How much is Too much power

[amirza786]

To be fair (and both owners will admit to it) those cars were pushed much harder and with more power than you honestly need in a reliable daily driven car. It seems to me and the tuning survey bears this out... our cars just don't hold up to max power tuning with tons of bolt-ons. A base or canned tuned though transforms this car and keeps the reliability factor as well for the most part.

Totally agree with you!

Sponsored

 

[PowerPerLiter]

Let me word it like this....Even adding up to 9 more psi only equates to about 30-45 more horsepower. Torque is usually the dramatic increased number with these engines simply because they are baby stroker engines. The term is undersquare design....meaning the stroke distance of the piston is more than the circumference of the cylinder bore. This makes for a torquey-er engine compared to the inverse. The consequence to this is more cylinder wall side loading and increased piston speed....neither of which are inherently "good" for an engine long term. Add to that the size of our factory rods being so small. Add to that the displacement your asking to make 300hp to the tire. 91.5 cubic inches.

Even at factory output levels this is 136.66 hp per liter.

At 300hp (lets say just at the crank only) equates to 200 hp per liter.

Here is a link to the worlds highest "specific output" production vehicles: https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/g6482/10-cars-with-the-highest-specific-outputs/?slide=4

Hate to bust peoples balls but that expectation is simply absurd to expect a mass scale economy motor to hold with any conceivable notion of "reliable". Hell its amazing what has been done thus far but most new owner's scale of expectations is off of the charts.

Honda knew how easy it is to simply raise the torque limit in our ecu and uncork the additional 30-40 hp that all the tunes tend to get fairly easily. If they were confident in that level they surely would have left it.

edit: here is the list from 2012 the GTR "only" makes 139 hp per liter. https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...est-highest-specific-output-engines-features/

A bugatti is 148.7 hp per liter lmao

I give all this as food for thought....suffice to say there is no theoretical limit but just keep in mind the load on this small of an engine is pretty wild even at stock output. Just know when to stop is all.

 

[PowerPerLiter]

In reference to gtmans post. That survey is really a good indicator of the level that can be tolerated longer term/possibly as long as anyone would expect but most of those cars with just a flash tune would be around 225hp to the tire. Nothing even close to 300.

 

[gtman]

Honda knew how easy it is to simply raise the torque limit in our ecu and uncork the additional 30-40 hp that all the tunes tend to get fairly easily. If they were confident in that level they surely would have left it.

But, that's not to imply that that additional amount of power over the stock tune would result in failure, right? Honda is in the business of trying to create the most reliable product they can. Helps with sales and loyalty. On the other hand, the base and Stage 1 type of power increases generally have proven pretty reliable. Seems to me, based on the stats I'm compiling, the main culprit is the quest for ultimate power with bolt-ons and various levels of flex fuel ethanol blends and dialing up the boost and timing well beyond the canned tunes.

 

[PowerPerLiter]

But, that's not to imply that that additional amount of power over the stock tune would result in failure, right? Honda is in the business of trying to create the most reliable product they can. Helps with sales and loyalty. On the other hand, the base and Stage 1 type of power increases generally have proven pretty reliable. Seems to me, based on the stats I'm compiling, the main culprit is the quest for ultimate power with bolt-ons and various levels of flex fuel ethanol blends and dialing up the boost and timing well beyond the canned tunes.

Agreed.

 

[FC3L15B7]

I thought they did that with a stock motor? Oops, my mistake.

It's possible they may have had runs before, but I'm pretty sure 600hp in the stock 1.5L would have blown it sky high before they got to the track with it. I could be wrong..

 

[Civic17siYAY]

Am i the only one that likes the process of modding more than the end result?. I just like taking stuff apart and putting it back together.

 

[JT Si]

Am i the only one that likes the process of modding more than the end result?. I just like taking stuff apart and putting it back together.

It's fun until you start to have to take stuff apart and put it back together because shit breaks. At least I'm past that part..... For now.

I think 300wtq is a practical limit to adhere to, and whatever horsepower you can achieve while respecting that mark. This is about TSP stage 1 with some bolt ons like an intake, downpipe, and exhaust.

The guys that upgrade the turbo get more out of it because they are shifting the torque higher in the RPM range to get more horsepower out of the same (or sometimes even lower) level of torque.

I think going flex fuel with the OEM turbo and bumping up toward 320-350 WTQ is too much, but a lot of guys do it because it's the cheap and easy way to make more horsepower vs. upgrading the turbo.

I think once I have all the bolt ons that I want, I'll be paying for the TSP e-tune by Derek. That way I can get it customized to my setup and car, squeezing out more horsepower without catastrophically increasing the amount of torque.

 

[charleswrivers]

Agreed w/a lot of recent posts. The car is reasonably light and makes more than adequate power from the factory and is nicely woke up with reflashes. A lot of that is from the quicker spools and partial throttle boost dampening being tweaked as much as the extra torque from boost/timing itself. People have expectations and go number chasing without taking into account the pretty substantial downsizing of displacement and going to that undersquare design.

If I was going numbers chasing in a Honda for the money... I'd buy an old, cheap 8th gen who's valvetrain was good for 8000+ RPM… port injection... 33% more displacement and put a turbo kit on it. Spares everywhere in the junkyards for cheap if (when) things go south.

Everytime I see a thread starting where someone says things like, "I'm shooting for 400+ whp" it makes me cringe doing that to our little L-engine.

My feeling on ethanol being a good idea on a near-stock car have changed over the last year. I was seriously thinking of getting a kit to try out and letting it ride on my stock clutch... maybe tweaking the mid-range some using a ktuner 23# basemap w/the ethanol enable to make it last or just breaking down and swapping it out. With the ability to run such high timing and boost levels coupled with the engine design and our tiny stock turbos though... the amount of low and mid-range torque that can be made on a car with just a tuner, ethanol kit and a clutch to try and hold it just is too hard on the engine, IMO... especially if you free up what little exhaust restriction exists when you start going the aftermarket DP route.

I like my 10th gen... but it's not the platform... or even the Honda itself to go chasing numbers in w/o sinking enough money into it... you could have stepped up towards CTR money and gotten a different powertrain or jumped into a different platform altogether. Even that 5-flat 0-60 and 13-second 1/4 mile isn't competitive at it's price point if straight line is all that's cared about anyways.

I like my ~240 whp/280 ft-lb 2900 lb FWD car... but even with summer tires... unless I'm in 3rd gear and at highway speeds, more power would be just give greatly diminished returns. As great as AVSA is (and it's awesome) it's working constantly to pull power in 1st and 2nd to keep from spinning. For all the good it does... I'm still probably a 6-flat 0-60 and low/mid 14-second 1/4 mile car at best. Having a big slug of extra torque when coming out of a turn is nice and what I like a lot. Off the line... the car is still a dog and at higher speeds... it'd be out of it's element compared to a true buttoned down sports car. As a instrument that handles and brakes well and trying to maintain and regain momentum at sub-highway speeds is where the car really shines and is fun IMO. I don't think any more power/torque than what I already have would be useful... and would just result in a deeper timing retard every time AVSA stepped in.

For those that the journey is worth more than the destination... and love to tinker, tweak and are hunting big numbers... then go for it. For those that just want to drive and have their car not tap out on them... I'd stay pretty conservative. 300 ft-lbs... 200 per liter, to me... is a barrier I'd never cross w/o internals for longevity. I'd (only) need around 250 at the top of the RPM range to make 300 whp… making 325... 350... 400... whatever for a moment at 3000-4000 RPMs? It seems like a terrible idea on a stock motor. That's what stock V8's (albeit N/As) do across double the cylinders working with 3-4+ times the displacement. Even if I had it... what in the world would I do with that amount of torque under interstate speeds other than burn rubber on my FWD car?

 

[amirza786]

Agreed w/a lot of recent posts. The car is reasonably light and makes more than adequate power from the factory and is nicely woke up with reflashes. A lot of that is from the quicker spools and partial throttle boost dampening being tweaked as much as the extra torque from boost/timing itself. People have expectations and go number chasing without taking into account the pretty substantial downsizing of displacement and going to that undersquare design.

If I was going numbers chasing in a Honda for the money... I'd buy an old, cheap 8th gen who's valvetrain was good for 8000+ RPM… port injection... 33% more displacement and put a turbo kit on it. Spares everywhere in the junkyards for cheap if (when) things go south.

Everytime I see a thread starting where someone says things like, "I'm shooting for 400+ whp" it makes me cringe doing that to our little L-engine.

My feeling on ethanol being a good idea on a near-stock car have changed over the last year. I was seriously thinking of getting a kit to try out and letting it ride on my stock clutch... maybe tweaking the mid-range some using a ktuner 23# basemap w/the ethanol enable to make it last or just breaking down and swapping it out. With the ability to run such high timing and boost levels coupled with the engine design and our tiny stock turbos though... the amount of low and mid-range torque that can be made on a car with just a tuner, ethanol kit and a clutch to try and hold it just is too hard on the engine, IMO... especially if you free up what little exhaust restriction exists when you start going the aftermarket DP route.

I like my 10th gen... but it's not the platform... or even the Honda itself to go chasing numbers in w/o sinking enough money into it... you could have stepped up towards CTR money and gotten a different powertrain or jumped into a different platform altogether. Even that 5-flat 0-60 and 13-second 1/4 mile isn't competitive at it's price point if straight line is all that's cared about anyways.

I like my ~240 whp/280 ft-lb 2900 lb FWD car... but even with summer tires... unless I'm in 3rd gear and at highway speeds, more power would be just give greatly diminished returns. As great as AVSA is (and it's awesome) it's working constantly to pull power in 1st and 2nd to keep from spinning. For all the good it does... I'm still probably a 6-flat 0-60 and low/mid 14-second 1/4 mile car at best. Having a big slug of extra torque when coming out of a turn is nice and what I like a lot. Off the line... the car is still a dog and at higher speeds... it'd be out of it's element compared to a true buttoned down sports car. As a instrument that handles and brakes well and trying to maintain and regain momentum at sub-highway speeds is where the car really shines and is fun IMO. I don't think any more power/torque than what I already have would be useful... and would just result in a deeper timing retard every time AVSA stepped in.

For those that the journey is worth more than the destination... and love to tinker, tweak and are hunting big numbers... then go for it. For those that just want to drive and have their car not tap out on them... I'd stay pretty conservative. 300 ft-lbs... 200 per liter, to me... is a barrier I'd never cross w/o internals for longevity. I'd (only) need around 250 at the top of the RPM range to make 300 whp… making 325... 350... 400... whatever for a moment at 3000-4000 RPMs? It seems like a terrible idea on a stock motor. That's what stock V8's (albeit N/As) do across double the cylinders working with 3-4+ times the displacement. Even if I had it... what in the world would I do with that amount of torque under interstate speeds other than burn rubber on my FWD car?

You know, I'm kind of tired of this issue, it seems when trying to give advice, or just express an opinion (even if it's an informed one), people seem to lash out and put you in a "hater" box. So I'm just not going to comment on this anymore, at least after this post! Like you mentioned, if I was looking to run 400 WHP cheaply, I would probably pick up an 8th or even 9th gen with the bigger displacement, higher revving VTEC, which you could probably pick up a decent one with lower miles for around $10K (although I am seeing 2012's going for around $16K). If you sink in another $5K, you have a $15K reasonably high performance car that is probably more reliable, and you have access to tons of used parts. But here's the thing a lot of people just don't add into the equation...when you put that much power down on a light FWD car (even if you made it reliable), you have to bring it in way up into the RPM range or you will be eating thru tires like a Hellcat on steroids

 

[Hollywoo0220]

It's fun until you start to have to take stuff apart and put it back together because shit breaks. At least I'm past that part..... For now.

I think 300wtq is a practical limit to adhere to, and whatever horsepower you can achieve while respecting that mark. This is about TSP stage 1 with some bolt ons like an intake, downpipe, and exhaust.

The guys that upgrade the turbo get more out of it because they are shifting the torque higher in the RPM range to get more horsepower out of the same (or sometimes even lower) level of torque.

I think going flex fuel with the OEM turbo and bumping up toward 320-350 WTQ is too much, but a lot of guys do it because it's the cheap and easy way to make more horsepower vs. upgrading the turbo.

I think once I have all the bolt ons that I want, I'll be paying for the TSP e-tune by Derek. That way I can get it customized to my setup and car, squeezing out more horsepower without catastrophically increasing the amount of torque.

Still the best approach is a more efficient turbo and decreasing the boost. Aiming for utmost efficiency and tapering the delivery. Without the need for higher than pump Octane.

 

[bakingpancake]

You know, I'm kind of tired of this issue, it seems when trying to give advice, or just express an opinion (even if it's an informed one), people seem to lash out and put you in a "hater" box. So I'm just not going to comment on this anymore, at least after this post! Like you mentioned, if I was looking to run 400 WHP cheaply, I would probably pick up an 8th or even 9th gen with the bigger displacement, higher revving VTEC, which you could probably pick up a decent one with lower miles for around $10K (although I am seeing 2012's going for around $16K). If you sink in another $5K, you have a $15K reasonably high performance car that is probably more reliable, and you have access to tons of used parts. But here's the thing a lot of people just don't add into the equation...when you put that much power down on a light FWD car (even if you made it reliable), you have to bring it in way up into the RPM range or you will be eating thru tires like a Hellcat on steroids

I would love to pick up an 8th gen or an s2000 in the future. This is my first car so I never experienced a true Honda yet ):

 

[amirza786]

I would love to pick up an 8th gen or an s2000 in the future. This is my first car so I never experienced a true Honda yet ):

Neither have I! The 10th Gen Si was the only Honda I ever owned. I did drive a 9th Gen Accord Sport V6....and I would love to have one of those. I tried to find one in a 6 speed MT, but could not find one anywhere at the time (2018)

 

[gtman]

Guys, don't send me any hate mail for this...

So, yeah, it's kind of cool to see folks trying to set 1/4 mile records and tune the 1.5T for ridiculous amounts of power. It is. But I think that's best left to the pros. I mean, let's face it. We drive Honda Civics for God's sake. There's a lot more to it than just throwing some bolt-ons on and cranking up the timing and boost.

Fact is the 1.5T has damn good power for a Civic right out out the box. Add something like a TSP Stage 1 that has proven safe and you have an economy car getting 35+ mpg that can really scoot.

Matter of fact, unless your only goal is to set records, why would you even need more power? If you want to go well beyond a Stage 1 tune, it's probably a smarter move to trade the Civic in for something else. Sure you could buy a bigger turbo and beef up the internals and get a better clutch and upgrade your brakes and your tires etc etc etc ...

But for the same money you're sinking into a Civic you can get a more potent vehicle right out of the box.

Just my thoughts anyway.

 

[Civic17siYAY]

Guys, don't send me any hate mail for this...

So, yeah, it's kind of cool to see folks trying to set 1/4 mile records and tune the 1.5T for ridiculous amounts of power. It is. But I think that's best left to the pros. I mean, let's face it. We drive Honda Civics for God's sake. There's a lot more to it than just throwing some bolt-ons on and cranking up the timing and boost.

Fact is the 1.5T has damn good power for a Civic right out out the box. Add something like a TSP Stage 1 that has proven safe and you have an economy car getting 35+ mpg that can really scoot.

Matter of fact, unless your only goal is to set records, why would you even need more power? If you want to go well beyond a Stage 1 tune, it's probably a smarter move to trade the Civic in for something else. Sure you could buy a bigger turbo and beef up the internals and get a better clutch and upgrade your brakes and your tires etc etc etc ...

But for the same money you're sinking into a Civic you can get a more potent vehicle right out of the box.

Just my thoughts anyway.

Some people just like working on cars for the hell of it. Personally, i wouldn't chase 400hp but i say go for it OP. As long as you're having fun doing it, that's all that matters. Its going to cost a lot and be a headache at times but who cares. If you enjoy doing it then do it And who gives a shit how much it costs. I believe there are people on this forum that paid 20k over msrp for a Honda and no one gives them shit about how much money they wasted.


This isnt targeted at you gtman, but i hate the "you could have got x car for the money you sank in y car". For the money he sinks into the more potent car making it his own he could have just got an even better car and so on and so forth. If everyone followed that rule, everyone would be driving stock middle of the road cars.

Sponsored