that may not actually be the case. A good fast shift usually takes .3-.5 seconds.

Conversely: If we put really tall gearing on a car with a peaky powerband, it is going to be hard to get the revs up to where they need to be for maximum performance.

Example: If we gear a Type R to have to shift every 10MPH, we will accelerate like a bat out of hell to 10MPH, but then we have to shift, and then to 20, shift, etc.

What happens when we get to 50? We got there really fast, but now what?

Case in point: The thing Hondas are most criticized for is "no low end torque."

If the revs never fall below 6,000 while say on a racetrack, then what does the powerband below 6,000 matter?

It doesn't.

As long as you don't have to operate in a particular power band, it is inconsequential to the performance of the car.

That is a BIG caveat.

F1 cars are a good example. They make power in a narrow range up somewhere in the 15-18,000RPM range. Their gearing is setup to keep them there, so anything below that doesn't matter, because they aren't going to see it on a track.

Obviously, in the real world, you can't stay up there all the time, you HAVE to operate in the low end at some point in time, but if you keep both engines where they need to be you WILL get the same performance as long as the Power to Weight ratio is the same.

Most muscle car guys assume that the only way to go fast is torque.

Most Honda kids assume that a high redline and VTEC will make them fast.

Both can be correct.

On a track with turns, overall handling ability, suspension design and drivability will make a far larger difference in terms of overall performance.

Since Honda's are typically by design endowed with such sophisticated suspension design, they tend to do quite well for what they are.

Anyone who has campaigned an ITR could probably tell you that. The Acura TSX currently OWNS the Speed World Challenge. It is "handicapped" by an "inferior" FWD setup, yet it continues to dominate the likes of BMW etc, while being one of the least modified cars on the track.

How can that be? The setup is superior. A factory TSX isn't tuned for all out performance. It is tuned to be squishy and expensive.

That does NOT mean the capability isn't there though.

The NSX is another good example. Best time on the Nurburgring by the new 500HP Z06 was somewhere in the 7:43 range. The best time by an Acura NSX Type R with barely half the horsepower? 7:56.

Now clearly, the Vette was faster, but over the course of the entire track, the Vette was about 3% faster than the NSX. With 74% more HP.

When you consider the power to weight ratio of the 2 cars, that is a pretty ringing endorsement for the NSX-R, especially since its fundamental design was more than 10 years old at the point that it set its time (2002 I think).

It is not a accusation of the Vette being inferior, but clearly there is more to it than just raw HP...

Overall peformance is all about more variable than one can fathom in their mind at any given time.

OEM companies pour BILLIONS of dollars a year into maximizing the overall performance of their cars, and trying to blur the compromise between accelerative performance, and environmental performance.

If you want to bias your performance more towards one end or the other, you surely can. The OEMs have to try to please everybody all of the time and you don't.

But changing one simple thing is typically going to make other areas suffer. Unless you are very careful, you may not even beat the performance the car produced when stock.

That is why bench racing doesn't make any sense. You can't quantify the variable on a bench. They only come out on the real track.

[borisdookie7]

ooo soo the integra will most likely win

[mayberry]

They are both DC2, but i dont know about the rest of the numbers. a carfax would definitly say "Type R" though

JH4DC231 is what sets the R apart from the crowd.

[owequitit]

ooo soo the integra will most likely win

It depends.

[borisdookie7]

ooo ok