Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

[Dred_85.5_TSI]

As far as I can tell some people (jinx) just have to argue about everything. Simply put you can't make HP without TQ, but as its been stated many times HP is just a calculation of work over time (or RPM) where TQ is static measurement of force. What really matters is the area under the curve. This whole thing has been argued to death, lets please stop beating the HP vs. TQ dead horse and talk about something that matters

[Chad]

This whole thing has been argued to death, lets please stop beating the HP vs. TQ dead horse and talk about something that matters

 

I totlay 100% agree, but how many people here have learned somethign they didn't already know about the relationship between the two? That was my point.

[Dred_85.5_TSI]

I agree. it's a good thing to talk about, but, when it degenerates into an argument about who thinks one is better than the other instead of contributing good info it's time to give it a break.

[Shelby]

and you can't win races from the key board http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif

[patra_is_here]

i for one enjoyed this thread.

one thing i find interesting is the dimensions of the forces at play here

 

first start with mass. call is LB

the add another dimension, length, lets use feet. now you have ft-lbs, we just added a dimension of complexity.

now factor in RPM, and you get horsepower, which is now three dimensions.

 

trying to compare them is just pointless, they have different dimensions of complexity. and in the end HP still wins, no matter what.

 

 

chad is right on every single point in here, and like so many threads, it turns in to a smart logical approach vs uninformed scientifically-ignorant approach

[jinx]

Absolute nonsense

okkkayyyy

so you're saying eipquest didn't get "maximum acceleration" with his stock cam setup then ?

 

and the 1.8L 2 valve.... You've seen any 1.8L 2300# put up better acceleration numbers ?

[chiplee]

okkkayyyy

so you're saying eipquest didn't get "maximum acceleration" with his stock cam setup then ?

 

and the 1.8L 2 valve.... You've seen any 1.8L 2300# put up better acceleration numbers ?

 

No, I'm saying "absolute nonsense."

 

Your refusal to compare apples to apples is telling, but it isn't convincing. This is the fact of the matter. Read it carefully. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, meaning if two cars are geared perfectly, with perfectly tuned suspension, and identical weight, with engines that have identical torque curves, the car with the torque curve that occurs HIGHER in the RPM band will be the car that wins a drag race. It doesn't matter how the EIP quest compares to a 1.8L or how a 1.8L compares to a Cummins turbo diesel. While the area under the two identical TQ curves is exactly the same, the engine that produces that TQ at a higher RPM has more area under its HP curve, meaning it is accomplishing more work. Whether or not a particular chassis/suspension/driver combination HAPPENS to take advantage of that is utterly irrelevant. It is simple math that has been explained to you ad nauseam. Trying to debate a mathematical fact is absurd. I told you you're arguing a different subject entirely; you're arguing about ALL OF THE OTHER factors that go into a drag race. Of course there are fast low HP cars that can beat high HP cars. And?

[Chad]

http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=73884&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1

 

This isn't a new set of logic, this topic has been debated since the advent of racing.

 

There are many more and different examples in the above FAQ topic, for those wanting to further their understanding.

 

Waning to Jinx: there is a lot more logic in that topic, much of it with physics and math, so I sugegst you do not clik the link.

[Shelby]

there is no way arround the math, ,but this is the real world,, we have one engine a 2.6 .sure it can be made to rev past 7k but how reliable is it gona be , we do not have an unlimit'd choice of trans gear ratio's , for most it's the oem unit or nothing , our choice of diff gearing is very limit'd to the average guy,, the norm is a 3:54 , or a 3:90, or a 4:22

looking at trying to make your 2.6 long stroke engine into a 9k rpm beast is not pratical , 7 k on the other hand can be done with the right parts and enought money

 

i did just that for many years , but what i am geting from this entire thread is your telling guys to forget it,, your car is never going to out run any 1.8 honda or Mazda rotery simply because they can out rev you ,thats Bull

 

I spent 5 years raceing a 68 Road Runner 383 auto , try'd every gear ratio chyr had available , took it from 14.9 to 11.7 in the 1/4 mile , useing the same oem engine and trans and carb (jeting the carb of course) only car change was dumps and 8" slicks ( same stroke as the mits 2.6)

my wifes cousen took his 57 chev useing a 327 and $30,000 and could not beat my times in 5 years ,why not his engine was much higher reving , more hp , lighter by 50 lbs

 

the reason he did not make use the hp properly and with proper gearing , the more hp he made the more things he broke , and he was not alone saw it many many times over 15 yrs at the track

 

haveing higher hp and more rpms does not translate to a win everytime

times change and yes the math is still the same ,but we don't live on a sheet of paper ,100's of veriables are left to deal with , and while HP is not our strongest point plenty of HP can still be made to get the job done and have tourqe left over to have fun with

 

HP don't spin 10" slicks tourqe does , after that you have to make the HP do it's job ,,but both tourqe and hp have to work togather , sadly we do not have an unlimit'd choice of gears to make that happen ,always

 

but we can do what we can with what we have , and enjoy the ride while doing it

[Chad]

 

i did just that for many years , but what i am geting from this entire thread is your telling guys to forget it,, your car is never going to out run any 1.8 honda or Mazda rotery simply because they can out rev you ,thats Bull

 

You are gettign me completely wrong Shelby.

 

Horsepower is torque, please understand that first of all...

 

I make a statement that horsepower is a more useful measure and people challenge that with illogical or otherwise false information. I then spend the next 5 pages disputing and/or correcting that false info. I state that having more horsepower is more important than having more torque. That is a law of the universe, pure physiscs, mathematical fact, neither of us can change it.

 

If one can't see the benifit of analyzing horespower as a more useful figure vs. analysing just torque after reading all 6 pages, then I guess they are doomed to the trial and error method. When they finnaly get it right, if they were to dyno thier cars, they woudl find that they had increased the horsepower at the expense of a few ft/lb down low where it does you little good in a race.

 

Emperical testing has it's place, but analysis yields more consistant results, much more quickly, and at a much lower cost. Horsepower is the analysis of torque.

 

We have 3 readily available rear end differentials to choose from, a minimum of 5 forward transmission gears, and quite a number of newly compatable "other" transmissions to choose from (some with 6 forward gears). It shouldn't be too hard to build a G54B powered car to utilize new found horsepower.

 

Even bone stock, widening the existing torque curve yields the greatest acceleration improvements... Why? because that is increasing the available horsepower. See how horsepower is torque?

 

Focusing on increasing the amplitude of the torque peak and ignoring the width of that curve is where people go wrong (more width = more horsepower). That peak is not where you shift yoru car in a race, so why focus your efforts there? These cars peak between 2500 and 4500 dependong on mods, who where wins races shifting under 4500 RPM? If you focus on the horsepower peak and have the gearing to take advantage of it, the optimization of torque will come along with that process.

 

Again, if you are talking about increasing the horsepower of any car, G54B included, you are automaticly talking about it's torque curve, you are merely making improvements where they will actually be useful.

[Chad]

This was my fist claim in this topic, and it's still not been disproven, because it's true.

 

The car with more horsepower will win if the cars are evenlty matched and have the correct gearing for their respective power curves

[Shelby]

Again, if you are talking about increasing the horsepower of any car, G54B included, you are automaticly talking about it's torque curve, you are merely making improvements where they will actually be useful.

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

 

 

yes Chad thats exactly what i'm saying , but i'm afraid that some reading this thread will end up blowing their engines trying to be a honda 1.8 http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif

 

how many times have we seen guys take their car throw on a 16g, boost 20 lbs and go to the track only to find they are much slower , why tire spin , more power HP tourqe what ever you want to call it will not make the cars ET any faster UNLESS other things are not adress's at the same time , sure the top end mph may go up but the ET 's thats a diff thing entirely, on our last gainesville meet we had one guy with a 20g boosting 18-20 lbs and makeing 17 sec runs and could not understand why

and at the same time my truck makeing idle launchs was doing 14, had to idle out the trap cause any thing else and it just sat still , not even enought traction to make tire smoke now 14 sec sounds slow and is, but the truck caught almost all the other cars befor the end of the 1/4 , includeing a 400 hp mustang with headers and slicks ( did him several times )

 

and it proves your point HP comes on at the upper end of the track , but you have to have both and traction to make it all work

 

i'm realy not disagreeing with you,Chip or any one else only pointing out there is more to it when it comes to puting it all togather as a complete package

[Chad]

Again, if you are talking about increasing the horsepower of any car, G54B included, you are automaticly talking about it's torque curve, you are merely making improvements where they will actually be useful.

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

 

 

yes Chad thats exactly what i'm saying , but i'm afraid that some reading this thread will end up blowing their engines trying to be a honda 1.8 http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif

age

 

Point taken, and thanks for the contribution.

 

It actually shows that improveing the torque peak witout widening it or moving it to a higher RPM (which both inheranlty increase HP) has little benifit in the real world.

 

Bragging that "I have 500 ft/lb at 3000" is not as impressive nor as likelty to win a race as being able to say "I have 400 FT/lb at 5000 RPM".

 

500 ft/lb at 3000 = 285 HP

400 FT/lb at 5000 = 380 HP

 

There is no need to make a honda motor out of the G54B, but there is much to be leared from why a Honda motor is so fast at the track when setup right.

 

One shouldn't try to emulate a Honda, they shouldn't just try to increase their torque, they should figure out how to make torque at a higher RPM. Back in 1997, a 4 cylinder motor broke the 8 second barrier for the first time ever, it was a G54B His shift point ? 6800 RPM, not some stupid 11,000 RPM Honda redline.

[conquestTSIguy]

All of this arguement has made complete sense on both halves in my opinion... but everything is nice and pretty on paper, but take it to the track and put your money where your mouth is! Horsepower will always win the races in a straight line... that's why NHRA top fuel cars shoot for the stars on horsepower

 

Measuring the power output of a top fuel engine directly is not always feasible. Certain models use a torque sensor incorporated as part the RacePak data system. Dynamometers that can measure the output of a Top Fuel engine exist; however, the main limitation is that a Top Fuel engine cannot be run at its maximum power output for more than 10 seconds without overheating or possibly destroying itself explosively. The engine power output can also be calculated based upon the car's weight and its performance. The calculated Power output of these engines is most likely somewhere between 8500 and 10,000 horsepower[citation needed] (approximately 4500-6000 kilowatts), with a torque output of 8135 N·m (approx. 6000 lbf·ft) and a brake mean effective pressure of 80–100 bar (8.0-10 MPa).

 

Notice that there is almost 4000 less lbs ft of torque? why is that exactly? probably because they have the marbles to back it up with 10000 (approx. numbers might I add).

 

But on the other hand, you have reliability to factor in if everyone wants to get technical about everything. I've read all of the posts in this thread and I like the "honda engine in a diesel truck" analogy. How many passes do you think that little honda engine with all of that power is going to make before it grenades all over itself? so now you have a new thing to factor in... overpowering of the engine! guess that's why they don't use a 1.8 top fuel cars huh? Not trying to start another flame post, just stating my opinion... and isn't everyone entitled to one?

Chad, you want your HP? Jinx, you want your torque? I think I'll take both

For the purposes of comparison, a 2010 Bugatti Veyron Super Sport, the world's fastest production automobile at the time, produces 1,184 bhp (883 kW) horsepower and 1106 lbf·ft (1500 N·m) torque.

Like I said before, why can't you have both and be happy?

[patra_is_here]

guess that's why they don't use a 1.8 top fuel cars huh?

 

because the larger displacement engine makes more HP than a 1.8

[Dred_85.5_TSI]

veyron dyno look at the dyno for the veyron, notice the power and torque and also the huge area under the curve. now this is an official Bugatti sheet but it looks really smoothed out and simplified also the sclae and match up of the TQ and Hp curves are shoot to heck but you get the idea. also note the flat torque curve (near constant from ~2000rpm to ~5,500rpm) and the linear increase in HP. this shows the HP-torque-RPM relationship, and also why the veyron can accelerate its 4,500lb curb weight to low 10 second 1/4 mile times. If you do the math at peak power the veyron is moving ~4.5lbs per HP and in the meat of its torque curve each lb/ft is moving (assuming 900lb/ft) ~5lbs.

[Chad]

 

 

But on the other hand, you have reliability to factor in if everyone wants to get technical about everything. I've read all of the posts in this thread and I like the "honda engine in a diesel truck" analogy. How many passes do you think that little honda engine with all of that power is going to make before it grenades all over itself? so now you have a new thing to factor in... overpowering of the engine! guess that's why they don't use a 1.8 top fuel cars huh? Not trying to start another flame post, just stating my opinion... and isn't everyone entitled to one?

 

 

We use diesel motors because they make a great amount of horsepoewr at very low RPM, and all though their RPM range. A smaller gas motor can reach a very high peak, which is good for racing, but a diesel can "work" all day long.

 

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

 

That dyno link above is on a bone stock 2011 ford power stroke. It's making 228 HP at the rear wheels at just 1800 RPM, that's perfect for hauling a trailer or accelerating a heavy truck in traffic effortlessly. If it wants to pass someone or go up a steep hill, it can rev tup to 2800 RPM and it will have over 300 HP to the gorund, and it's still not breaking a sweat.

 

A small gas engine will quickly overheat if you try to extract that knd of power over any distance, let alone a cross country haul. That is why we make diesel motors, not for their torque, but their ability to make horsepoewr at low RPM (because they have so much torque), and the fact that they do it very efficently all day long. With gearing, you can make a lot more torque with a higher HP gas motor reved out to redline, but the diesel will always outlast it, and get better milage too.

 

Chad, you want your HP? Jinx, you want your torque? I think I'll take both

 

Like I said before, why can't you have both and be happy?

 

In an acceleration contest, yes I want horsepower. In a street car, I'd prefer both. We have been discussing acceleration contests here, so thay is why my focus has been a narrow one.

 

Top fuel, F-1, Nascar, they all agree with me.

[Shelby]

by the laws of math,,that dyno chart means nothing ,,,hp and tourqe MUST match at 5252 or some thing rpms , so how can any of the info be use'd

[Chad]

by the laws of math,,that dyno chart means nothing ,,,hp and tourqe MUST match at 5252 or some thing rpms , so how can any of the info be use'd

 

It does, both HP and TQ are 0 at 5252. Just because they don't rev a diesel out past the break point doesn't mean the dyno is invalid. It was done at Banks headquarterss, so I'd trust the soruce.

 

Don't like it? find another diesel dyno for me, they all show the same results. You probably wont find any that go past 5252, so don't be supprised on that.

 

It would take a G54B at redline with a super 16G at 20 PSI to match the powerstrokes rear wheel power at just 1800 PM. Yes, the G54b can outperform it for a minute or less, but that powerstroke can do that for days on end.

[chiplee]

It does, both HP and TQ are 0 at 5252. Just because they don't rev a diesel out past the break point doesn't mean the dyno is invalid. It was done at Banks headquarterss, so I'd trust the soruce.

 

Don't like it? find another diesel dyno for me, they all show the same results. You probably wont find any that go past 5252, so don't be supprised on that.

 

It would take a G54B at redline with a super 16G at 20 PSI to match the powerstrokes rear wheel power at just 1800 PM. Yes, the G54b can outperform it for a minute or less, but that powerstroke can do that for days on end.

 

Lol, not 0 at 5252, equal at 5252, but I knew what you meant. TQ and HP are equal at 5252. Below 5252 RPM, HP is always less than TQ, and above 5252 HP is always higher than TQ. RPM above 5252 can be said to be a "multiplier" for HP, since the equation is HP=(TQxRPM)/5252.

[Shelby]

well excuse me no where on that dyno sheet does it say diesel ,and we not all expect'd to know the name of every engine on the market are we ,,

 

i guess we are http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif

[Chad]

well excuse me no where on that dyno sheet does it say diesel ,and we not all expect'd to know the name of every engine on the market are we ,,

 

i guess we are http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif

 

You never heard of a powerstroke?

 

 

So I looked up an engine for a random freightliner (semi truck). I decided on the cat:

Caterpillar manufactured the C15 ACERT and the C15 ACERT King of the Hill series motors for the Freightliner. Both the 600-horsepower King of the Hill model and the 625-horsepower models produced 1,850 ft-lbs of torque at 1,200 rpm

 

1850 ft/lb at 1200 RPM, that is 423 HP, at a tad over idle So yah, diesels make horsepower too, they just do it a lot easier and at a much lower RPM.

[jinx]

Chiplee,

I NEVER argued the math, I simply said the higher peak hp car does NOT win everytime! Fact

that is my position from day one. Hasn't changed a bit.

There is no perfect world...... so why waste time dreaming about one ?

 

Now this....

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, meaning if two cars are geared perfectly, with perfectly tuned suspension, and identical weight, with engines that have identical torque curves, the car with the torque curve that occurs HIGHER in the RPM band will be the car that wins a drag race

How is that possible to have TWO identical torque curves, but one make its tq higher in the rpm band ?

[chiplee]

 

There is no perfect world...... so why waste time dreaming about one ?

 

That's an easy one. To establish a universal frame of reference from which to discuss engine modification and tuning.

 

 

How is that possible to have TWO identical torque curves, but one make its tq higher in the rpm band ?

 

I said identically "shaped" tq curves.

[Chad]

Chiplee,

I NEVER argued the math, I simply said the higher peak hp car does NOT win everytime!

 

the EIP quest had 585 HP, do you suppose that is why it was so damn fast? you gave lots of examples of cars that were "mountains of torque", but you left out the fact that they also had a lot of horsepower.

 

And no one said "every time" with out appropriate disclaimers, so why hold on with so much viggor to something that was never the intended message?

 

I can take any of your high torque examples, put a bad gear set in it and make it fail miserably. Do you conceed that fact? If yes, than you conceed the notion that high HP cars can also be mis-geared. Thus if the cars are equal, the HP will win. If the car's aren't idealy geared, then torque isn't the answer any more than HP is, nor any less an answer.

 

You are right, there is no perfect world, you can worry about that and I'll keep striving for perfection myself. I will be content knowing that I'll never acchieve it, but I'm likely to come a lot closer far more cheaply though analysis and emperical testing than emperical testing alone.