I think we should have a sort of sub-forum where we can banish threads like this. That way, we can keep all the stupid threads in one place whenever we feel like laughing at them, and focus on just having good, helpful discussions in the real forums.

 

Something tells me he probably won't be around; it seems like he's a pretty infrequent poster, posting only 2x in 2009 and then, mysteriously, popping up with this gem. Either way, hopefully the math in here, simple as it is, helped him and maybe someone else that didn't know.

 

Yeah, I think we chased him back to the bridge he was living under. Oh well, until the next trolling...

Here's what I think what he would have posted:

Fake DommoPA: But guys, don't you see that there is no way peak HP can't be derived from peak torque? It just doesn't make any sense...I've got a Bachelor's degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering from the Magical Numbers of Pennsylvania Online School of Science and Wizardry that tells me Honda is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Ignore their entire history and all the brilliant engineers they have working for them, I just made them all look like drooling retards with my expertise. Just look at this equation:

(106*4800) / 5252)+(VTEC-400 lbs.)*(pedal pressure/Average American foot size-Japanese foot size)^10 hot dogs = 96.877

BRB, contacting my lawyer right this minute.

 

 

I agree.

 

The formula DommoPA is using is:

HP = (2pi)(RPM)(Torque)/33000

(33000 is James Watt's observation of how much work a horse could do in 1 minute - pull 330 pounds 100 feet in one minute)

so,

HP = (6.28)(4800)(106)/33000 = 96.8

However, this just predicts the horsepower AT THAT RPM.

If you look at a torque and horsepower curve for this engine
such as at:

The Temple of VTEC - Honda and Acura Enthusiasts Online Forums > Hey look, it's a power/torque curve for the CR-Z! > > Re: CR-Z vs 1.5L Fit Torque Curve

You will see that the horsepower curve at 4800 RPM is in good
agreement with the formula. You will also see that since the rpms
can still increase faster than the torque rolls off, the max developed
horsepower occurs at ~6600 rpms, which is in good agreement with Honda's
published specs.

No deception that I can see.

 

As for your MPG in the city, first you have an automatic mistake number one, second it sounds like you don't know how to drive the car properly mistake number two. If you want the baller MPG people get without hyper techniques for driving, then first go get a manual transmission fit, get rid of the factory crap tires, and learn to drive a stick PROPERLY. When I say that I am assuming you don't know how to drive a stick properly, which is an assumption, however 90% of those out there don't know how to drive their sticks properly anyway so it's probably a safe assumption.

Or you could just trade your fit in on a Prius and stop complaining about problems with the fit that don't exist. Oh and even with the massive weight of my stereo system in my fit I still manage 33-35MPG city in Florida, so yeah it's not the car, it's you.

 

The CRZ has a electric motor assist IMA. So do compare their torque numbers to the Fit. Honda CR-Z - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Y'all posting in a troll thread.

 

Damn you just had to find this gem didn't you?

 

We got another good one in progress here:
https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/fit-...-fit-jazz.html

This one I'm not just being a snarky dick about though. Well.. sort of.

 

Your car has laser iridiums from the factory. And I don't know anyone with less than 28 or 29 city. I average 36 Hwy & 28-30 city in L.A. traffic. Your on a witch hunt, if you don't like the car get rid of it.

 

Nowhere near the mileage? Terribly inefficient? Way wrong. The auto Fit gets better highway mileage, and only a couple less in town. Not inefficient, and just as good overall mpg.

 

As it's already been discussed in this thread, an auto IS more inefficient than a manual when talking about power to the ground. The only reason it gets better highway mileage is it spins at a lower rpm in top gear.

Here are some dyno numbers for the GE8 of AT vs MT

The AT puts down about 80hp / 75lbs torque to the ground (and does 0-60 in some odd 10 seconds)
The MT puts down about 96hp / 92lbs torque to the ground (and does 0-60 in some odd 8.3ish seconds)

Going by if its true that the L15A7 pulls around 117hp on an engine dyno, thats about 18% loss for the MT, and 32%!! loss for the AT

Torque converters rob power, plain and simple.

 

im sueing... everyone... for breathing my air... and.. uh.. honda.. for being reliable... and.. getting better than epa milage. i mean. they are liars. wtfs.

i hate humanity. people are so dumb its not even funny.

 

inefficient in a mathematical engineering sense, or in the sense that matters to most people....mpg? I take mpg over engineering math...which nobody but engineers understand or care about, any day. It is the results that matter. These aren't race cars, and were never intended to be one, so minutia is, to most of us, irrelavent.

 

All I care about is I can control the car to its full potential and hyper drive it to around 45mpg city

 

True...half the world is below average in intellegence.

 

45 city? Pretty good. Best I can do in town is about 40. Much better on the highway. And much better than I got with my M/T '09 fit.