Hp vs. Torque

[Matra et Alpine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well the new LS2 in a HSV must be better
Just off idel it has 98% of it's torque under 4500rpm

[fpv_gtho]

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]

Will they chose auto or M ???


And mate Sorry

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

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]

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]

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]

A Renault F1 engine has 900BHP @ 350 Nm of Torque.

[Slicks]

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...