Some people don't want your gutless weedwacker engines, no matter how much HP it has at 8,000RPM!
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Not sure if that's directed at me or not. I don't like to have to rev an engine to get power. Never said that. I prefer cars that have a flat torque curve so that I've got power on hand at any given RPM and I'm not penalized for wanting to stretch out the gears nor am I stuck with a gutless engine at low RPM's in a given gear.
The VR6 in my old GTI was one of the most driving friendly engines I've ever had the pleasure of owning. It didn't have frame twisting torque but it was certainly enough to put a smile on your face and it was usuable at about any place in any gear.
No. Area under the hp curve is what feels like true power. I'd like to see how much fun you have driving a car with 1000ft/lbs from 1000 to 2000 rpm and a 2500rpm redline. No matter what way you slice it, X ft/lbs at 5000rpm is more power than X ft/lbs at 2000rpm.
Also, you have to be a moron to not understand the relationship between horsepower and torque. Horsepower at any given rpm is a product of torque and rpm.
No. They just say "torque is what you" this and that and "hp is what" blah blah. And they really have no idea what those things are.
It is likely that a small I6 is making more torque at 6000rpm than a big ol' V8 is making at that same rpm. Torque at high rpm IS MORE PRODUCTIVE than torque at low rpm, or else sports cars would have diesels.
Originally posted by: Ornery
Wouldn't have any torque either I bet.
Nothing like a car getting effortlessly up to speed. I just can't understand the thrill of rowing through several gears to get up to 50MPH
Try 8 gears to get to 25mph,
125hp turbo diesel
6cyl
max torque (SAE lb-ft) 38.2@1200 rpm
torqe rise 24%
7.5 litre
that may be wrong was all i could make out from a very badly scanned brochure for a ford 8340 ag tractor
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Engine torque (at the crank), engine RPM, and engine horsepower ARE inseparably related! It's so simple, yet such a rough concept for some. But it is fact. If you don't have torque OR you don't have RPM, you don't have horsepower. You get nothing!
(Where's that damn formula.)
EDIT: Ah, here it is:
A simple damn linear equation with all the pesky unit conversions out of the way for you courtesy of the number 5252.
ft/lbs torque x Engine RPM = Horsepower
. . . . . . . . 5252
Rearranged, just like in 8th grade, it could also be used in reverse:
Horsepower x 5252 = ft/lbs torque
. . . Engine RPM
Go figure!
Stay in school, ya'll!
Don't be hatin'
Just because my wang has more displacement than the engine doesn't mean it's not a good car! :brokenheart:
- M4H
While we're on the subject, we're talking about torque & HP at the WHEEL, where it really counts. And I did make the distinction of different engines and transmission gearings.
Wait, how did that go again? Oh, ha ha ha ha ha ha! an HA! for good measures.
Edit: well shiet, it started out as power to weight ratio any way, in which case, my fcuking R/C car will pwn any of your cars (scale 1/4 mile
)Originally posted by: moonshinemadness
Originally posted by: Ornery
Wouldn't have any torque either I bet.
Nothing like a car getting effortlessly up to speed. I just can't understand the thrill of rowing through several gears to get up to 50MPH
Try 8 gears to get to 25mph,
125hp turbo diesel
6cyl
max torque (SAE lb-ft) 38.2@1200 rpm
torqe rise 24%
7.5 litre
that may be wrong was all i could make out from a very badly scanned brochure for a ford 8340 ag tractor
38.2 is obscenely low. You sure it wasn't 382 which would be more appropriate given the other paramters you posted?
"...No matter what way you slice it, X ft/lbs at 5000rpm is more power than X ft/lbs at 2000rpm.
Also, you have to be a moron to not understand the relationship between horsepower and torque. Horsepower at any given rpm is a product of torque and rpm."
Your weedwacker engines have minimal torque from the get go. It's you who doesn't understand that it's NOT comfortable to listen to an engine reving so high, and so frequently to make up for this lack of power/torque. An engine with more torque means less RPMs and shifting required.
Also, you have to be a moron to not understand the relationship between horsepower and torque. Horsepower at any given rpm is a product of torque and rpm."
Your weedwacker engines have minimal torque from the get go. It's you who doesn't understand that it's NOT comfortable to listen to an engine reving so high, and so frequently to make up for this lack of power/torque. An engine with more torque means less RPMs and shifting required.
This is exactly why I refuse to comment on the torque/horsepower subject, inevitably there is going to be an argument.
Simple formula ;
HP = rpm x torque divided by 5252<---- this is a constant.
Read this, these are the facts ladies and gentlemen
Simple formula ;
HP = rpm x torque divided by 5252<---- this is a constant.
Read this, these are the facts ladies and gentlemen
If you're trying to accelerate as fast as possible, loudness doesn't matter.. What noise matters for is cruising. As for requiring less shifting... The number of times you shift depends on horsepower, not torque. Because a bigger engine has a lower rpm limit, you have to shift it sooner. It just means you have compressed shifting and powerband. A 5.0L V8 with a 2.00 axle ratio will behave similarly to a 2.5L I4 with a 4.0 axle ratio, if they have the same transmission, make the same horsepower, and so on. The only difference you would perceive is the sound.
From Roger's link, would you want a 2600 ft/lb 12rpm waterwheel driving your car? Like that site says, you have to gear an engine up or down.. Torque at the contact between the tire and the ground is what accelerates a car, not torque at the flywheel. Also, according to that site, the length of time an engine pulls is important. The longer you can stay in each gear, the better.
There's no simple answer to that question... weight is definitely a factor, but not the only one...
Torque is also a factor, but also where in the powerband does the engine make it's power, how flat the torque/hp curve is, etc...
You just can't tell how fast a car is just by looking at the numbers...
I had a 400ci GTO that I could drive around all day in second gear and NEVER shift. That's what an engine with torque can do. I ran that car hard a LOT, but it still spent 99.5% of the time just getting me from place to place. It had a 4sp that I'd gladly have replaced with a turbo hydromatic, and it still would have been PLENTY fast enough. A nice, comfortable Buick would make a helluva lot more sense on city streets, than a hyper go-kart. You're going to be stuck behind umpteen other cars most of the time anyway, so WTF?
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,320
- 12,833
- 136
There is an old saying goes like "its better to let people think you are a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt".
Learn from this saying, please.
You obviously don't know squat about diddly when it comes to internal combustion engines and/or cars.
Please stop posting until you learn something.
Nah, that's just the transmission. If you had the same gearing as a car that "needs to row through the gearbox to get to 50MPH" you'd be doing the same thing.
Sorry about pointing out the 2K RPM thing, I didn't read all the way through and I'm too lazy to edit.
amdskip
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2001
- 22,530
- 13
- 81
That first link seems pretty accurate to me.
Old Dragster:
1575 car
8.30 seconds
165mph
Using the ET method, I come up with 544 horsepower
Using the Speed method, I come up with 552 horsepower
New Dragster (estimated):
1700 car
7.90 seconds
175mph
Using the ET method, I come up with 681 horsepower
Using the Speed method, I come up with 711 horsepower
Old Dragster:
1575 car
8.30 seconds
165mph
Using the ET method, I come up with 544 horsepower
Using the Speed method, I come up with 552 horsepower
New Dragster (estimated):
1700 car
7.90 seconds
175mph
Using the ET method, I come up with 681 horsepower
Using the Speed method, I come up with 711 horsepower
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter