Nissan Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
after doing many searches in various forums and threads i found nothing on this...so can anyone please tell me how much horsepower a stock 1998 sr20de puts to the wheels?? thanks
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
wow, thats more than what the regular sentra has as base hp, hmm, the civic si has 160base and i hear it puts 130 to the ground but our se-r's have more torque so i think we can either beat them or keep up with them?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
yeah, i have a friend at work who drives an si with an exhaust, and i plan on racing him with an se-r but i suck bad at it, so i'll let my other friend who also works there race the car for me (he's a seasoned mustang racer:rolleyes: ).............so it will come pretty close i assume
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Stock for stock... no. Owning both cars I can tell you flat out that the Si if launched correctly (big if because it's not easy) should be able to beat the SE-R every time. Don't get me wrong, I like the SE-R a lot more than I do the Si but the Si is the faster car stock for stock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
hey yosho not true..... cause with an older se-r with the better stock cams itll be the si....now with the newer version of the sr20de i dont know the outcome but si dont have much at all inless he has v-tech controller then hell get beat stock but htat car has way low torque....if im not please let me know..ill stand corrected
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
when i was NA, i ate SI's for breakfast, GSR's for lunch, and SH's for dinner...
 

·
Go Drift Alliance!
Joined
·
646 Posts
Yosho said:
Stock for stock... no. Owning both cars I can tell you flat out that the Si if launched correctly (big if because it's not easy) should be able to beat the SE-R every time. Don't get me wrong, I like the SE-R a lot more than I do the Si but the Si is the faster car stock for stock.
I'll have to go with Yosho, since he OWNS both. lol ;) I've beaten SI's stock for stock, but not at the track. That's what really counts. :D
 

·
neutral handling is cool
Joined
·
180 Posts
I beat Si's on a regular basis as well (but with i/h/e/flywheel). Neon's, escorts, cavaliers/sunfires, and Foci with the same stuff all eat my dust too. The closest anyone has come was a GSR with an i/e/wing...maybe the driver's don't know what they are doing, and i know that some have been automatics, but it's pretty regular that none of these cars touch me...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
well fromt he b13 seriers se-r to my under standing thye suppose to be able to beat si's(track or not)...it all comes down to the driver though.so maybe ya need to learn j/k/a hehe:0P anyhow...si's over rated in my opinion....even other honda owners think so to...its not a fast car at all...now gsr lil different model we talking here:0P... anyhow...lol peace:0P
 

·
All over your face!
Joined
·
2,384 Posts
The only way to get any happiness out of a B16 is to swap it into an EG civic CX model weighing in at 2094lbs. Then you got power to weight ratio on your side. Otherwise, if its still in stock trim in the Si, that car is a fucking tank! Put a fork in it.. its cooked!
 

·
neutral handling is cool
Joined
·
180 Posts
for all that b16's are rated(like165hp?) they only put down 140-144 at the wheels and like less than 110 ft-lbs of torque. My torque curve never goes below 100 ft-lbs(128 peak) and I have 142 hp at the wheels, so even spreadsheet racing I still whoop it. They don't even hum til vtec hits at 5500, I hit max torque at 4600 and max hp at 6600 and by then it's too late.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Thanks Mr SEntra.


Like I said, I'm not happy that the Si can beat our SE-Rs. But it does.

The Si is tricky to launch correctly... which is why I think a lot of SE-R owners can beat them. If the Si owner knows how to launch it properly though, the Si is faster. I've done a lot of head to head testing on this (both driving my high port and low port SE-Rs and driving the Si).

I own a '96 200SX SE-R
a '93 Mexican Classic SE-R (Called a Nissan 2000 GSR)
and the '00 Civic Si.

The MDM SE-R is a closer match for the Si, but the Si still beats it.

Just sharing my experience owning all 3 cars...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Arguing on the Internet is pointless, but I am feeling like it so here we go. For all you guys saying the sr20 is going to win because of torque you are wrong. Torque is simple a mathematical equation that emphasis low rpm power. If we shift at redline HP is what matters. By shifting at redline we seldom fall below 5000rpm and after that it is all HP not torque (actually 5250 is the crossover point IIRC). The SI does have a narrower usable HP range (even above 5250) and the sr20 is easier to drive properly. Gearing plays a role in this, as does weight. Stock for stock a SI should beat a B14 but it should be close. Classics will beat an SI because of being lighter and having better high rpm HP numbers (more usable HP up high). The B14 does not have to be a pig in weight (my SE has weighed 2485 with just the seats removed). The problem with the 95+ sr20 is that it runs out of power to early due to its less aggressive cam profile.
 

·
bitter old man
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
98sr20ve, I think you a fundamental mis-understanding of torque and horsepower. That's not a slam; most people don't get the relationship.

Torque is power, horsepower is work. Horsepower is derived from torque, not the other way around. HP = Torque * rpm ÷ 5252. Looking at a dyno curve shows torque falling at high rpm but since the engine is spinning faster, horsepower climbs until the limits of engine breathing are reached.

Look at it this way. For a given gear, horsepower determines how fast you can go, torque determines how quickly you can attain that speed. Civic Sis are fast, but it takes them quite a bit of time to get to that speed. SE-Rs aren't as fast but they are quicker. BTW, quick != fast, that is fast is speed and quick is acceleration. Civics are fast, SE-Rs are quick. Gearing, weight and aerodynamics can compensate to a certain degree the limitations of torque or horsepower.

For the 1/4-mile track, give me an SE-R. For a road course, give me the Honda.
 

·
neutral handling is cool
Joined
·
180 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong...what you want for speed is torque output to the wheels...torque output to the wheels is torque(at a certain rpm)x gear ratio x final drive. What you want is the maximum amount of torque to the wheels at all times, and if you can, keep it increasing to gain speed(slope of curve is positive). I think this is how you find shift points for racing...so my question now: is a powerband defined completely by torque and gearing? And is it reasonable to say that torque is power and horsepower is the rate at which it is being transferred to the wheels?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
bahearn said:
98sr20ve, I think you a fundamental mis-understanding of torque and horsepower. That's not a slam; most people don't get the relationship.

Torque is power, horsepower is work. Horsepower is derived from torque, not the other way around. HP = Torque * rpm ÷ 5252. Looking at a dyno curve shows torque falling at high rpm but since the engine is spinning faster, horsepower climbs until the limits of engine breathing are reached.

Trust me I don't have a "fundamental misunderstanding". I was simple making the conversation easy to understand for people. HP is the first thing measured on the Dyno not torque. You can get HP off of a dyno without even hooking up the engine rpm sensor. To get torque you need to have the RPM sensor connected (another useless point to not argue). Torque and HP are not separable they are interrelated BUT that is way beyond what I was trying to say. (all of the above means nothing in the end for this discussion). What I was saying is that HP is what matters on the dyno curve on any car that is stays above 5250rpm while shifted at redline (ie: most 4 cylinder engines). Torque is what matters under that point. BTW your definition of quick and fast. :rolleyes:. All I care about is power. HP is NOT related to engine speed. Torque is. Big deal. Just try and beat me with torque on a NA 2.0 liter engine in any setting. It won’t happen. With the higher revving engines you get to use the power multiplication of the lower gears longer. That’s why revs are good for any engine that is still making power up high. The SI has a very narrow band of any real power that is its disadvantage. Above 5250 the SR20 still has a nice broad band of power. No one looks at there torque curve to figure out shift points everyone who races looks at the HP curve to figure out when to shift.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
gottabfast said:
Correct me if I am wrong...what you want for speed is torque output to the wheels...torque output to the wheels is torque(at a certain rpm)x gear ratio x final drive. What you want is the maximum amount of torque to the wheels at all times, and if you can, keep it increasing to gain speed(slope of curve is positive). I think this is how you find shift points for racing...so my question now: is a powerband defined completely by torque and gearing? And is it reasonable to say that torque is power and horsepower is the rate at which it is being transferred to the wheels?
To compare the actual power of two different cars you can use your formula and then plot that onto a curve and then devide by the weight of the car. To decide where to shift all you need is the HP# in 100 or less rpm points and the gear ratio in every gear. Multiple HP by the gear ratio and plot that on a graph. Do this for every gear and only shift when the rpm increase does not net you any increased power to the wheel (or you run out of RPM's)
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top