PDA

View Full Version : Hp vs. Torque



kko
09-17-2004, 07:04 PM
Horsepower versus torque,
Wich one is Better to have on a race track and drag strip , what would be better to have more of in what situation, How much is too much?
I know that this is kind of broad but give it a shot.

ex comming out of a turn, of the line, what having one but little of the other would mean.

KnifeEdge_2K1
09-17-2004, 07:41 PM
torque is a measure of force, horse power is ... a measure of power
torque is the force which turns the wheel, force usually only has one direction but since this is a wheel its more of a "twisting" force (forgive my bad vocab)

power is a measure of how quickly work can be done, and work is displacement times force, but the displacement vector must be the same as the force ... wow starwars flashback ...

neways power is usually only relevent in the top end of the rev range, remember how i said work = displacement * force
well in an engine the displacement is always the same (the stroke), and unless you have some sort of variable crankshaft i dont know how this can be changed

the force is the torque so the engine is actually doing less work at the high end of the rev range then at the lower end (the torque curve drops off i believe because the air cant get into the cylinders as quick since the valves are open for shorter amount of time)

neways power is a measure of how quickly work is done, although the engine is doing less work per stroke at 7000rpm then say 3500rpm its moving twice as fast

the equation for horsepower is torque*rpm/5252
this is why the horsepower is always = to torque (in lb-ft) at 5252rpm
this is also why power is always less then torque (in lb-ft) at any rev below 5252 and always more then torque at above 5252

Sweeney921
09-17-2004, 07:42 PM
one wont work without the other

KnifeEdge_2K1
09-17-2004, 07:43 PM
p.s i hvnt done physics in a long time so maybe one of you can correct me on my mistakes

kko
09-17-2004, 08:51 PM
great now can any one answer my question?
sry if that sounded rude

motorhead
09-17-2004, 10:17 PM
basically torque is the pulling power of the vehicle. How much weight the engine of the vehicle can pull in any specific gear. Horsepower is actually the outright amount of force the car can exert on opposite forces relative to weight. You are right in saying each will not work without the other.

Hell_Unleashed
09-18-2004, 01:14 AM
torque is a measure of force, horse power is ... a measure of power
torque is the force which turns the wheel, force usually only has one direction but since this is a wheel its more of a "twisting" force (forgive my bad vocab)

power is a measure of how quickly work can be done, and work is displacement times force, but the displacement vector must be the same as the force ... wow starwars flashback ...

neways power is usually only relevent in the top end of the rev range, remember how i said work = displacement * force
well in an engine the displacement is always the same (the stroke), and unless you have some sort of variable crankshaft i dont know how this can be changed

the force is the torque so the engine is actually doing less work at the high end of the rev range then at the lower end (the torque curve drops off i believe because the air cant get into the cylinders as quick since the valves are open for shorter amount of time)

neways power is a measure of how quickly work is done, although the engine is doing less work per stroke at 7000rpm then say 3500rpm its moving twice as fast

the equation for horsepower is torque*rpm/5252
this is why the horsepower is always = to torque (in lb-ft) at 5252rpm
this is also why power is always less then torque (in lb-ft) at any rev below 5252 and always more then torque at above 5252
Wow... I worship you

Benz_Boy_1
09-18-2004, 03:03 AM
me too :o

Ferrari Tifosi
09-18-2004, 03:23 AM
Knife did answer you question KKO, not directly but enough so you could put two and two together.

Anyways for coming out of turn torque is valuable because you'll be low in the rev range. Same with off the line on a drag run, need torque to mobilize things. In a F1 look at it, tracks like Monaco (tight, twisty track with many slow sections) a more torquey engine is more beneficial that a high hp engine, this could be seen with Renault this year. On the opposite side, a track like Monza requires a higher hp engine setup because of the long straights and fast sections. In the end both are great to have and with a proper design of an engine a great power and torque curve can be attained, to give you the best of both worlds.

kko
09-18-2004, 09:54 AM
I under stood What Knife said, but i just wanted someone to simplify it, (to tired to think)
thanks too both of you.

Renesis
09-18-2004, 10:01 AM
hmmm....

hp= (torque x rpm)/5252

Alastor
09-18-2004, 11:58 AM
I under stood What Knife said, but i just wanted someone to simplify it, (to tired to think)
thanks too both of you.

It is hard to explain the difference between power (horsepower or watts) and torque without using mathematics. But as KnifeEdge_2K1 explained using physics basically work and power are related. Work has to with “how much”, and power refers to “how quickly”.

In terms of the internal combustion engine the amount of work and power that the engine produces changes with engine speed (RPM). So at some RPM the engine will be able to do more work than at any other RPM, this corresponds to the peak torque. Also at some RPM the engine will produce the most power (work per unit time), and this is referred to the peak power.

In terms of automobile performance the peaks are less important than actual profiles of the power or torque curves. This is because the automobile engine has to operate over a variety of engine speeds. The more area under either curve will provide better overall performance.

Although it is interesting to note for a vehicle with a fixed gear transmission maximum acceleration occurs at the peak torque. However, maximum acceleration for any given speed will occur at peak power.

So what does it all mean? Well a fast car should have both lots of power and torque. In other words it should be able to perform a lot work and it should be able to work quickly. Also, the power and torque should be available across the largest engine speed possible.

fpv_gtho
09-22-2004, 12:55 AM
Power, be it HP or kW is a measure of energy transfer pretty much. Energy is rated in joules, and 1 joule of energy transfered in 1 second is 1 watt.

Torque is the twisting force of the engine, it moves the weight of the car basically. A heavier car will need more torque than a lighter car to move.

Alastor
09-22-2004, 05:08 AM
Power, be it HP or kW is a measure of energy transfer pretty much. Energy is rated in joules, and 1 joule of energy transfered in 1 second is 1 watt.

Torque is the twisting force of the engine, it moves the weight of the car basically. A heavier car will need more torque than a lighter car to move.


Actually if you look at the units torque would be a measure of "energy transfer". Torque has the same units of work (force * distance), and work can be measured in joules (J). As you stated above energy is also measured in joules. The J/s is an equivalent unit of power, so power is a measure of "energy per unit time".

fpv_gtho
09-23-2004, 02:37 AM
perhaps "energy conversion" wouldve been a better way to put it...the rate the chemical energy in the fuel is converted to kinetic energy on the crankshaft

paul
09-23-2004, 01:48 PM
could you explain what factors effect torque/hp in an internal c engine / am i right in saying that the larger the cylinders and the longer the stroke the more torque your going to get but short quick strokes in a smaller cylinder engine would give you more hp? im i on the right track?

Matra et Alpine
09-23-2004, 05:10 PM
could you explain what factors effect torque/hp in an internal c engine / am i right in saying that the larger the cylinders and the longer the stroke the more torque your going to get but short quick strokes in a smaller cylinder engine would give you more hp? im i on the right track?
nearly, a stroker longer than the bore will give more torque than power and lower revs.
a stroke shorter than bore will give less torque, more power and higher revs.

KnifeEdge_2K1
09-23-2004, 07:22 PM
nearly, a stroker longer than the bore will give more torque than power and lower revs.
a stroke shorter than bore will give less torque, more power and higher revs.

just to continue onto matra's idea

the reasoning behind this is becuase with a short stroke you have higher max rpm since the pistons will be moving slower then a long stroke engine of equal displacement at the same rpm. since hp = torque * rpm/5252 the higher the rpm the higher the horsepower

explaining why a long stroke engine gives more torque at a low rpm is a bit more difficult, work = force times distance, to simplify it will be the force of the combustion cycle * the stroke, but thats work and not torque, but since the piston is only pushing down but its the con rods and the crankshaft thats creating torque this would be how i can word it in the simplest terms, its not an accurate representation or model of what's actually going on but it is good enuff

PerfAdv
09-23-2004, 11:46 PM
A high torque engine is essential in accelerating a heavy load, whether it be a large SUV or tractor-trailer or bus. A large bus needs more torque than horsepower to get going. You cannot use a low torque/high Hp engine to move heavy vehicles. Ever raced a 4X4 in low range, they accelrate like crazy to about 40 mph then they run out of breath. That's all torque low Hp.

So torque is useful in launching a vehicle. Hp comes into play in propeling it faster, once the torque has done its job. Of course the lighter the vehicle the less torque is needed initially but a healthy torque curve is essential in tackling a variety of corners. Imagine coming upto a hairpin slamming on the brakes and having to accelerate out, you need torque. In a corner in which speed can be carried through torque is not essential and Hp can pull you through.

Too much torque? On a curvy mountain road or track, even with moderate acceleration if you're experiencing wheelspin. If you spend all the time limiting the wheelspin, you have too much torque. Only a car modded for the 1/4 mile would exhibit this on the road. Too much power for anything but straight-line acceleration.

Conversely having to rev to 5,000 RPM to get a decent launch means too little torque.

Verdict: A truck/work vehicle cannot do without torque a sportscar can.

fpv_gtho
09-24-2004, 02:09 AM
explaining why a long stroke engine gives more torque at a low rpm is a bit more difficult, work = force times distance, to simplify it will be the force of the combustion cycle * the stroke, but thats work and not torque, but since the piston is only pushing down but its the con rods and the crankshaft thats creating torque this would be how i can word it in the simplest terms, its not an accurate representation or model of what's actually going on but it is good enuff


i explain it to people quite simply....the longer the stroke, the bigger the radius on the crankshaft, so the more leverage the piston has over its movement

Matra et Alpine
09-24-2004, 02:23 AM
i explain it to people quite simply....the longer the stroke, the bigger the radius on the crankshaft, so the more leverage the piston has over its movement
I was about to reach for a drawing package to equal some of Egg-Nogs explanations, but those words are even better :) Simple, concise, 100% accurate. I love UCP :)
Good post fpv

fpv_gtho
09-24-2004, 02:32 AM
And while your at it, youve just proven life goes on without the rep system :p

But thanks anyway, you could even go on from that to explain piston velocity to explain why shorter stroke engines rev higher, easier

Matra et Alpine
09-24-2004, 03:05 AM
And while your at it, youve just proven life goes on without the rep system :p
hah. you know when I was reading your reply my FIRST desire was to give you rep :) and I think this is the kind of case it WAS good for and originally meant for -- and may be some day - - - - .
Not sure I like the idea that every second post might become a "good post fpv' type of reply :(

But thanks anyway, you could even go on from that to explain piston velocity to explain why shorter stroke engines rev higher, easier
I think you hust have given 80% of it :)

but for those listening ...
shorter stroke means that for a given partial revolution of the crank that the piston covers less distance. if it covers less ditance in the same time then it is clearlly travelling slower than a piston on a crank with a long stroke. As piston speed ( well momentum ) is the limiting factor in an engine's ability to rev then clearly the shorter stroke engine has the piston travelling slower for the same rotational speed of the crank (engine rpm).

So with piston speed being the limit, then a short stroker is doing MORE RPM than a long stroker for the same piston speed/momentum. So short strokers can rev higher ( to where the valves become the limiting factor :) )

fpv_gtho
09-24-2004, 03:13 AM
You could infer thats why F1 engines look so low..combination of dry sump lubrication as well as a very small stroke, they rev to 19000rpm afterall (and then of course theres some designs that have a vee angle of over 100 degrees)

Matra et Alpine
09-24-2004, 03:32 AM
You could infer thats why F1 engines look so low..combination of dry sump lubrication as well as a very small stroke, they rev to 19000rpm afterall (and then of course theres some designs that have a vee angle of over 100 degrees)
Can't find the reference but IIRC F1 engines are currently about 40-45mm STROKE. So to help visualise that .... make a thumbs-up sign and then BEND your thumbe, The length of the tip of your thumb is about the total movement of a piston in an F1 car. CRAZILY short.

The ITV-F1 tv show credits used to have an animatino of the Toyota F1 eninge in X-ray and it was amazing to get the tiny up-down movement in context with the size aof the bore and the engine and the car. It really is tiny.

Even with such a short stroke the piston speed is huge. At the change in direction of a piston, it and the crank and conrods are subjected to about 8000G of force !!!

fpv_gtho
09-24-2004, 04:30 AM
Its some crazy stuff to think about....You would think that they'd be getting pretty close to the limit where the strokes only just long enough where there IS a stroke, and any smaller, the way the crankshaft might have to be constructed would jeopodise its strength. I havent seen an F1 crank yet so im only speculating here of course....:p

paul
09-24-2004, 06:38 AM
ok cheers guys! i just love engines cheers for sharing your knowlage!

kko
09-24-2004, 11:16 AM
ok cheers guys! i just love engines cheers for sharing your knowlage!

ditto

paul
09-24-2004, 11:32 AM
Its some crazy stuff to think about....You would think that they'd be getting pretty close to the limit where the strokes only just long enough where there IS a stroke, and any smaller, the way the crankshaft might have to be constructed would jeopodise its strength. I havent seen an F1 crank yet so im only speculating here of course....:p


yes f1 cars are facinating things the other day i was doing the maths trying to find out how many times a f1 piston goes up and down in the cilynder in 1 second

in 1 secon the piston does 125 odd strokes at 1900 rpm

and is traveling over 700mph thats nearly the speed of sound!!!

was going to go on to work out the weight the piston would have had to carry at the end of each storke but did not know how much a piston weighed!

ps:im pretty sure this imformation is correct please correct me if i have done that maths wrong!

KnifeEdge_2K1
09-24-2004, 08:44 PM
torque ratings are the ammount of torque put down per stroke, hp is a measure of power which is ammount of work done in a specific unit of time

work is force * displacement

there really isnt a simpler way to say this

you really cant differentiate hp from torque since power is a function of torque(force) and time

KnifeEdge_2K1
09-24-2004, 08:49 PM
this is not scientifically correct but you can think of horsepower like this

when ur going really fast you need to put alot of force onto the pavement to accelerate or keep it at a constant speed because of air resistance, at 6000 rpm you may have low torque (but high horsepower) but since you're putting a little bit of torque each stroke, 6000 of those a minute is quite alot of force agaisnt the road, so you can think of it like net force

in 1 minute how much torque can u put down (hp is a function of work and time and work is force and displacement but for arguments sake remove that from the equation) thats what horsepower is about

but when coming out of a corner you need torque (unless u shift down) because ur engine is at such low revs you want to put down as much force onto the road per stroke since ur doing so little revs ... i hope this makes sense to the people who either havnt taken physics or dont understand it

its extremely simplified and if u told even a grade 9 physics teacher this he'd fail u but its just to make this easy to understand

jcp123
09-24-2004, 11:20 PM
torque is what you use on the street. it allows you to quickly get off the line and up to speed to the next signal. most cars that own on the street are torque monsters as opposed to HP demons.

on the road course, it's HP all the way, unless you hate downshifting out of corners. then you need the torque to quickly get you into the powerband.

drag racing treads a fine line. you want an engine that has the torque to get you out of the hole quickly, yet has the HP to carry you through the traps.

henk4
09-24-2004, 11:22 PM
torque is what you use on the street.

This is why driving a diesel powered car is so relaxing.

jcp123
09-25-2004, 12:05 AM
amen. boy it's been a while since i've been in a diesel. wish we still had that ol 300SD. that thing was great, a real tank + no slouch when the turbo spooled up.

it still annoys me to no end though how stupid the EPA is on Diesels here in the States.

henk4
09-25-2004, 12:13 AM
amen. boy it's been a while since i've been in a diesel. wish we still had that ol 300SD. that thing was great, a real tank + no slouch when the turbo spooled up.

it still annoys me to no end though how stupid the EPA is on Diesels here in the States.


If the 300SD was the last diesel you have been in, a whole new world has developed in the mean time, really turning the Merc into a slouch :)

jcp123
09-25-2004, 12:17 AM
If the 300SD was the last diesel you have been in, a whole new world has developed in the mean time, really turning the Merc into a slouch :)

Oh, i've seen it. The new direct injection, common rail turbo diesels are really impressive going by the numbers...just a little too new school for me. :rolleyes:

henk4
09-25-2004, 12:20 AM
Oh, i've seen it. The new direct injection, common rail turbo diesels are really impressive going by the numbers...just a little too new school for me. :rolleyes:

going back to school has hurt nobody :)

jcp123
09-25-2004, 12:25 AM
I'm even in school too. College rocks.

In fact I've been thinking about a motorcycle here just for the gas mileage alone. If anyone knows where I could get an ol Kawi GPz 550 in decent shape in Northern California...

henk4
09-25-2004, 12:30 AM
I'm even in school too. College rocks.

In fact I've been thinking about a motorcycle here just for the gas mileage alone. If anyone knows where I could get an ol Kawi GPz 550 in decent shape in Northern California...


EBay?

jcp123
09-25-2004, 12:32 AM
EBay?

I've tried, but the only one I've seen close by at all was one in Washington State, a good 12 hour drive. Too far. Oh well. C'est la vie.

henk4
09-25-2004, 12:40 AM
I've tried, but the only one I've seen close by at all was one in Washington State, a good 12 hour drive. Too far. Oh well. C'est la vie.


my knowledge of local bike suppliers in California is pretty limited I'm afraid.

megotmea7
09-25-2004, 06:24 AM
"Hp vs. Torque"
throw in gear ratios and you get a whole new world of solutions and problems ;)

kko
09-25-2004, 09:42 AM
This thread Worked better than i thought it would, Thanks guys

henk4
09-25-2004, 08:17 PM
"Hp vs. Torque"
throw in gear ratios and you get a whole new world of solutions and problems ;)


The problems and solutions are the same, they only appear at other levels. :rolleyes:

jcp123
09-25-2004, 11:44 PM
"Hp vs. Torque"
throw in gear ratios and you get a whole new world of solutions and problems ;)

gear ratios effectively multiply your torque...so chalk another one up for torque :D

Alastor
09-26-2004, 01:49 PM
gear ratios effectively multiply your torque...so chalk another one up for torque :D


Gears are used to multiply torque but nothing is "free". Using gears to increase torque results in a decrease in velocity and conversely an increase in velocity requires a reduction in torque. For example; a 2:1 gear ratio will double your torque but at half the speed. So even though the gears can increase the amount of work being done, the overall rate of work (work per unit time) remains the same (neglecting losses).

Mathematically:

Power = Work / Time

or

Time = Work / Power

Since power is constant we can see that any increase in work (aka Torque) results in an increase in time. Time is a specified interval and must be maintained in that interval to be related with power. The end result is that any increase in work results in a proportional increase in time, and the same power is maintained.

jcp123
09-26-2004, 04:24 PM
Gears are used to multiply torque but nothing is "free". Using gears to increase torque results in a decrease in velocity and conversely an increase in velocity requires a reduction in torque. For example; a 2:1 gear ratio will double your torque but at half the speed. So even though the gears can increase the amount of work being done, the overall rate of work (work per unit time) remains the same (neglecting losses).

Mathematically:

Power = Work / Time

or

Time = Work / Power

Since power is constant we can see that any increase in work (aka Torque) results in an increase in time. Time is a specified interval and must be maintained in that interval to be related with power. The end result is that any increase in work results in a proportional increase in time, and the same power is maintained.

this i know. but the end result in terms of the feel of it is a marked increase in torque.

henk4
09-26-2004, 07:28 PM
Gears are used to multiply torque but nothing is "free". Using gears to increase torque results in a decrease in velocity and conversely an increase in velocity requires a reduction in torque. For example; a 2:1 gear ratio will double your torque but at half the speed. So even though the gears can increase the amount of work being done, the overall rate of work (work per unit time) remains the same (neglecting losses).

Mathematically:

Power = Work / Time

or

Time = Work / Power

Since power is constant we can see that any increase in work (aka Torque) results in an increase in time. Time is a specified interval and must be maintained in that interval to be related with power. The end result is that any increase in work results in a proportional increase in time, and the same power is maintained.

This is all very well, but the original question was engine related, i.e. short stroke/long stroke and bhp/torque. In which way the result of the engine configuration is translated into speed is only the next step.

Alastor
09-27-2004, 09:59 AM
This is all very well, but the original question was engine related, i.e. short stroke/long stroke and bhp/torque. In which way the result of the engine configuration is translated into speed is only the next step.

The original post is asking which is better "power or torque" nothing in regards to the engine configuration.

I was replying to post about the role gear ratios play.

My point was that just because the transmission can significantly increase torque, power is limited by the engine output. So if you multiply the torque on a low power engine you performance increase will be limited to lower road speeds. To benefit from the torque multiplication at higher road speeds requires more power.

In racing the idea is to maximize acceleration at any speed and race cars tend to operate at high speeds so they require large engine power. Furthermore, because applied torque can vary with respect to engine output, power is in this sense a better measure of a vehicles potential performance since it is constant (or the power curve for a range of engine speeds).

henk4
09-27-2004, 08:12 PM
The original post is asking which is better "power or torque" nothing in regards to the engine configuration.

power is in this sense a better measure of a vehicles potential performance since it is constant (or the power curve for a range of engine speeds).

You are correct. My point of view in this is that in every day driving you always need torque and very rarely meximum power, and here my favourite, the turbo diesel engine enters into play :)

jcp123
09-27-2004, 09:00 PM
You are correct. My point of view in this is that in every day driving you always need torque and very rarely meximum power, and here my favourite, the turbo diesel engine enters into play :)

i'll second the motion.

skoobz
10-08-2004, 03:13 PM
like what i say, "all the horsepower in the world won't get you anywhere without torque."

gtrjazz
10-08-2004, 03:59 PM
If you can get max torque at say 9000rpm it is better than getting the same Torque at 6000rpm you can make use of gearing.

KnifeEdge_2K1
10-08-2004, 07:51 PM
If you can get max torque at say 9000rpm it is better than getting the same Torque at 6000rpm you can make use of gearing.

what?
max torque at lower rpms are more useful because that would be more accesible more of the time

high torque at high rpms is the same thing as alot of horsepowerrr

CdocZ
10-08-2004, 08:16 PM
ok......i just read everything on this thread at once........my head hurts, but now i really understand alot more

Slicks
10-09-2004, 09:09 AM
Im not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but it is ideal to have a long, generally flat torque curve.
Look at the stock numbers of this LS2, notice the torque curve is pretty much the same through the RPM range.
http://www.moderndaymusclecars.com/c6nitrous.jpg
Now look at the torque curve on this particular engine, its a complete joke...
http://www.coyoteracing.fsnet.co.uk/bike/Dyno_Sheet_1.jpg

Matra et Alpine
10-09-2004, 09:16 AM
Don't let unequal charts confuse you folks.

The REV RANGE of a flat torque is what matters.

So torque from 2000 to 5000 revs on one engine is WORSE than the same torque from 5000 to 10000 revs of another. The first only has 3000 revs of USABLE TORQUE. The latter has 5000 revs os usable torque.

The MORE REVS you have good torque is what matters.
WHERE it occurs is just a gearing and atttide difference.

What an engine does outside of it's usable power and torque is pretty much irrelevant :) ( Except for those who aren't used to letting an engine 'scream' )

Slicks
10-09-2004, 09:43 AM
Don't let unequal charts confuse you folks.

The REV RANGE of a flat torque is what matters.

So torque from 2000 to 5000 revs on one engine is WORSE than the same torque from 5000 to 10000 revs of another. The first only has 3000 revs of USABLE TORQUE. The latter has 5000 revs os usable torque.

The MORE REVS you have good torque is what matters.
WHERE it occurs is just a gearing and atttide difference.

What an engine does outside of it's usable power and torque is pretty much irrelevant :) ( Except for those who aren't used to letting an engine 'scream' )
oh, so you can read my posts now? :p

The rev range does matter, and its better if the torque is flat throught the WHOLE rev range, not just at the top.

BTW the charts are just an example, they were not supposed to be "equal."

Matra et Alpine
10-09-2004, 11:19 AM
The rev range does matter, and its better if the torque is flat throught the WHOLE rev range, not just at the top.
When an engine runs out of torque, you need to change gears to keep acceleratiing. So a rev range of 3000 revs of peak torque needs more frequent gear changes than an engine with 50000 revs of peak torque. It's failrly clear and cimple arithmetic.

BTW the charts are just an example, they were not supposed to be "equal."
You said "Now look at the torque curve on this particular engine, its a complete joke...", so you did the comparison, slicks.

I only added the comment so those tryign to understand hp and torque and enjoying this thread got the whoel picture and tempered bias.

IF, you had pointed out the peak torque was lower, it woudl have had some relevance. Just trying to keep things so folks understand all the ramifications.

SlickHolden
10-09-2004, 12:18 PM
Isn't torque over rated.
Here we have some Cars built that have had more torque and HP about 100kg more weight and th car which is 100kg less in weight and less in torque and down 25kw is faster, Now that same car which is down on HP and torque has also beat in times a car with 55kw more power,
The cars i'm talking about are 2002 Holden VY Commodore SS 235kw 1700kg+.
2002 Ford BA XR8 260kw 1800kg+ and 2003 FPV GT 290kw 1850kg+

Matra et Alpine
10-09-2004, 12:44 PM
Isn't torque over rated.
Spot on :)
Yep, more weight needs MORE torque to get it all moving !!
You ca't beat the laws of physics :)

But if all else is equal then the wider torque curve of the same value is BETTER, regardless of where those revs occur.

Slicks
10-09-2004, 12:55 PM
When an engine runs out of torque, you need to change gears to keep acceleratiing. So a rev range of 3000 revs of peak torque needs more frequent gear changes than an engine with 50000 revs of peak torque. It's failrly clear and cimple arithmetic.
Its hard to judge simply by that, lets take that LS2 for example. Its peak torque is 4400RPMs, by what your saying then the driver would have to swithch up right after 4400RPMs, but this is not the case (actually switches up at 6000RPMs.) Like i said its about the curve, the peak TQ may come at 3000RPMs, but what about the rest of the powerband, that curve might continue to remain at 299 ft-lbs up to 5000RPMs.



You said "Now look at the torque curve on this particular engine, its a complete joke...", so you did the comparison, slicks.
Whats your point? That curve is terreble, youd have to rev the crap out of that engine to go anywhere.


IF, you had pointed out the peak torque was lower, it woudl have had some relevance. Just trying to keep things so folks understand all the ramifications.
Peak power and peak torque is not what matters, thats another reason why hp/l means nothing. Its not about the peak, its about the whole powerband, the torque curve.

QuattroMan
10-09-2004, 07:26 PM
Horsepower versus torque,
Wich one is Better to have on a race track and drag strip , what would be better to have more of in what situation, How much is too much?
I know that this is kind of broad but give it a shot.

ex comming out of a turn, of the line, what having one but little of the other would mean.

i ll take torque any day what is HP with out Torque?

PerfAdv
10-09-2004, 09:20 PM
Horsepower versus torque,
Wich one is Better to have on a race track and drag strip , what would be better to have more of in what situation, How much is too much?
I know that this is kind of broad but give it a shot.

ex comming out of a turn, of the line, what having one but little of the other would mean.

The topic of this thread has side-stepped a little and have enjoyed reading the different implications of torque and hp. Consider this example, I have collected the torque and hp rating of some cars considered to be near the top of their respective fields. They are expensive machines that could have employed any power plant and yet chose what they have. So, judge for yourself which is king, torque or hp. Really, they are two measures of power and ability of an engine to do work. As you can see, engines intensive in production of one or the other is geared for different type of work. More torque for effertlessly moving weight and Hp for speed.

PerfAdv
10-09-2004, 09:27 PM
Maximum accelaration is achieved by upshifting so the revs fall to the engine speed where maximum torque is available. In a smaller engine this usually requires revving to near redline. Larger engines that produce torque at lower RPMs are usually geared to take advantage of this, and don't need to be revved as high.

Matra et Alpine
10-10-2004, 01:32 AM
Maximum accelaration is achieved by upshifting so the revs fall to the engine speed where maximum torque is available. In a smaller engine this usually requires revving to near redline. Larger engines that produce torque at lower RPMs are usually geared to take advantage of this, and don't need to be revved as high.
There is NOTHING wrong in a performance car with revs.
WHERE the power and torque come is irrelevant as you point out - that's what gear rations are for :) How much and how wide is the important bit.

We've covered this to death in UCP, revs is a "what you're used to" thing.
Brought up with big lazy V8s and the idea of recvving an engine to 15000 scares folks.
Brought up with screaming 4 cylinder bikes and the idea of 'chugging' at 2000 revs is equally unsettling..
Neither are right or wrong.

For daily commute use however, lower revs are more 'driver friendly' for gear changes and noise :)

fpv_gtho
10-10-2004, 02:19 AM
Isn't torque over rated.
Here we have some Cars built that have had more torque and HP about 100kg more weight and th car which is 100kg less in weight and less in torque and down 25kw is faster, Now that same car which is down on HP and torque has also beat in times a car with 55kw more power,
The cars i'm talking about are 2002 Holden VY Commodore SS 235kw 1700kg+.
2002 Ford BA XR8 260kw 1800kg+ and 2003 FPV GT 290kw 1850kg+


You gotta realise how many problems the BA has with its launch, all that extra weight in the chassis, although outweighed by more power, doesnt make it easier or even the same to launch. I'd say more weight with more power and torque's bound to promote more wheelspin unless you spend half the day trying to find the right amount of revs with clutch slip. Then there was the gearing. The motoring journo's measure acceleration in 0-100km/h, 0-400m and 80-120km/h in 3rd, 4th and 5th. The first 2, the BA is down about 0.2 on its equivalent VY/VZ, but the overtaking acceleration is matched. Second gear barely gets over 100km/h, so you've got 2 gearchanges before 100km/h, and third barely gets to 160km/h so thats 3 for the quarter mile.

SlickHolden
10-10-2004, 02:31 AM
Well the new LS2 in a HSV must be better :D
Just off idel it has 98% of it's torque under 4500rpm

fpv_gtho
10-10-2004, 02:33 AM
If they can get a good launch out of it, then it should post some potent times, it'll be interesting to see the 10,20,30,40,50,60,,70,80,90 and 100km/h times Motor can get

SlickHolden
10-10-2004, 02:38 AM
Will they chose auto or M ???


And mate Sorry :)

IWantAnAudiRS6
10-10-2004, 03:16 AM
Well, a car is stuffed without either of them :) But I'll go for bhp... all the diesel cars that have tons more torque than the petrol equivalents are slower in top speed and 0-60 acceleration. I don't know about the mid-range acceleration though.

SlickHolden
10-10-2004, 05:35 AM
Well FPV_GTHO told me that a F1 car has high HP but low torque, But they are light cars, Torque isn't the big thing with them.

paul
10-10-2004, 09:05 AM
yes but even though they are light they would need suffecent amounts of torque to get them off the line quickly and out of corners so quickly.

SlickHolden
10-10-2004, 09:41 AM
A Renault F1 engine has 900BHP @ 350 Nm of Torque.

Slicks
10-10-2004, 10:42 AM
We've covered this to death in UCP, revs is a "what you're used to" thing.
Brought up with big lazy V8s and the idea of recvving an engine to 15000 scares folks.
Brought up with screaming 4 cylinder bikes and the idea of 'chugging' at 2000 revs is equally unsettling..
Neither are right or wrong.

Your views are obveously European, so let me share the views of being brought up with "lazy" V8s. High revving doesnt scare anyone, it bores them to death. We like to hit the gas and feel the front of the car reach for the sky, to be thrown back into your seat like you were just rearended by a cement truck. A great example of why we generally dont like torqueless high revving engines is when i drove a base model RSX. Ive already wrote about this before, but ill do it again. The car was a bore to drive because the powerband was a joke, you had to rev to 5000RPMs to really get moving. You smash down the gas from a stand still and nothing happens... you sit and wait until it revs to the usable power, not thrilling at all. Then your only in the usable powerrange for about a second, then the next gear comes and more waiting...

henk4
10-10-2004, 10:47 AM
You smash down the gas from a stand still and nothing happens... you sit and wait until it revs to the usable power, not thrilling at all.


Try to engage the clutch at 5000 revs. May be that will work. Otheriwise, go diesel.

KnifeEdge_2K1
10-10-2004, 11:58 AM
Well FPV_GTHO told me that a F1 car has high HP but low torque, But they are light cars, Torque isn't the big thing with them.

thats not the reason
its cuz they're always reving to the max and they dont have to worry about engine wear since they can replace it every race, also they have seven gears which means its very rare for them to encounter a corner where they'd have to drop back to the mid/low rev range to pull out

Matra et Alpine
10-10-2004, 01:10 PM
Your views are obveously European, so let me share the views of being brought up with "lazy" V8s. High revving doesnt scare anyone, it bores them to death. We like to hit the gas and feel the front of the car reach for the sky, to be thrown back into your seat like you were just rearended by a cement truck. A great example of why we generally dont like torqueless high revving engines is when i drove a base model RSX. Ive already wrote about this before, but ill do it again. The car was a bore to drive because the powerband was a joke, you had to rev to 5000RPMs to really get moving. You smash down the gas from a stand still and nothing happens... you sit and wait until it revs to the usable power, not thrilling at all. Then your only in the usable powerrange for about a second, then the next gear comes and more waiting...
Hi , slicks, yes I'm looking in thse posts occasionally :)

I've driven all types in all nations, I know the experience of mashing a big V8 and V6 and inline 4s, with and without superchargers and turbochargers.

Using the term "lazy V8" was only used to refer to what most folks are used to in their up-bringing and it sets an expectation that high-revs sounds 'wrong' and not knowing how to use revs.

So, in a performance V8 you chage low and don't slip the clutch or the tyres too much.
On a screamer you rev TO THE POWER BAND BEFORE dropping the clutch.
You get the engine INTO the area where it gives the torqque equivelance and THEN use the torque abdn in the higher revs.


How you describe a 'screamer' suggest you've tried or been driven using the low-rev torque-mindset. So they dropped the clutch where it 'sounded' right and then struggled to reach it's torque band. That's not how to use a screamer :) It takes more skill and effort to keep a 'screamer' going - especially back to tuned Climax, B-series and BDAs which were SOOO cammy they were real easy to bog down. Something VERY hard to do in a big capacity V. So returning to my comments, Vs are better for driving around but screamers can match performance when needed and used the way God intended :) You can get pushed back into the seat the same by either !!!!

EDIT: Stating the obvious -- BUT it's easier to get more power from larger capacity - at the cost of weight usually. So win when you can afford the money and handling to "go big" :)

Slicks
10-10-2004, 01:50 PM
Using the term "lazy V8" was only used to refer to what most folks are used to in their up-bringing and it sets an expectation that high-revs sounds 'wrong' and not knowing how to use revs.
I know what your saying, and where your coming from, it just doesnt sounds right though saying "lazy" V8s. But youd be surprised at how many people do know "how to use revs."


So, in a performance V8 you chage low and don't slip the clutch or the tyres too much.
On a screamer you rev TO THE POWER BAND BEFORE dropping the clutch.
You get the engine INTO the area where it gives the torqque equivelance and THEN use the torque abdn in the higher revs.

You make it sound like your driving a V8 truck... Normally in a perfomance V8 youd pop the clutch around 2-3K RPMs, getting some tire spin, but not too much thanks to generally wide tires that are sticky.
With these performance V8 your in the power band no matter where you rev, that whats so great about them.


How you describe a 'screamer' suggest you've tried or been driven using the low-rev torque-mindset. So they dropped the clutch where it 'sounded' right and then struggled to reach it's torque band. That's not how to use a screamer :) It takes more skill and effort to keep a 'screamer' going - especially back to tuned Climax, B-series and BDAs which were SOOO cammy they were real easy to bog down. Something VERY hard to do in a big capacity V. So returning to my comments, Vs are better for driving around but screamers can match performance when needed and used the way God intended :) You can get pushed back into the seat the same by either !!!!

I wouldnt exactly call an RSX a "screamer", its more like a weedeater than a screamer... I wasnt using a low rev torque mindset, i was driving a Auto, and could only brake-torque it to around 2000RPMs before launch. And im not going to do a neutral drop in my friends car...


EDIT: Stating the obvious -- BUT it's easier to get more power from larger capacity - at the cost of weight usually. So win when you can afford the money and handling to "go big" :)
Thats not always the case though. From what i understand the 3.6L flat 6 in the 911 Porches is actually heavier than the "big" 5.7L LS1 found in the Corvette. Thats just one example, you cant always judge weight and physical size by displacement.

Matra et Alpine
10-10-2004, 03:39 PM
I wouldnt exactly call an RSX a "screamer", its more like a weedeater than a screamer...
Continugin to use words showing bias.
At least when I say "Lazy V8" it's based on early peoples experience which are road cars where V8s are deployed because they ARE lazy revvers - and bring benefits for that. Your' bias just shines out :)


I wasnt using a low rev torque mindset, i was driving a Auto, and could only brake-torque it to around 2000RPMs before launch. And im not going to do a neutral drop in my friends car...
WTF - ROFLMAO !!
An auto, launch at 2000 :)
You ARE jokeing.
Man, get in a decent 'screamer' before posting nonsense.
Autos are for lazy cars and drivers. Leave performance to manuals.
My sides are hurting laughing so much :)
When I *first* start competing, I'd launch at 4500 minimum. 2000 and the cam isn't even anywhere NEAR coming 'on'. WRCs launch at 6000 !!

Thats not always the case though. From what i understand the 3.6L flat 6 in the 911 Porches is actually heavier than the "big" 5.7L LS1 found in the Corvette. Thats just one example, you cant always judge weight and physical size by displacement.
can you get me some decent quotes on LS1 ?
The 3.6L engine is about 240 pounds.
I understood the LS1 to be nearer 400 pounds in stock form and a little over 300 in 'performance' with EXPENSIVE and less durable alloy components.
Do you have more accurate numbers on the LS1 for reference please ?

PerfAdv
10-10-2004, 03:54 PM
There is NOTHING wrong in a performance car with revs.
Amen. Besides revving is good for the soul:)


WHERE the power and torque come is irrelevant as you point out - that's what gear rations are for :) How much and how wide is the important bit.
Larger displacement engines have a torque advantage any way you look at it. It may have been an issue in the past, but modern smaller engines can have reasonable torque bands(much wider than before). Variable valve timing can give smaller engines the low end torque they lacked in the past. Granted, this same technology is used to create a plateau of torque(i.e. 2.5K to 5K) in larger engines.



We've covered this to death in UCP, revs is a "what you're used to" thing.
Brought up with big lazy V8s and the idea of recvving an engine to 15000 scares folks.
Brought up with screaming 4 cylinder bikes and the idea of 'chugging' at 2000 revs is equally unsettling..
Neither are right or wrong.

For daily commute use however, lower revs are more 'driver friendly' for gear changes and noise :)
Understood.

PerfAdv
10-10-2004, 03:54 PM
**My reason for posting the torque vs horsepower chart example was to illustrate that engines built for either torque or horsepower have different uses. And to address statements like, "You can't go anywhere without torque" What does that mean? I wouldn't argue that an LS1 sucks, that's not the point. The point is a Hummer engine is built primarily for torque not Hp, so it can launch its considerable heft. On the opposite end of spectrum, a 2600 lbs 360 Challenge has an engine that produces high RPM horsepower and is just torquey enough for the slower corners. All race cars are built for high Hp, even the 'Vette C5R(600hp@6400 and 485@5200). More hp intensive than torque intensive. High Hp=high speed. High torque helps in the launch but unless the engine is a revver it won't have high speed. Of course you could gear a high-torque-only-motor (Hummer's turbo-diesel) with low enough gearing that its always in its torque sweet spot but that's never been the way to go fast.

jcp123
10-10-2004, 08:32 PM
Basically what I said at the beginning...torque is fun in town and in day-to-day driving, HP is more for the track days.

Slicks
10-10-2004, 09:02 PM
Continugin to use words showing bias.
At least when I say "Lazy V8" it's based on early peoples experience which are road cars where V8s are deployed because they ARE lazy revvers - and bring benefits for that. Your' bias just shines out :)
How so? That I-4 was nothing more than an economy engine, atleast thats how it acted. Im not being biased at all, i like and respect many 4 bangers and high revving engines. One of the cars i compared to the RSX was a new Celica GT that i drove, and i had a blast. It could actually spin the tires...



WTF - ROFLMAO !!
An auto, launch at 2000 :)
You ARE jokeing.
Man, get in a decent 'screamer' before posting nonsense.
Autos are for lazy cars and drivers. Leave performance to manuals.
My sides are hurting laughing so much :)
When I *first* start competing, I'd launch at 4500 minimum. 2000 and the cam isn't even anywhere NEAR coming 'on'. WRCs launch at 6000 !!

Like i said what do you want me to do? It was my friends car and we just took it for a joy ride. WRCs have 4WD, ofcourse there going to lauch as high as they can...
BTW 2000RPMs is more than enough to get my other friends Z28 moving fast...



can you get me some decent quotes on LS1 ?
The 3.6L engine is about 240 pounds.
I understood the LS1 to be nearer 400 pounds in stock form and a little over 300 in 'performance' with EXPENSIVE and less durable alloy components.
Do you have more accurate numbers on the LS1 for reference please ?
Alright according to this site, the LS1 out of crate weight is 390lbs. (Note the LS6 is even lighter)http://www.sallee-chevrolet.com/ChevySmallBlockV8s/LS1.html
And according to this page the 3.6L weighs 608lbs which is not surprising thanks to the DOHC design.
http://www.porscheclubgb.com/uploads/registers/53/porsche_g.html
And while doing the searching i stumbled across this page, where a guy swaped his porches 3.0L engine for a '00 crate LS1, and found that the LS1 was actually lighter. http://www.toy-jet.ls1fun.com/about.html

The LS series of engine are some of the most inexpencive perfomance engines on the market, i can pick up a brand new LS1 for about 5 to 6 grand, and a new ls6 for around 7 grand... http://www.sdpc2000.com/cart.asp?action=catalog_start&catid=120

And please inform me what these less durable alloy parts your refering too...

Slicks
10-10-2004, 09:07 PM
Basically what I said at the beginning...torque is fun in town and in day-to-day driving, HP is more for the track days.
I believe that the great Caroll Shelby once said "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." But hey hes just an engineering genius :cool:

KnifeEdge_2K1
10-10-2004, 09:32 PM
geez im gonna have to say this again ...

torque is a measure of force
hp is a measure of power which is amount of work/force done with respect to time

torque is more "useful" at low rpms because you're putting alot of force down per stroke, torque at higher rpms means putting down more energy onto the ground in a specific amount of time

this is as simple as i can put it

hp at high rpms is needed for a high top speed because it has to combat the drag of the air

you can think about it like this, when you're riding a bike and you're going pretty slow you can "feel" the road as you push down on the pedal, thats torque at low rpm, when you're going really fast you dont really feel the force on each pedel but you're putting a little bit of it each time you push the pedal, you do alot less work on each stroke but since you're doing it at such a high rate of speed it doesnt matter.

racecars like f1 or lemans cars need more horsepower since they usually spend most of the tiem reving within the top few thousands of their rev range but in everyday life and some racing disciplines like rallying torque is more important since you dont always want to be in the high part of your rev range and you dont want to change gears as much. in rallying you have enough to worry about with keeping the car right side up and not smashing into a cliff, im sure matra can relate to this

SlickHolden
10-11-2004, 01:38 AM
I have a example of how over rated torque is

2002 Holden VY Commodore SS Engine LS1 5.7lt pushrod 16-valve V8.
Power 235KW 465Nm @ 4400rpm Cars weight 1650kg RWD

2003 Ford FPV BA Falcon GT Engine Boss290 5.4lt Dohc 32-Valve V8.
Power 290kw 520Nm @ 4500rpm Cars weight 1825 RWD

Now on times from many experts.

That Holden Model had a fastest time of 0-100 5.8 sec 0-400m 13.97 @ 168kph

Now the Ford model times are 0-100 6.0 sec 0-400m 14.2 @ 164kph.

I have herd of faster times from the holden but can't be 100% sure and i think the Same is with the Ford FPV GT.

But you get the guys that drive the GT they won't belive it. They feel the car is very alive but it's been to many experts and motoring mag's that have around the same numbers

henk4
10-11-2004, 02:14 AM
I have a example of how over rated torque is

2002 Holden VY Commodore SS Engine LS1 5.7lt pushrod 16-valve V8.
Power 235KW 465Nm @ 4400rpm Cars weight 1650kg RWD

2003 Ford FPV BA Falcon GT Engine Boss290 5.4lt Dohc 32-Valve V8.
Power 290kw 520Nm @ 4500rpm Cars weight 1825 RWD

Now on times from many experts.

That Holden Model had a fastest time of 0-100 5.8 sec 0-400m 13.97 @ 168kph

Now the Ford model times are 0-100 6.0 sec 0-400m 14.2 @ 164kph.

I have herd of faster times from the holden but can't be 100% sure and i think the Same is with the Ford FPV GT.

But you get the guys that drive the GT they won't belive it. They feel the car is very alive but it's been to many experts and motoring mag's that have around the same numbers

Why is torque over rated in your example, it just shows that the much heavier Ford can almost keep up with the Holden, undoubtedly because of its higher torque.

fpv_gtho
10-11-2004, 03:49 AM
I tell you what Slick, STOCK GT's with simply 10,000K's on the odometer are getting close to cracking mid 13 second quarter mile times, compared to the 13.9's they get off the showroom floor. I dare say the DOHC valvegear and 105mm stroke cause the engine a bit longer to loosen up and make the good numbers on the strip. I dont know if you'd say torque is overated as such, but the GT by all reports, definately feels alot faster than the SS and Clubby, although probably due to the 400nm at 1000rpm.

SlickHolden
10-11-2004, 05:23 AM
But you get that with some cars the feel of more speed, Like My mates VR It feels faster on take off and it feels really fast, Then i have driven a VS i feel this lake of power on take off but a more at 25-45 kph When it's moving a 40kph it feels faster then my brothers Ghia, But calculate the speeds and you get a shock:eek:
Like Cameron MCconville said when driving the VZ SS he felt like he was doing a 2.06 it's a feeling. One more also my cousin had a VH it felt faster then my mums VB till we sat next to each other on a main road about 30kph i left the VH for dead.
But i do feel my mums VB is faster then any other stock VB-VC-VH :D

fpv_gtho
10-11-2004, 06:06 AM
Well with Cam McConville, remember he's used to his VY Supercar, so that SS is only stock, and 240-250km/h down Conrod through the chase, he wouldve had the suspension working hard to keep it on the power and through the corner's so that would surely have something to do with it, and then again theres the aerodynamics which wouldve been trying to throw the car around a bit.

SlickHolden
10-11-2004, 08:58 AM
He's a Good river but i was very suprised at it's speed, If they done it again they would have had brocky start 6 sec behind Cam, And skaife 35 sec after. Last corner hellraiser lol :D

But i got to admit it, I would love to see the XR8 and SS go a lap or 2 around bathurst the crowd would go ape shit.
Skaife Vs Ambrose and on the last lap they can stop for KFC lol :D

KnifeEdge_2K1
10-11-2004, 11:02 AM
But you get that with some cars the feel of more speed, Like My mates VR It feels faster on take off and it feels really fast, Then i have driven a VS i feel this lake of power on take off but a more at 25-45 kph When it's moving a 40kph it feels faster then my brothers Ghia, But calculate the speeds and you get a shock:eek:
Like Cameron MCconville said when driving the VZ SS he felt like he was doing a 2.06 it's a feeling. One more also my cousin had a VH it felt faster then my mums VB till we sat next to each other on a main road about 30kph i left the VH for dead.
But i do feel my mums VB is faster then any other stock VB-VC-VH :D

jesus christ .... "feel" is not a science it isnt quantifieble its not measurable

a vw beetle could "feel" fast but is it? hell no

SlickHolden
10-12-2004, 12:05 AM
jesus christ .... "feel" is not a science it isnt quantifieble its not measurable

a vw beetle could "feel" fast but is it? hell no
Your point ??

henk4
10-12-2004, 12:08 AM
Your point ??

the difference between sub- and objectiveness :)

SlickHolden
10-12-2004, 04:23 AM
the difference between sub- and objectiveness :)
Your point ??

Dr Frankenchevy
10-14-2004, 05:17 PM
Hold onto your butts, gentlemen.... the mathemeticians have taken over the bar!
he he he...
Thanks for the lesson, guys. I always wondered about that myself.

KnifeEdge_2K1
10-14-2004, 07:18 PM
Your point ??

subjective ratings are not a science, you cant measure it therefore it has no value to anyone other than that individual

actual pieces of data which are same for all cases in all situations of the same condition are the only things you can compare

the subject of this thread is horsepower and torque, saying that car A is faster then car B even though car B has more torque because car A feels faster is just jibrish, bunk, garbage, ect.

SlickHolden
10-15-2004, 09:59 AM
I thought this was HP vs. torque ??
And what i said was car A was faster then car B which had nore torque and HP.:)

The thing about feeling is what most drivers of the FPV GT's get, They don't care what the Testers say about it being slower then car A they feel it's faster more torqey:)

But my main point all along is torque is over rated.

KnifeEdge_2K1
10-15-2004, 02:40 PM
I thought this was HP vs. torque ??
And what i said was car A was faster then car B which had nore torque and HP.:)

The thing about feeling is what most drivers of the FPV GT's get, They don't care what the Testers say about it being slower then car A they feel it's faster more torqey:)

But my main point all along is torque is over rated.

but it isnt, torque is what moves the car

and the reason for car a being faster may be because of shorter gear ratios which lowers top speed

horsepower is just a measure of how quickly work is being done, but if there was no torque no work would be done hence no horsepower

horsepower is dependent on torque, not the other way around

KnifeEdge_2K1
10-15-2004, 02:43 PM
and intresting thing i just dug up in some old mag articles, almost all cars are designed to reach 60-62 mph at the top end of 2nd gear, this is because the 2-3 shift will add 0.2-0.3 seconds to the 0-60 time or 100kph time which is highly regarded as one of the most OVERRATED figures in the automotive industry

by having such tall ratio's for 2nd gear the power band is not being used for it's optimal capacity hence making the car slower then it could be

so if you have the money and time, rework those gear ratios for an increase in both topspeed and acceleration without any modifications to the power output of your car !!! although this option WILL be way more costly then conventional methods, but it would be worth a fistful of judos and props ^^

KnifeEdge_2K1
10-15-2004, 04:57 PM
DAHHHHHHH IT JUST HIT ME IN THE FACE

im such an idiot we're here talking about peak torque and peak horsepower and crap but i just remembered something from grade 11 math .... the area under the velocity time chart is the displacement, since acceleration is a function of the car's weight (a constant) speed (dependent) and power/force(from the graph) we can safely argue that whichever engine's torque curve or poewr curve (since the power is dependent on toruqe) has the most area it will be the faster engine (so to speak)

obviously the rpm at which peak torque and peak horsepower affect it's gearing and speed bla bla bla but here comes another figure/statistic to play with ^^