Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

[Chad]

 

Nobody is arguing the obvious, but you just don't make 500 ft-lbs of torque at 700 rpm higher, with the G54. Not that ez at all.... only in your "paper world".

 

Yah know, that's waht bothers me most about your attitude to makinging horsepower by widenign existing torque. Dodge did exactly that to the viper. They widened the torque curve by well over 2000 RPM. They increased torque with more displacement, but they also made it last out to redline. Why not "monkey-see, Monkey-do" that? It' obviouisly works very well for that platform...

[Chad]

 

That is what torque can do for you.... and why jinx laughed at your 1.6 vs duramax comment.

 

Laugh all you want, you can't deny math and physics, they are un-changeable.

 

Here is an example of what I have been saying with that comparison. Below is the dyno graph I showed with the 2011 Duramax dyno, it puts down nearly 600 ft/lb. I then found a 507 HP b-16 Honda dyno and did an overlay of torque with the Hondas output run though a reduction gear as discussed prior. There are 3 ratios presented, 3:1, 2.5:1 and 2:1. Note, this isn't even the 800 HP Honda we discussed prior, but I wanted it to be a fair match between the 600 ft/lb duramax.

 

http://webpages.charter.net/catsamuel/IMAGE_094.JPG

 

I don't know what you see, but I see that the Honda makes way more torque, and the width of that torque is wider too with the lower gears, and even then it still beats it for torque peak. If you plugged this Honda motor in with the reduction gear into that duramax transmission, it would never know it was a Honda motor, it would just see 700-900 ft/lb of torque in the same RPM band as the duramax.

 

If you raced the two, which will win? the one with more torque right? that happens to be the Honda... I little 1.6 liter motor with just 507 HP. Imagine the same thing with an 800 motor and a higher redline...

 

Here is the raw data for your review:

 

RPM

stock TQ 3:1 TQ 2.5:1 TQ 2:1 TQ

5800 280 1933 840 2320 700 2900 560

6200 305 2066 915 2560 763 3100 610

6600 315 2200 945 2720 787 3300 630

7000 320 2333 960 2880 800 3500 640

7400 330 2466 990 3040 825 3700 660

7400 325 2600 975 3200 812 3900 650

8200 315 2733 945 3360 787 4100 630

 

the source of this 507 HP dyno:

http://www.hondatuningmagazine.com/tech/htup_0805_500hp_stock_block_b16a/photo_09.html

 

the source of the base Duramax diesel that these honda figures were placed upon:

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e201348699d170970c-800wi

[jinx]

why didn't you plug the two real world examples into your formulas, instead ?

That 1.8L is everything you "dream of" in a performance motor... cammed up, home ported, high revver, wide power band.

Surely, your "math" will show, the 1.8L halfway down the return road, before the starquest crosses the finish line. Another lie.

Subtract 200hp, and at 479hp, the 1.8 would still et 10.4... same as the eip starquest, right ? ...according to your calculator

Garbage! just as the silly 1.6L > duramax notion

 

A mountain of torque can be used effectivly, but there is another element which can be used more effectivly.

Moorrrre effectively ? hmmmm.... eip ran pump gas, stock cam in a forklift motor. Think!

 

Yah know, that's waht bothers me most about your attitude to makinging horsepower by widenign existing torque. Dodge did exactly that to the viper. They widened the torque curve by well over 2000 RPM. They increased torque with more displacement, but they also made it last out to redline. Why not "monkey-see, Monkey-do" that? It' obviouisly works very well for that platform...

let's see now,

dodge had a team of engineers, the ability to cast 10 prototype cylinder heads, top tier cam grinders on command, unlimited access to dyno, with a proving ground to verify.... not to mention millions of dollars allocated to ensure that their flagship motor succeeds... etc., etc.

FFS... we can't even get a "proper" cam ground, with a dyno showing torque overlay plus ET testing vs - lol

....and this is what you recommend starquestors waste time/money/effort chasing some questionable idealogy.... instead of emulating what the quick 54s have proven works ?

 

Stay in fantasy land then, where 1.6L 7000 pound trucks (and math) prevail - haha... some of us 'monkeys' are more consumed by reality

[lmwii]

dude, you don't get it. it's not about specific examples. the thread is a proposition - hp is just a flashy number to sell cars, while tq is the important number. chad and others of us have simply tried to show that in general that's a false statement. in the real world, we do not have access to the money and resources to create perfect gearing for individual applications, so you will certainly be able to find examples to 'disprove' what we are saying. no one is arguing that. there are all sorts of factors that influence how fast a car is.

 

but:what we are saying is a fact - with perfect gearing in both cars and all else being equal the motor with higher hp wins every time.

[DontHateItsAn88]

Mk4 Supras are the kings of the street/strip/highway anything. if a j2z is built right nothing can touch it.

[Chad]

why didn't you plug the two real world examples into your formulas, instead ?

That 1.8L is everything you "dream of" in a performance motor... cammed up, home ported, high revver, wide power band.

Surely, your "math" will show, the 1.8L halfway down the return road, before the starquest crosses the finish line. Another lie.

Subtract 200hp, and at 479hp, the 1.8 would still et 10.4... same as the eip starquest, right ? ...according to your calculator

Garbage! just as the silly 1.6L > duramax notion

 

It's not everything I dream of, it's being used to prove a point about the differences between power and force. You seem to be stuck on force, when power is force and aplication of that force. Torque is hypothetical, a potential, it's not doing anything till you give it a task. Power is real, it is the result of applying that force to a task. You keep talking about living in the real word, why not try that yourself.

 

Have you ever seen a 479 HP honda at the track? I'd expect mid 10's out if it. What would you expect? Honeslty I'm not even sure waht you are talking about in that sentance.

 

Think? OK, why are the fastest 4 cylinders in the world not the largest in displacement? Why it is that they don't have the highest torque, but do have the highest horsepower? I'm no even using math or scince here, just "monkey see, monkey do" observation.

 

 

Moorrrre effectively ? hmmmm.... eip ran pump gas, stock cam in a forklift motor. Think!

 

Yes, what is more effective than a mountain of torque? = a wide mountain of torque. When you widen your torque in the higher RPM range, you get more horsepower. If by accident or by analysis, makes no difference. Thus if you say horsepower is better than torque, you are stating the same thing as a wide torque curve that is available at higher a RPM is better than a narrow one.

 

let's see now,

dodge had a team of engineers, the ability to cast 10 prototype cylinder heads, top tier cam grinders on command, unlimited access to dyno, with a proving ground to verify.... not to mention millions of dollars allocated to ensure that their flagship motor succeeds... etc., etc.

FFS... we can't even get a "proper" cam ground, with a dyno showing torque overlay plus ET testing vs - lol

....and this is what you recommend starquestors waste time/money/effort chasing some questionable idealogy.... instead of emulating what the quick 54s have proven works ?

 

So why not address my question? What you gave is nothing but "yah, they threw $$ at it and it got faster" reply. WHY did it get faster? why did they widen the torque curve when, according to you, that's not nessesary. Is it perhaps the same reasons I said, or have you monkey-engineered a different answer? Why are the new vipers faster than the old ones? What changed? I'm not talking theory or science, real world observations with simple answers.

 

I lot of what was done can be applied to any motor, ours included. You just want to copy succesful designs. Well that may work, but you don't even have all the details to copy.

 

 

Stay in fantasy land then, where 1.6L 7000 pound trucks (and math) prevail - haha... some of us 'monkeys' are more consumed by reality

 

so you still deny the dyno chart I laid out? really? I tried to make it very simple, I even left horsepower off the chart and only showed torque since that's all that matters . Do I need to actually put a 500 HP Vtec with a 2.5:1 conveter in a 7000# chassis to get you to accept the laws of physics? With gearing applied, the motor with more horsepower will produce more torque. If you understand why we have transmissions, you surely understand gearing (changing speed to create more torque fron a given source).

[jinx]

but:what we are saying is a fact - with perfect gearing in both cars and all else being equal the motor with higher hp wins every time.

and we've established way back, that condition never exists..... so we get into comparisons - jinx = real world, chad = hypothetical

 

Have you ever seen a 479 HP honda at the track? I'd expect mid 10's out if it. What would you expect? Honeslty I'm not even sure waht you are talking about in that sentance

yep...mostly lightweight, nowhere near the 1.8L 2750 pound example I presented. The hondas won't ET close to 10.4 at 4-500 pounds heavier, as the street S13s weigh.

 

You know exactly what I'm talking about, dude. It is a perfect analogy to the duramax vs 1.6L.

Both superbly tuned combinations, as evenly matched as it gets. Full street S13s never ET 10.4 at 47xwhp This particular 1.8L over 200hp more. Precisely why your 1.6 > duramax is nonsense

Onnnlllly in fantasy land, your laws of physics & formulas tell you otherwise

 

Think? OK, why are the fastest 4 cylinders in the world not the largest in displacement? Why it is that they don't have the highest torque, but do have the highest horsepower? I'm no even using math or scince here, just "monkey see, monkey do" observation.

Reminder of thread topic; Horsepower sells cas, torque wins races

and you think they were referring to the "fastest cars in the world"? - lol

Man, your belt just came completely off the pulley. Fail

Quickest SQC member happens to have the highest & 'narrowest' tq tho - impossible in fantasyland

 

So why not address my question? What you gave is nothing but "yah, they threw $$ at it and it got faster" reply. WHY did it get faster? why did they widen the torque curve when, according to you, that's not nessesary.

To try and copy a mega effort as the viper, is a dumb suggestion..... except in fantasy land, where we all have the required unlimited resources for such exhaustive R&D

You say "monkey see, monkey do" is dangerous ? errrr, correction. Being "dumb" is dangerous.... pigeon, lizzard, monkey... doesn't matter.

Since you adamantly tout how ez it is.... show us these quicker 54 with the widened tq curve and lower ETs. Where r they ? eip PROVED how 'unnecessary' it is. Hard for you to swallow tho

 

Do I need to actually put a 500 HP Vtec with a 2.5:1 conveter in a 7000# chassis to get you to accept the laws of physics?

NO..... that wouldn't be a glamourous entry for the guiness book at all. Let some retard be the first.... just gotta find one stupid enough who really believes that nonsense, to motivate him

Way easier to "incorrectly" analyze the 1.8L vs 2.6L real world street cars mentioned above, but..... you'd come to the same wacky conclusion..... higher peak hp wins every time.

[Tim_C.]

The problem with torque for our cars, is that they aren't built for it, and niether are most cars. Building for torque requires major beef in the drivetrain. Something our cars don't have. We have a very sloppy tranny mount to absorb shock. We have the world's most forgiving transfer of power to the tires too. The whole axle and suspension assembly dangles from bushing mounts that are quite sloppy for a smooth ride. Stiffen all that up and more direct power to the drivetrain occurs. Power that will break stuff. This is a main reason why some people on here say our rear ends are beefy and strong. That isn't the case. They are simply buffered severely so there is a lot of power lost in movement everywhere, thus not enough to the axles to break them, the trans to strip, etc...

 

Another problem with building for torque is boost. You need lots of it, pressure and volume. Our engines are torquey as is, with a long stroke and big bore. Long stroke engines require very precise tuning in order to not blow them up, thus the bad reputation these motors get when people throw a bunch of boost at it and blow it up. Point being the slightest detonation on a long stroke engine, is more catastrophic than a short stroker.

 

One more: The head seal is not sufficient, and requires o-ring seal gaskets if you are building for torque with lots of boost. No problem, that is why they make o-rings, etc.. The problem with that is they don't last very long either, so if you build for torque, you better be ready to take your stuff apart and rebuild it more often than a more simple build for HP that adds 1500 RP to the redline and can really take advantage of a little boost to go a long way. 20 PSI at a higher RPM clears ground faster than 40 PSI at low RPM.

 

To me, you really can't leave out either one, torque or hp, but without hp, you will get left behind. Good torque builds, also have lots of HP. Team Audi, and other torque builds also have a higher peak hp curve. That is why they can dominate because they have more of both for a combination that can't be beat.

 

It doesn't make sense to think a 1.8 L will ever launch as well as a Duramax in the same weight vehicle. The 1.8 will need to rev to 12,000+ (my guess) RPM to do it, and there aren't too many parts behind it that can handle that. The theory is sound, but not very practical as no one would need to do that to meet their goals.

 

You really can't lack either one. HP or torque, but if your HP curve doesn't continue to rise above the torue curve and carry into higher RPM, then don't expect to win any races either. Either one on their own will need extreme measures to accomplish the goal that are not realistic.

[Chad]

http://webpages.charter.net/catsamuel/IMAGE_094.JPG

I don't get it. How does this not explain torque multplication capabilities of a high horsepower motor?

 

The B-16 makes 990 ft/lb into the trans input shaft at 7400 engine RPM with a 3:1 gearing reduction. the Duramax is making about 595 ft/lb at the same trans input shaft RPM. The honda also can maintain high torque output for about as long (or even longer with different gear reductions).

 

I don't get how it can be denied. To deny this is to deny the virtures of shifting gears on your transmission.

 

Quickest SQC member happens to have the highest & 'narrowest' tq tho - impossible in fantasyland

 

Do you know that or just believe it? I haven't seen any dynos yet. So far we just have your word for it, which is based off 2nd or 3rd hand info. What if you are wrong?

 

Were you arround the club in the late 90's? Chancy Espino was putting down a 9.51 ET in full weight quest in 1997. Thats a lot faster than EIP. Do you know how he did it? I do. I had many converstions with him in the first-person. And no, it wasn't by focusing on torque.

 

To try and copy a mega effort as the viper, is a dumb suggestion..... except in fantasy land, where we all have the required unlimited resources for such exhaustive R&D

 

The question isn't "how?", it's "why?". Why does the chrysler corportaion think it's worth those millions of research $$$ to make more horsepower without drastically increasing torque instead? The answer is right there for you to see: faster ET's. WAY faster ET's.

 

The "how" is easy to see, look at the intake and exhaust changes over the years, and some ECU/tuning tweaks... Hey, that's something we can do to our cars. It's something many of us have already done too. They didn't change the block or heads much if at all, they did the same things we can do. Name something they did to make the viper faster though HP increases that we can't... The viper didn't even really change the redline, they just made a better torque curve. We can do that too.

[patra_is_here]

and we've established way back, that condition never exists..... so we get into comparisons - jinx = real world, chad = hypothetical

 

 

first, it's not "hypothetical" it's "theoretical", in that's it's based on theories and law. Hypothetical situations are ones where you establish a premise that is not routed in theory or law. since this is about torque and horsepower, two things that can only be explained with theory and law, then discussions of such are theoretical.

 

secondly, how are you still able to debate in this thread? are you really incapable of understanding and comprehending all that chad has laid out for you. You have absolutely no firm ground from which to base a truly valid argument. now, if you don't actually understand what makes an argument valid, then i could see why you're still arguing your point.

[chiplee]

now, if you don't actually understand what makes an argument valid,

 

That's the case 80% of the time. It doesn't come naturally to people. That's why you see all this injecting about how it depends on the driver and the track condition and blah blah. It doesn't click when you say, "Remove all other variables from consideration." They can't. Your previous input about the cars being "computer controlled" was probably reacted to with some nonsense about how some computers are faster than others. As Imwii said, it's the religion debate in different clothing. Some people can remove themselves from an idea and judge solely on merit and fact. Others cannot.

Edited February 27, 2011 by chiplee

[BOHO]

I can't believe how many times Chad has said the same thing over and over again...Most of the people trying to make a point aren't even in the same book.

[ucw458]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

[patra_is_here]

although, i now have an even higher respect for chad.

[jinx]

....and we go on..... and on.... and on

I don't get it. How does this not explain torque multplication capabilities of a high horsepower motor?

never argued the math or theory. Your math and laws of physics has convinced you, that peak hp and rpm is a substitue for an abundance of torque..... and no, you won't get it, until we start seeing these 1.6L powered 7000 pound beasts. It will give the rest of the world time to figure that out, ok ?

 

Since u truly believe that, here is a suggestion;

Slide on over to the turbo diesel forums, take your math with ya..... and start churning out some 1.6 vtech swap kits. Make yourself alottttt of money..... as a supplier... or comedian.

It doesn't make sense to think a 1.8 L will ever launch as well as a Duramax in the same weight vehicle

Chad's "math" proves otherwise..... and many here share his views - lol.

 

All throughout this thread you can't come up with a single simple real world sample to

support alllll this "theory" you're slinging around.

Jinx asks u to "think". You go directly to the "fastest 4 cyl in the world". Horsepower sells cars

When asked for evidence, you go to a mega dollar viper program.... suggesting the same is easily applied to our 2.6s. Totally unrealistic.... as u can't find any.

Agitating for these "ez" G54 samples, to outgun the eip car, you go to Chauncy.

Wasn't that car an intense effort and running fifty something psi ???? How many of us run 5X psi, err... outside of fantasyland ? vs how relatively ez we can spray our 54s..... and that combo is what you call more effective..... vs a stock cam, pump gas, setup ????

Why not 'simply' grab some of these 54s from our dyno page ??? You know exactly why

 

See a pattern ? Mang, you are truly desparate, and really live in fantasy land

 

Why stick to your honda 1.6 7000 pound truck analysis, when u can't ever prove it ? Build it to satisfy yourself or your cronies. Jinx knows better.

 

Since u like analysis, try prove this. Real world

sohc 2.3 ford powered, full weight 5spd street 1st gen rx7. Same weight as eip and 1.8 s13 ~2750

420hp, ETs 10.8 consistently. Show me any 420hp 1.6L 5spd, same weight, ET close to a 10.8 ?

Your axle torque & ET formulas say it will. You just did so, with the 7000# truck

 

When at high 400s, the 1.8L S13 ET 11.2.... in sync with a few S13s I know of.

At (less than)high 400s, the 2.6L starquest ET 10.4

All 5spd full street well tuned street cars, 'dialed in' with lotsa strip runs.

... and you're sittin here tellin us, the amount of tq makes no difference, is useless and less effective. Dead wrong

 

You clearly think peak hp and hi revs is a substitute for a torquey motor

 

Now..... will it e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y reel in the lower hp car. Absolutely!

Could that be what your 'laws of physics' is saying ?

For instance, at 679hp, the 1.8L street S13 trapped a blistering 142mph... hauling az, no doubt

but.... if that race is a sprint..... "tq wins the race"

 

Jinx will stick with dummy's like Banks, Ligenfelter, and the guys that have built lotsa quick "torquey" turbo street cars using simple ez-to-duplicate recipees

[lmwii]

[BOHO]

[Chad]

 

lots of horsepower is lots of torque.

 

does your car accelerate best in 1st gear or 5th? 1st right? It's because you have multiplied your torque with the transmissions gearing at 3.36:1, so if you have 400 ft/lb at the flywheel, you now have 1344 ft/lb on the axle. In 5th gear at .86:1, you only have 344 ft/lb on the axle. It also allows us to apply that torque at a desirable RPM where the motor is happy to apply it's torque without stalling. That is why we have transmissions, it allows us to multiply our torque on the axle without having to change the engines RPM characteristics. Every car has a transmission, so I think it's pretty obvious that it's a useful way of getting the job done.

 

This is real Jinx, not theory. No science, it's something we all do every time we drive, and it's something we can all experiance for our selves whenever we want, in any car, it doesn't even require going to a track to prove. Hell, It even works on bicycles that have gears

 

So if our transmission can convert our motors torque like that, what would happen if you used the same process on a Honda motor? I'm pretty sure Hondas have transmissions too, so I think the same laws of physics apply. thus, if you took a honda motor with 300 ft/lb at the crank and ran it though a 3:1 transmission, I'd think 900 ft/lb would come out the other end, wouldn't you? It works on a G54B right? If this same honda motor was making that 300 ft/lb at 6000 RPM, then the output of that 3:1 transmission will be 2000 RPM. 900 ft/lb at 2000 RPM

[jinx]

no need for the gearing lecture. Not a factor in any vehicle that has already been optimally tuned. Why beat it to death.... run outta angles ?

 

lots of horsepower is lots of torque

not at the flywheel. 600hp with 600 ft-lbs is an entirely differenty animal, vs 600hp/300tq

....and no gearing will not make up for it

You were just presented with superbly tuned evenly matched examples to prove it

 

found that 1.6L 7000# truck swap yet ? Quote jinx, "ets will suck, and that person is a fool"

 

Can easily find diesel swaps into street cars tho. Hmmmmm..... even with a high degree of difficulty and substantial weight penalty. Figure it out

Another point of interest; they're very clever, more skillful, experienced and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. Yet.... they don't understand the laws of physic - lol

http://image.dieselpowermag.com/f/9107126+w750+st0/0711dp_04_z+1982_buick_regal+6.6_liter_duramax.jpg

http://image.dieselpowermag.com/f/9107093+w750+st0/0711dp_18_z+1982_buick_regal+left_front_view.jpg

 

this "street" mustang has been around

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/ford/0901dp_1994_ford_mustang_duramax/index.html

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/ford/0901dp_1994_ford_mustang_duramax/nitrous_express.htm

close to 4000 pounds, and only 600hp/without spray, runs a string of low 10s

 

see if ya can follow this logic. A 12 year old could

duramax stang lose 1000 pounds and let it play in our 2750 pound sandbox.

What ET do ya reckon.... 9.2ish ? ....still at 600hp

Pound for pound, that li'l nissan 1.8 will pee on any street honda 1.6. At 600hp, the 1.8 ain't in the same stratasphere as the 600hp stang

What's worse, you (and your crew) think, that in a 7000 pound truck, the landscape changes miraculously (simply by gearing).... when in fact, the butt-whoppin will be even more severe

"the honda wins".... I'm still laughin' man - lol

[BOHO]

......................................................................................................................................................

[Chad]

 

 

not at the flywheel. 600hp with 600 ft-lbs is an entirely differenty animal, vs 600hp/300tq

....and no gearing will not make up for it

 

 

You are very simply, and quite completely wrong, but it's clear that you won't or can't understand that, so I won't argue the point any further.

 

If you want to know why, say that to a physics major, or even someone with an engineering degree. After they are done smirking (or possibly laughing) you might have an opportunity to learn something. It's clear I don't have whatever it is you need to understand that.

 

Come to think of it, you should probalby take your transmission out and hook the drive shaft right up to the clutch. You don't need all that gearing mumbo-jumbo non-sense. Think of all the weight savings...

 

Have a good day Jinx...

[Technology]

Oh, and GNX's are slow piles of junk!

[patra_is_here]

600hp with 600 ft-lbs is an entirely differently animal, vs 600hp/300tq

 

 

 

one motor is making 600hp and 600tq @ X rpm, and the other motor is making 600hp and 300tq @ Y RPM, they are both making the same HP!!! the TQ is irrelevant because in order to make those numbers, the first motor has to spin twice as slow as the second motor, so it's got twice the torque but it's doing half the work per time with that torque. by giving them the same HP, you've put an RPM restraint on each motor. because those numbers you listed can only occur at a single RPM for each motor.

 

they both have the same HP, so that means that when both engines are at the RPM in which they are making those numbers, they are both doing the same amount of work. a simplified explanation of work is the TORQUE PER TIME

 

the car with 300tq has half the TQ, but is utilizing that TQ at double the rate of the other motor. it's using it's TQ twice as fast.

[Chad]

one motor is making 600hp and 600tq @ X rpm, and the other motor is making 600hp and 300tq @ Y RPM, they are both making the same HP!!!

 

I don't think he understands how gearinng works, a 600 HP GNX motor makes 600 HP in first gear just like it makes 600 HP in 5th gear, but the torque output is different in each gear. Just as a 600 HP honda motor makes 600 HP in first gear just as it makes 600 HP in 5th gear, yet the torque outputs also change. The fact that the honda needs twice the RPM's becomes irrelivant due to available gearing changes as the final torque output can be matched so they both put out 600 ft/lb at the same RPM, and thus a 600 HP GNX has no torque advantage over a 300 ft/lb B16 that spins at twice the RPM, they both yield 600 ft/LB at the same RPM with gear reduction, which is why they both have the same rated HP of 600.

.

[Frenchi934]

OH YEAH CHAD? WELL MY 600HP AIRPLANE MOTOR IS FASTER AND IT DOESNT EVEN HAVE GEARS

 

really guys...some people wont ever get it.

http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/funny-dog-pictures-why-so-serious.jpg

Edited March 16, 2011 by Frenchi934