that guy maybe an ass but he is right, he would score really high on the GMAT![]()
Why not? If you think that F1 engine is great, imagine if it put out 800 lb-ft off idle and still delivered peak 800 HP?
you missed the point entirely, but i get it. your motor is better than us. good for you bro.
I'm saying that acceleration rate depends on torque at the wheels, not at the engine. That depends on gearing and engine torque.
I think you missed the point. Why is there such a fascination on engines with limitations? Why do you only have to have 200 lb ft if you have 800 hp, why is It so bad to have 800 lb ft and 800 hp in the same engine?
nobodies missing your point. we are just ignoring it. scroll up, read the title of this thread, and hopefully, just leave.
So if you were to look at a torque/wheel speed graph, wouldn't the shape of the torque curve be proportional to the engine's torque curve?
So if the motor's torque dropped off quickly at higher RPM's because it couldn't breathe, it also wouldn't accelerate quickly?
Sure you could throw a truck engine with a 15 speed auto tranny into a car, but that doesn't mean it's the best way of getting it done. It's just different.
All you'll ever need to know about torque and horsepower:
http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html
/thread.
ZV
horsepower really just means you don't have to change gears as much. that's good because you're not applying force to the ground when changing gears. 1000 hp at 20,000 rpm in an F1 car is basically ~250 ft lbs of torque, but it makes that 250 ft lbs for a 10,000 rpm band. they can wind that engine a long time before they need to change gears.
