Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

[IntercooledFlatty]

Diesel motors can make a lot horsepower too

 

Diesels are a force to be reconed with in the racing scene as technology develops, diesel fuel provides a very efficent form of combustion, and effiency if done right means more power.

Funny Fuel FTW !

[Komeuppance]

One thing we knows is, it's not how you stand by your car, it's how you race your car. You better learn that.

 

-Robert

[Chad]

that is serious tunnel vision right there.

What happens every time u shift ? Tach/rpm drops. Where ? Figure it out

 

The fundamental basis for bigger displacement motors is what ? Torque, or else we would ALL be riding around with 1.0L motors.... even bigaz semis. Work is work

 

Tune your starquest for whatever you think works, but to argue that torque setups can't prevail is plain stupid. Tell eipquest that. His setup defies everything most here adopt;

Taller gear, 6300rpm redline, oe cam, etc. 10.6sec ET. Plug that into your "formulas".

 

A 600hp/350tq honda B18 and a 400hp/700tq cummins, both in a 7000 pound dually. You honestly think the 600hp will ET lower ? -lol. Hint: it won't even be close

 

 

You are right, it' won't be close. The honda will kick it's tail as long as it's geared correclty.

 

It's stimple math Jinx, if the 350 tQ honda needs 8000 RPM's to reach 600 HP, and the 700 TQ cummins needs 2000 RPM to reach 400 HP, what will happen when you put in a 4:1 gear change in the 7000 pound dualy in for the honda motor?

 

So you have 2000 RPM = 700 ft/lb at the crank with the cummins, though a 3.0 : 1 diff, that's 2100 ft/lb of axle torque.

 

Using the same transmission, if you put in the 4:1 diff gear change and run the honda motor out to 8000 RPM you will have 8000 RPM = 350 TQ though a 12.0 : 1 diff = 4200 ft/lb of axle torque. Due to the 4:1 honda:cummins engine RPM ratio, the axle speed will still be the same but is has more torque.

 

Oh, look at that, the motor with twice the horsepower has twice the axle torque after gearing corrections

 

see how the motor with more horsepower wins? I even used your examples. Prove how that is a mis-statement about how gearing and horsepower is more important than raw torque using the same 2 example motors...

 

You are getting axle torque confused with motor torque, that changes everything. 350 ft/lb at 8000 RPM can do a lot more than 700 ft/lb at 2000 RPM. infact, it will do twice as much.

 

 

Enzo, Banks, Ligenfelter all subscribed to the same.... but, what do they know ?

 

Enzo, Banks, Ligenfelter : all built their cars for drivability, not maximum acceleration. I already conceeded torque yields better drivability and make a motor far more fun to drive.

 

So as I said before, why don't we shift at 2500 RPM where the stock torque peak it at? Why rev it out to 5500 RPM or more? If've you've driven a stock quest with a torque peak at 2500 RPM, you know the car will accelerate faster if you take it up past 4000 where the torque has dropped off conciderably. Are you seriosuly saying when your car was stock, you never took it over 3000 RPM when you were racing?

[Cloud81918]

Engines are just air pumps. If you can pump more air per for a given space and pound of engine over a given time you do better.

 

Horsepower wins because you effectively can make a small engine as powerful as a larger engine by spinning it faster. If you can do that and make the whole package weigh less and smaller (allowing you to make the whole car smaller) you will be in better shape.

 

With more gears and now near instant shifting transmissions the argument in support of high torque is hard on to stand on. In an old manual transmission where the gear shift costs you, torque had its last solid foothold. But it is really hard to not admit instant shifts, 7+ speed transmissions, components that allow sustained high-RPM performance on small displacement engines and turbo charging have turned Enzos old word on their ears.

 

Enzo was not a dummy. But many of his quotes are funny when you bring them out them in todays world. He also said, "Aerodynamics are for those that can't build engines."... Until everyone played with Aero and left his cars in the dust. He stated that the engine belong is in the front of the car, just like the horse belongs in front of the carrage. Lotus and others made him eats his words. So in these 2 examples as well Enzo has been shown to be wrong.

 

He is wrong on this one too. Want proof? Check out F1.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Cloud81918

[Frenchi934]

This is the same guy who said "Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines."

 

Chip's right it's in the math. I believe thats why they get F1 cars to rev so high, to take advantage of the torque at that RPM.

[vettekiller593]

Who wants to race? I heard big talking, so I opened the thread. Any takers?

 

 

I will race you!!

[marso]

Heeeeere we go again.

 

 

[patra_is_here]

TQ is inherent in horsepower. so to say that one is more prone to win races is a very narrow mindset. no matter what, HP is always doing the work over a time frame. TQ does not do work over time. it's just not that kind of force.

 

HP and TQ are apples and oranges, they are different types of forces, as one of the forces is actually needed for the other.

 

 

it's like trying to compare 3 inches to 3 inches per second. you just can't do it. they do different things and as far as im concerned this is the conversation has plagued automotive culture for too long.

 

it always comes down to horsepower, since that's the actual force that does work over time, and the faster you do work, the more work you get done, and the faster you go

 

and really, we should be calculating HP based on the RPM of the tire, not engine, because that way we could account for gearing and how it changes the work done for both HP and TQ, but thats another discussion all together.

[Ironside]

Who wants to race? I heard big talking, so I opened the thread. Any takers?

 

 

Sure it will be a good test. You just need to add a lot of weight to your car to equal the weight of my truck and I will tune my truck to what ever hp you have and see what happens. I would like to know myself. My truck weighs about 7800lbs so just add about a ton and a half to your car and lets try. Great science experment, we will race to 100.http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif Who would win? BTW I have a 05 Dodge with at least 400hp and 800 tq so I can tune up or down.

[tim si]

First off ill say that im undecided on which is the most benefit,but ive always been baffled on why the turbo cars at the track run gears along the lines of 3.23 to 3.45 while the n/a cars run 3.73 and 4.10 gears.why wouldnt the turbo car benefit with the 4.10 gears as long as it didnt run out of rpm before the finish?i went from 3.54 to 3.90 and was told by everyone it was a mistake because i wasnt taking advantage of the torque from my turbo.

[chiplee]

TQ is inherent in horsepower. so to say that one is more prone to win races is a very narrow mindset. no matter what, HP is always doing the work over a time frame. TQ does not do work over time. it's just not that kind of force.

 

HP and TQ are apples and oranges, they are different types of forces, as one of the forces is actually needed for the other.

 

 

it's like trying to compare 3 inches to 3 inches per second. you just can't do it. they do different things and as far as im concerned this is the conversation has plagued automotive culture for too long.

 

it always comes down to horsepower, since that's the actual force that does work over time, and the faster you do work, the more work you get done, and the faster you go

 

and really, we should be calculating HP based on the RPM of the tire, not engine, because that way we could account for gearing and how it changes the work done for both HP and TQ, but thats another discussion all together.

 

I wouldn't say they are "different types" of force. I would just say HP is TQ with RPM factored in. HP is just the product of an equation. It's not actually a force at all. That's what the equation states, so that's how it is. In math things can actually be proved without a single exception. I think your idea of calculating based on RPM of tire, not engine, is interesting because that HP number would represent the whole vehicle's ability, vice just the engine's.

[Technology]

I will race you!!

Yes!

 

Sure it will be a good test. You just need to add a lot of weight to your car to equal the weight of my truck and I will tune my truck to what ever hp you have and see what happens. I would like to know myself. My truck weighs about 7800lbs so just add about a ton and a half to your car and lets try. Great science experment, we will race to 100.http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif Who would win? BTW I have a 05 Dodge with at least 400hp and 800 tq so I can tune up or down.

No!

 

[dmyers151]

John Hennessey was quoted in some magazine years ago as saying:

 

"If fast is good, faster is better."

 

I always liked that one.

[Ironside]

Yes!

 

 

No!

 

http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

 

 

What? I can't lighten my truck any, come on just want to find out.http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

[Chad]

 

they are different types of forces, as one of the forces is actually needed for the other.

 

 

 

Thats not true, one is a force, the other is work.

 

It's like comparing volts to watts. volts is the force (a potential just like torque) and watts is the work that got accomplished, just like horsepower. Infact, 1 HP = 745 watts.

 

Did you know a 12 volt 100 watt lightbulb at 12 volts is just as bright as a 120 volt 100 watt bulb at 120 volts? Different voltage (force), same light output (power).

 

I can come up with hundereds of annologies, and they all are based on the same rudiemntary laws of physics. A force is just a potential, the work being accomplished (watts, HP etc) is what matters.

 

Did you know that one horsepower is the energy needed to lift 500 pounds of weight 1 foot in one second? See, we have force, action, and time here.

 

If you make a lever assembly to so this same task, and then move your pivot point to increase the force times 2 but reduce the travel by 1/2, the same amount of work gets done, you are still lifting 500 pounds one foot in one second, you are just applying 2 times more force over half the distance to do the same job. MOR TORQ, RAWR LOL. Accelerating a car is no different.

 

Now take that same lever assebly, hook up a rope on teh handle to the flwheel of the example honda and cummins motors. The cummins will apply twice the force to the rope as the honda, but it has 1/4 the flwheel speed. If you geared the honda setup to correct the speed (moved the pivot point) it would lift the same weight the same height, but do it twice as fast as it has 1/2 the force but has 4 times the flwyeheel speed. A car is a dead wieght, just like this annology, you are accelerating it in the same way.

 

FYI, that figure 500 pouns in one foot per second was derived from the observation of the abalities of a horse to do a continious task. It was observed by a man watchign a horse run a thread wheel. He easily calculated the torque being applied, and the time distance traveled. A strong healthy person can generate 1 horsepower for a brief while.

[Maxzillian]

What impresses me the most is that out of all of this conversation, no one has talked about power curves. Peak this, peak that. That's great if we're dealing with static state power trains, but we're not. Not remotely.

 

Part of the reason torquey motors do as well as they do is because they have nice flat power curves. Peak power may be down, but they make more horsepower over a wider RPM range, yielding a more effective engine. This doesn't show up so much in drag racing where a car can be kept in a tighter RPM range, but in road course racing it is a huge problem.

 

Arguing peak horsepower versus peak torque is somewhat useful, but what you should really glean is the potential power curve an engine with more torque than horsepower has compared to an engine with more horsepower than torque.

 

Take WRC cars, for instance. They are restricted to roughly 300 hp, yet they seem so fast. Why is that? Because thanks to the restrictor instead of peaking at 300 hp, they actually hold and plateau horsepower over a wide RPM range. If the initial peak horsepower on a restricted engine is made at 4000 rpm and it has a peak rpm of 7000, it'll make roughly 300 hp throughout that entire range unless the engine itself runs out of volumetric efficiency.

 

Compare them to an unrestricted engine that peaks 300 hp and I bet that restricted 300 will walk all over it. They both have the same peak power, yet one will be faster and more drivable.

 

This is a reason I don't believe in huge turbo engines. Most of the time the power curve forms a nearly exponential spike up to peak power and falls off nearly as quickly once peak is reached. Aside from drag racing, how is this useful? In all honesty we should be comparing dyno graphs, not peak power figures, if you really want to compare one engine to another.

[bmx152]

What impresses me the most is that out of all of this conversation, no one has talked about power curves. Peak this, peak that. That's great if we're dealing with static state power trains, but we're not. Not remotely.

 

 

 

i said something about a broader power curve or torque curve on the first page=]

[chiplee]

What impresses me the most is that out of all of this conversation, no one has talked about power curves. Peak this, peak that. That's great if we're dealing with static state power trains, but we're not. Not remotely.

 

Part of the reason torquey motors do as well as they do is because they have nice flat power curves. Peak power may be down, but they make more horsepower over a wider RPM range, yielding a more effective engine. This doesn't show up so much in drag racing where a car can be kept in a tighter RPM range, but in road course racing it is a huge problem.

 

Arguing peak horsepower versus peak torque is somewhat useful, but what you should really glean is the potential power curve an engine with more torque than horsepower has compared to an engine with more horsepower than torque.

 

Take WRC cars, for instance. They are restricted to roughly 300 hp, yet they seem so fast. Why is that? Because thanks to the restrictor instead of peaking at 300 hp, they actually hold and plateau horsepower over a wide RPM range. If the initial peak horsepower on a restricted engine is made at 4000 rpm and it has a peak rpm of 7000, it'll make roughly 300 hp throughout that entire range unless the engine itself runs out of volumetric efficiency.

 

Compare them to an unrestricted engine that peaks 300 hp and I bet that restricted 300 will walk all over it. They both have the same peak power, yet one will be faster and more drivable.

 

This is a reason I don't believe in huge turbo engines. Most of the time the power curve forms a nearly exponential spike up to peak power and falls off nearly as quickly once peak is reached. Aside from drag racing, how is this useful? In all honesty we should be comparing dyno graphs, not peak power figures, if you really want to compare one engine to another.

 

Inclusion of power curves is implicit in the mention of the formula for calculating HP. Since it includes RPM, it includes power curves, peaks, and all aspects of an engine. Again, the answer is in the math. HP isn't a force. It is a mathematical representation of an engine's ability to do work over time. It's the product of an equation, nothing more. It is tq with RPM factored in.

[Chad]

in realy simple terms you can not make an apple pie with wallnuts

 

you can not make a Mits 2.6 into a Honda 1.8 or what ever , and why would any one ever want to http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif

 

And you can't make horsepower without torque. But that does not mean that torque is the only ingredient to make a fun fast car... It certainly doesn't mean it's the most important as some will say.

[Maxzillian]

Inclusion of power curves is implicit in the mention of the formula for calculating HP. Since it includes RPM, it includes power curves, peaks, and all aspects of an engine. Again, the answer is in the math. HP isn't a force. It is a mathematical representation of an engine's ability to do work over time. It's the product of an equation, nothing more. It is tq with RPM factored in.

 

The calculation of horsepower does not include power curves as it only factors in a single RPM point in the power curve. Two engines can make the same horsepower, but have vastly different power curves. If horsepower started including the power curve, we'd be walking into calculus, not dabbling with algebra.

[Chad]

The calculation of horsepower does not include power curves as it only factors in a single RPM point in the power curve. Two engines can make the same horsepower, but have vastly different power curves.

 

With a horsepower figure at the RPM atwhich that horsepower was measured, you can determine the torque at that point. With that info, you can predict that the avaialble power available to accelerate a static mass.

 

 

It seems pretty obvious that having a lot of low end torque is very useful as it represents a lot of force to accelerate that mass. Why then is is hard for people to see that taking the RPM's up to to the power peak is somehow a bad trade off? As I demonstrated in the example before, a motor at 8000 RPM and 350 ft'lb is capable of twice the axle torque as a motor at 2000 RMP and 700 ft/lb after gearing is changed. As long as gearing is suited to the load and the power source, horsepower peaks will always yield superior acceleration over torque peaks.

 

I prefer the high torque our motors make, it's a lot more fun to drive than a 600 HP V-tec wonder motor that only has 100 ft/lb below 5000 RPM. When I want to start winning acceleration contests, I will be seeking that horsepower peak, not the torque peak. In a straight up acceleraton contest, wide torque curves mean nothing as you are in a narrow RPM band the whole time, so discussing peaks are obviously quite important in that scenerio.

 

If you are not discussing a pure acceleration contest but rather the dynamics of road cource racing or even just spirited street driving, then you should ovbiously consider curves. the curve represents the avaialble horsepower at any time based on the torque and RPM's at that moment. You won't find a really good road course car that has a crappy horsepower curve but a good torque curve (like a big ole' diesel moor). I will also say you will find many road course cars that have anemic torque curves that will astound you in their ability to get arround the course very quickly, think F-1. They have speeds in the course of a race that range from 40 to 200+ MPH in each lap, and they seem to be able to do it all well, due to gearing.

 

I'd say torque is good to focus on if you can't control your gearing dynamics... Fortunalty we have transmissions with lots of gears and rear diff choices to perfect the equasion.

[Maxzillian]

With a horsepower figure at the RPM atwhich that horsepower was measured, you can determine the torque at that point. With that info, you can predict that the avaialble power available to accelerate a static mass.

 

Honestly therein lies the flaw with most people's logic. You're assuming that horsepower measured at a singular RPM is a good indicator of how much work an engine can do in a car. Maybe if this was in a generator or a boat where engine RPM is maintained fairly constant. However, in a car the engine is constantly varying RPM. Especially considering most vehicles are not optimally geared for acceleration. I don't disagree with your math. You are exactly right in saying 300 hp is 300 hp, no matter what the torque or RPM is. However, my contention in my other post above is that power curve along with peak power is a more important factor when looking at automotive engines.

 

Which of these two engines do you think would do better in a drag race? The engine that makes nearly 300 hp for over 1500 rpm or the one that makes it over 500 rpm? They both have the roughly the same peak horsepower so they should both be equally fast, right?

 

 

http://image.turbomagazine.com/f/27103006/turp_0501_10_o+honda_s2000_ultimate_racing_turbo_kit+dyno_chart.jpg

Edited February 3, 2011 by Maxzillian

[Komeuppance]

Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeec!!

 

Just kicked in yo!!

 

-Robert

[Technology]

Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeec!!

 

Just kicked in yo!!

 

-Robert

http://flashwarner.com/images/300px-Kool-Aid2.jpg

[chiplee]

Honestly therein lies the flaw with most people's logic. You're assuming that horsepower measured at a singular RPM is a good indicator of how much work an engine can do in a car. Maybe if this was in a generator or a boat where engine RPM is maintained fairly constant. However, in a car the engine is constantly varying RPM. Especially considering most vehicles are not optimally geared for acceleration. I don't disagree with your math. You are exactly right in saying 300 hp is 300 hp, no matter what the torque or RPM is. However, my contention in my other post above is that power curve along with peak power is a more important factor when looking at automotive engines.

 

He didn't say you knew everything about the engine's ability to do work. He said you knew something, specifically something more than you know if you ONLY know an engine's tq output and nothing more. Chad's understanding of this concept is flawless.