HP or Torque?

[jcp123]

So, which do you go for or "believe in"? Torque or HP?

I'll start off by saying, I'm a torque guy myself

[clutch-monkey]

i like a compromise, but torque makes for easier driving doesn't it?

[jcp123]

The two are pretty complicatedly intertwined, so it's hard to separate the two, but good low end torque is what gets you from light to light.

[clutch-monkey]

well, torque then. even tho i'm buying an integra type R soonish

[d-quik]

its like honda s2000 vs acura rl

i dont think the average driver can drive around casually while shifting @ 7000+rpm.

torque please

[Sweeney921]

a combination of the two is obviously the best setup, but of course it's very hard to have gobs of both. I figure that if I'm looking for power right on the spot, I'll be driving a manual. It isn't hard to bring that tach needle around, and when you have lots of horsepower, your acceleration is gonna go through the roof, i.e. formula 1 racers.

horsepower for me

[jcp123]

Oh, and keep in mind that HP itself is just a function of torque

HP = (Torque x RPM)/5252

[tmnt_ppn]

i'll go for torque. i'm using a car for regular activity, i dont need so much power because i'm not a racer...

[fpv_gtho]

if i had to pick one, it'd be torque. makes carrying alot of weight around alot easier and city driving as well

[Coventrysucks]

What has Arnie got to do with the age old debate of torque vs power?

Anyway, torque has its advantages, which is why diesel power is so popular in Europe - huge wadges of oomph away from the lights, and some handy shove for overtaking the proles. For most cars torque would be more useful.

You do need some power to back it up with though, so you can keep going - but that only matters with performance cars - not round town.

Most people wouldn't care about power if they actually knew what it represented, but that is the figure made popular by the press, and that is what people are impressed by, so it will probably remain the more "impressive" stat.

Would the bugatti Veyron have gotten half as much press as it did with "1001bhp" if it had been reported as having "922lb ft"?

[fpv_gtho]

well Coventry, your 99% right there but the last couple of months theres been a new model thats copped heaps of attention from its torque, not power. Some guys have been making a big fuss cause some new FPV model has a higher torque output than the Gallardo and a couple of other "supercars", when its only really a family sedan

[PerfAdv]

durability wise, torque breaks parts and causes more wear and tear. The nature of a high torque engine is instantaneous oomph, which puts more strain on parts as compared to a less torquey motor which builds power with revs. A gradual buildup of forces make less torquey motors make all connected components last longer.

This is why less torquey cars last for ever and ever.

[Coventrysucks]

This is why less torquey cars last for ever and ever.

I have never really hear diesel powerplants criticised for their lack of longevity, but then these days cars are only built to last 10 years.

[fpv_gtho]

well nothings indestructable of course, ive pulled apart a 4.2L diesel with a chipped piston and 3 other cracked pistons

[PerfAdv]

I have never really hear diesel powerplants criticised for their lack of longevity, but then these days cars are only built to last 10 years.

True, diesel engines generally outlast gasoline engines. If you compare gas to gas and diesel to diesel, the less torquey engines tend to last longer. Less powerful overall would be true as well, however, there is a destructive quality that torquey motors posses and that's what I'm pointing out.