Hp vs. Torque

[henk4]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

**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]

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]

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/Chev...ckV8s/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...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?act...tart&catid=120

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

[Slicks]

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

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
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