S4 S5
01-13-2004, 10:32 PM
#22
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by FCmaniac' date='Jan 13 2004, 04:00 PM
S4 NA = 146 bhp
S4 T2 = 182 bhp
S5 NA = 160 bhp
S5 T2 = 200 bhp
Those are the stock ratings from Mazda. Higher compression, lighter rotors and a different intake manifold design along with a different auxillary 5/6 port actuation are the main reasons for the NA power increase. The T2's I believe had a different compression ratio too and a bit more boost for the power increase.
Like Phins said, some electrical changes in engine from S4 to S5 were from mechanical to electric oil metering pump (this is what lubricates the inside of our engines), different throttle position sensor (I think dual position instead of the single plunger TPS from S4) and mass air flow sensor went from the flapper door type to whatever the S5 is... I cant remember anything else.
S4 T2 = 182 bhp
S5 NA = 160 bhp
S5 T2 = 200 bhp
Those are the stock ratings from Mazda. Higher compression, lighter rotors and a different intake manifold design along with a different auxillary 5/6 port actuation are the main reasons for the NA power increase. The T2's I believe had a different compression ratio too and a bit more boost for the power increase.
Like Phins said, some electrical changes in engine from S4 to S5 were from mechanical to electric oil metering pump (this is what lubricates the inside of our engines), different throttle position sensor (I think dual position instead of the single plunger TPS from S4) and mass air flow sensor went from the flapper door type to whatever the S5 is... I cant remember anything else.
My S4 certainly seems like more than 146 bhp....
01-14-2004, 06:56 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 1,801
I meant base horsepower. Most stock NA's now would put out 100-115 at the wheels. That's pretty weak by today's standards for a 2600-2700 lb car. I guess it feels like more. Maybe back in 1986, it was considered quick. Anyway, the faster you go, the slower you feel. It just takes time to get used to it.
01-14-2004, 07:32 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Boston Ma.
Posts: 1,420
Originally Posted by FCmaniac' date='Jan 14 2004, 04:56 AM
I meant base horsepower. Most stock NA's now would put out 100-115 at the wheels. That's pretty weak by today's standards for a 2600-2700 lb car. I guess it feels like more. Maybe back in 1986, it was considered quick. Anyway, the faster you go, the slower you feel. It just takes time to get used to it.
01-14-2004, 12:36 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: One hour north of chicago (Mundelein to be exact)
Posts: 811
bhp = brake horse power (the dyno puts a brake on the engine to see how strong it is)
hp = horse power just another way of saying it (i think)
SAE = is horse power (torque x rpm/some number like 5252 i believe)
kW = kilowatts (kilojoules/second)
different measurements (basically like american and metric)
both are force delivered over time in a way
hp = horse power just another way of saying it (i think)
SAE = is horse power (torque x rpm/some number like 5252 i believe)
kW = kilowatts (kilojoules/second)
different measurements (basically like american and metric)
both are force delivered over time in a way
01-14-2004, 05:00 PM
#27
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 22
Well after driving a what-I-thought-was-quick Celica,the FC absolutely blows the doors off it. Plus,my FC also has a custom exhaust system,but still uses the factory header and cats,so maybe that's why it feels a little peppier?
01-14-2004, 05:17 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 1,801
Don't get me wrong Mike, I'm not trashing our NA's at all. They do feel peppy and they're great cars. All I am saying is that the faster you go or the more used to it you get, you start to think its no big deal and you just want to go faster and faster.
