Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

[Shelby]

Chip said >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.

 

 

sorry Chip but to win this race you got to get dirty , remember your first try,, well murphy has a couple 100 other things to throw at you just to stop that perfict performance , many you have never even thought of yet , hows that ,,because they only exist on the track , and the real bad part ,, they change on a daily basis lol

[Tim_C.]

I like to stay within the StarQuest framework so to speak. G54B block, stock trans and rear end housing. Discussion within those boundaries seems to help more of us in our real world application of these cars.

 

Some of us don't seem to care about longevity either, but I do. I want my builds to last long, and I really don't want to race them very much. I love to drive them on the highway, the open road. I don't ever see myself drifting any of mine unless I had a lot more money to throw away. Even then, drivetrain, steering and suspension parts aren't readily available.

 

I went for hi-RPM power on my build. It will not nose over well past 7,000 RPM. However, it is very easy to launch it under boost. A good, hi-revving motor will boost launch much easier than stock, and stay in its power band better too. I evenhave an aluminum flywheel, which many seem to think hurts launches, but it helped mine. If I floor the gas on my '87 in 4th gear at 2500 RPM, there isn't much there. But, I can easily downshift to quickly bring it into the power band above 3k, and into full accelleration to well above 7k. Since I haven't lost anything on the launch, and I can quickly get to my power band on a roll, I don't see where I would gain with more torque?

 

Focusing on low end torque means the drivetrain will be more abused, so I wouldn't go that direction myself. You racers can do that because you conceed that parts will need replaced, etc.. I have over 25K miles on my 7k+ RPM motor build. That is what satisfies me more than proving how fast I can make it go a few times, or how big of dyno numbers I run. It still feels as fresh as the day it was built too. Someday I'll get around to putting on Chad's MPI intake, and his header and bigger turbo I have laying around (all brand new). I love how his header improved everything on my '86. Torque, HP, all increased. I drive that all the time when I'm home too.

 

I'll take my car out to the track sometime, when it is ready, and just to see what it will run. The street is where these cars thrive. The mountain passes of Colorado, and highway speed passing power are where the fun is!

 

I put 3.90's in the rear of mine to help it stay in it's RPM range / power band. I can still drive it on the highway fine but it was built to run smooth at the higher RPM. Light pistons and rods, well balanced, etc. All things I would think need done to any performance build, even a torque build.

[jinx]

I said identically "shaped" tq curves

No you did not. "Read it carefully", you say ? Try taking your own advice.

 

To add, once you start "chasing" higher peak hp, the torque curve changes shape, as compromises set in. An incorrect turbine housing not factored into the math and won't explain the "nice" peak hp/perfectly geared crappy ET.

[jinx]

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.

ohhh boy.... once again, you are dead wrong

At ~389hp without spray, ran 11.2. Sprayed a 70 shot (only out the gate, to get "up on plane"), Et mid 10. Dyno'd ~474hp and a whopping 589 ft-lbs on dope.

Wanna guess again ?

 

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?

I'm sure you can..... go thru any means necessary to jibe with your "philosophy", eh.

Try it with the rolla or eipquest examples then.

Only one teeny weeny problem with that. An assumption that someone capable of building a mid 10/high 9sec 5 speed daily driver, is too dumb to gear such a quick car properly.... but your "formulas" can figure out for them, what their ET testing didn't ? That is too funny.

 

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.

Fine if that's what you believe in. Thing is, nobody here can or knows how to setup a ridiculously quick turbo 4cyl street car. I prefer sticking only by those that have, not the scientific approach. Hit my goal, one shot.

[Chad]

ohhh boy.... once again, you are dead wrong

At ~389hp without spray, ran 11.2. Sprayed a 70 shot (only out the gate, to get "up on plane"), Et mid 10. Dyno'd ~474hp and a whopping 589 ft-lbs on dope.

Wanna guess again ?

 

 

I'm sure you can..... go thru any means necessary to jibe with your "philosophy", eh.

Try it with the rolla or eipquest examples then.

Only one teeny weeny problem with that. An assumption that someone capable of building a mid 10/high 9sec 5 speed daily driver, is too dumb to gear such a quick car properly.... but your "formulas" can figure out for them, what their ET testing didn't ? That is too funny.

 

 

Fine if that's what you believe in. Thing is, nobody here can or knows how to setup a ridiculously quick turbo 4cyl street car. I prefer sticking only by those that have, not the scientific approach. Hit my goal, one shot.

 

 

But have you hit your goal? Did it take one shot? Emperical testing can be very costly and time consuming, and it tends to end up in the same place analysis would have predicted.

 

That 585 HP figure came from a discussion in 2002, it was in relation to the ~10.3 second pass they had on the net at the time. I'm sure we can find lots of numbers, some of them true, some not. Untill we see an actual dyno that is legit on that build, you and I are just guessing about the truth. You can guess on your build, I don't reccomend it to others though.

 

Analysis tells you everything you have already seen:

 

Et mid 10. Dyno'd ~474hp and a whopping 589 ft-lbs on dope.

 

~389hp without spray, ran 11.2. Sprayed a 70 shot

 

EIP put down a lot of HP and got fantastic results because of it. They also had very high torque levels, so ? the horsepower is what matters, HP tells their story, the torque is just a sideline to that story. It's just another number. If they made the same horsepower at 500 more RPM, the results would have been the same but the torque peaks would have been less. Would you have somehow been less impressed? You are looking at the wrong numbers to draw your conclusions from is what I'm saying, not that the numbers are wrong.

 

If it is your belief that it's all about the torque, go back in time to the golden days of racing, say late 60's. Look up all the truly fast cars of that era, study their ET's and HP/TQ figures. You will quickly see most of them have more HP than torque, or at best they are about equal. Also note pretty much all of those motors are at 5000+ RPM where the horsepower is at it's peak. Even in the days of fast torque-laiden muscle cars and huge displacement motors, it was all about making horsepower, not merely torque. There were a few gigantic motors, 500+ CI, and they made fantastic torque numbers, and none of those were the ones setting ET records.

 

Your refusal to acknowledge the value of Hp analysis in favor of just the torque attributes is akin to saying the body builder that can squat 1200 pounds is going to run a faster 100M dash than Carl Louis. There is more to it that just raw force, it's the ability to apply that force quickly (at high RPM), which is how you make horsepower. I'm sure the record holders in the 100M can squat a lot of weight, and even do squat training, but I really doubt that is their emphasis Hell, even the Top fuel cars have way more HP than torque, and those are the quickest cars on the planet. ~10,000 HP and only ~4000 ft/lb. Doesn't that tell you anything?

[patra_is_here]

how about this.

two identical chassis, same weight, same traction, etc.

both cars equipped with a continuously variable transmission that is computer controlled to optimize acceleration

both cars have two different types of engines, but they both only produce power at a single RPM. the engine is computer controlled to remain at the specified RPM

 

motor "X" makes 500HP @ 2000 RPM, and has 1313 ft-lb of TQ

 

motor "Y" makes 500HP @ 7000 RPM, and has 375 ft-lb of TQ

 

which would win in a drag race?

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

 

THEY WOULD TIE.

even though one motor had vastly greater TQ (1313 vs 375), it was irrelevant to the races outcome, THEREFORE TQ is not what wins races.

[lmwii]

arguments based on math and science and logic only work on people who are willing to accept facts over personal beliefs. this thread is nothing but the religion discussion in different clothes.

[Chad]

But Jinx says there is no perfect car, no perfect situation, no perfect transmission, so you better hedge your bets with more torque. I get the concept, but it's wrong in practice. Hedging your bets with horsepower is hedging them with torque, it just means you have done so where it is actually useful, at a higher RPM.

 

Ever watch a loaded semi take off on an incline? The whole cab will lift 3-6" and the frame will noticably twist when that motor applies 8000 ft'lb to the driveshaft (though transmission torque multplication). Then what happens? it moves veeeerrrryyy sllloooolllly. The torque applied the force, but horsepower is what sustains that tremendous torque over time/distance. I can rig up a lever an allpy the same 8000 ft/lb to that driveshaft, but it will turn a hell of a lot slower cause I don't have that much horsepower. Throwing more torque at the loss of RPM will twist the frame even more, but move it more slowly still. The only way to move the load faster at the same frame twistinging amount of torque is to make that same torque at a higher RPM, which is the creation of additional horsepower.

 

Racing a car is moving a load with the greatest torque as quicly as possible. Adding more torque helps, but so does increasing the rate of that force. By increasing the rate, you don't need to increase the force, which saves on drivetrain and rotating assembly stresses, lowers cylinder pressures, and tends to prevent knock and other bad elements in a motor. Increasing RPM's has it's own set of drawbacks, so there is no perfect solution, balance is needed. I'm not against increasing torque, I'm against the notion that that is the only element to analyze. I'm also against the notion that it is the best.

[Shelby]

motor "X" makes 500HP @ 2000 RPM, and has 1313 ft-lb of TQ

 

motor "Y" makes 500HP @ 7000 RPM, and has 375 ft-lb of TQ

 

such examples are totaly useless , there is no such transmitions for use

and with each gearing there is a power loss you didn't take any of that into concideration

 

besides fellows if it don't relate to our cars and our motor why waste the time with all this

 

is it just the fact it's cold out and you've nothing better to do

 

you want to be constructive ,,tell these guys how to cross the 1/4 mile trap exactly at their ideal rpms in 4th gear ,not 3'd as most do , cause if you run 80% of the 1/4 and only get to top of 3'd just befor the trap your doing it all wrong , of course by that time you've made 3 shifts looseing 1-3 sec time

[Chad]

 

besides fellows if it don't relate to our cars and our motor why waste the time with all this

 

 

Because you can learn from others successes/failures. Analyze what they did right and wrong, compare to what you have to work with, and apply to your own goals. Throwing parts at a problem isn't as likely to yield good resutls as analysing the benifits of each part in conjunciton with the others first, and comapring to future parts you plan on utilizing.

 

The question was about HP vs torque, not making a G54B go faster.

 

People that don't like to think probalby aren't reading this anyway

[Shelby]

Because you can learn from others successes/failures. Analyze what they did right and wrong, compare to what you have to work with, and apply to your own goals. Throwing parts at a problem isn't as likely to yield good resutls as analysing the benifits of each part in conjunciton with the others first, and comapring to future parts you plan on utilizing.

 

The question was about HP vs torque, not making a G54B go faster.

 

People that don't like to think probalby aren't reading this anyway http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

 

 

 

 

ok let me get this straight we just went thru 7 pages of useless info

because none of this is gona make the G54BT go any faster .http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif

i may have miss'd a bunch but what is a tourqe build and how does it differ from a HP build ,, and keep on track i don't care about a mack truck or a F150 or a Honda ,,,a G54B

 

maybe a page dedicate'd to telling guys to change out their tire'd worn out valve springs even befor going to 15 lbs boost and throwing on that 16g would be a much wiser thing to do , cause you can not make hp or tourqe with valves that do not close and stay close'd with high boost

[Caliber308]

how about this.

two identical chassis, same weight, same traction, etc.

both cars equipped with a continuously variable transmission that is computer controlled to optimize acceleration

both cars have two different types of engines, but they both only produce power at a single RPM. the engine is computer controlled to remain at the specified RPM

 

motor "X" makes 500HP @ 2000 RPM, and has 1313 ft-lb of TQ

 

motor "Y" makes 500HP @ 7000 RPM, and has 375 ft-lb of TQ

 

which would win in a drag race?

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

 

THEY WOULD TIE.

even though one motor had vastly greater TQ (1313 vs 375), it was irrelevant to the races outcome, THEREFORE TQ is not what wins races.

 

Depends on who's driving the car. I have seen a video on this site about a "supposedly fast" car. It might be fast... but the driver didn't show it.You see it all the time in Top Fuel. One dragster might be faster than the other but, if the driver of the faster one doesn't utilize the horsepower and torque at the proper moment all is lost.So what,or is the proper word "who" wins races?

 

Bill

Edited February 9, 2011 by Caliber308

[Chad]

ok let me get this straight we just went thru 7 pages of useless info

because none of this is gona make the G54BT go any faster .http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif

i may have miss'd a bunch but what is a tourqe build and how does it differ from a HP build ,, and keep on track i don't care about a mack truck or a F150 or a Honda ,,,a G54B

 

maybe a page dedicate'd to telling guys to change out their tire'd worn out valve springs even befor going to 15 lbs boost and throwing on that 16g would be a much wiser thing to do , cause you can not make hp or tourqe with valves that do not close and stay close'd with high boost

 

The 7 pages answered the origional question, but it was not specific to the G54B. You can take anything you have learend from this and apply it to any internal combustion gasoline burning engine. Hell, you coudl apply it to your ridign lawnmower if you wanted to. People race those too you know...

 

If you want to study the G54B, first you must learn the basics, general stuff, all the laws of physics come first. Some have false beliefs that defy physics, that must be dispelled before you can apply any of these facts to a G54B. Mack trucks follow these same laws, but show us in different ways, so it's important to understand all of it.

 

Then, Then we can start teaching why these other laws of physics come into play in making an engine, any engine, any G54B engine, capable of making the power you seek.

[lmwii]

The only way to move the load faster at the same frame twistinging amount of torque is to make that same torque at a higher RPM, which is the creation of additional horsepower.

that's a great way to say it in a way that may actually be understood.

[chiplee]

No you did not. "Read it carefully", you say ? Try taking your own advice.

 

Yeah, when I reiterated the point I didn't add that specific caveat, but it is implied by the fact that I talked about the difference between an engine producing a given TQ curve at one point in the RPM band, vs. an engine making the same TQ curve at a higher point in the RPM band.

 

The first time I made the point I made it this way, and yes, you do need to read more carefully.

 

...but if two engines happen to make EQUAL TQ output (have identically shaped torque curves), then the one that makes that TQ at the HIGHEST RPM will be the engine that is able to produce the faster acceleration. This is because it will be the one with higher HP. All of these examples that include multiple variables are really quite useless. TQ is the only thing an engine actually makes, but for comparing engines to each other, and for understanding how our tuning efforts are effecting the "ability" of our own engine to get our car moving, it is useful to have a measure of an engine's ability to make torque at high RPM, since that's where all the real "work" gets done. The thing we've "come up with" to represent an engine's ability to make TQ at high RPM is called HP. Comparing honda civics to cummins turbo diesels doesn't really settle anything about the whether TQ or HP "matters" more in a race. They both matter, but they're also both very closely related, and all else being equal, it's better to make your TQ at higher RPM so you can take advantage of gearing to overcome your lack of low end TQ, and still benefit from the ability to make TQ at high RPM.

[patra_is_here]

Depends on who's driving the car. I have seen a video on this site about a "supposedly fast" car. It might be fast... but the driver didn't show it.You see it all the time in Top Fuel. One dragster might be faster than the other but, if the driver of the faster one doesn't utilize the horsepower and torque at the proper moment all is lost.So what,or is the proper word "who" wins races?

 

Bill

 

 

both cars are computer controlled.

[jinx]

But have you hit your goal? Did it take one shot? Emperical testing can be very costly and time consuming, and it tends to end up in the same place analysis would have predicted

yep, one shot.

I choose a 'weapon' to do battle with my peers. Full weight 5spd daily drivers ET mid 6s in 1/8th is the mandate. Settled on a toyota starlet powered by a nissan ca18det 1.8L dohc turbo.

Mine is an exact duplicate of one that has already Et'd 11.1sec, t3/t4 @16-17psi, bone stock unopened 20year old 1.8.

Why would I not hit my goal one shot ?

 

Now for an interesting comparison.

1.8L Starlet I copied et 11.1sec at ~330hp/300tq.

Another G54 starlet, TBI/16g/100 shot Et'd 9.98sec. How much do you reckon that is.... ~370-380 tops ?

Now simply crank the 1.8L to 24psi, where they dyno ~375hp/330tq on a bone stock motor.

Both properly geared, as manifested in its excellent previous 1/4 times.

No way in hell would that 375hp 1.8 see a 9.9x Et. Same car, same hp. Why not ?

Sure the 1.8 revs higher, but that 54 combo has a stout 500 ft-lbs of twist a its disposal, and that is where the magic happens

 

Jinx never said, torque is all that matters. Lemme spell it out for you again. Read it slow this time. With enough torque, you do NOT have to make tq higher in the rpm to outgun a higher peak hp car. I can post lots more examples, but it's a waste of time around here.

You obviously don't understand the merit of a robust tq curve and it's dramatic effect on acceleration. The simple event of an rpm drop at shift point, landing your motor right in the "sweet spot" of the tq curve elludes you! You will never grasp that, until you pull your head out. You prefer to stick another clip in your "excuse gun", and start firing away.

 

Et mid 10. Dyno'd ~474hp and a whopping 589 ft-lbs on dope. < this ET is what the HP calculator predicts with that horse power...

Did it reaaalllly now ? he only bump the spray to sling outta the gate & spur the T4.

Please don't tell me your math/science took that into consideration. So what hp did you plug in.... the 389 or the 474 ? Or you combined both, put 'em in the kitchen blender and viola! - lol.

You're killin me, guy.

Now you see why I only stick to recipees proven by clever folk

 

...and I learned many years ago, the most effective mod one can do to a starquest.... is replace the starquest, as the g54 rolla/starlet guys done. To hell with hp dreams, and welcome to the world of 'maximum acceleration' without high peak hp or high rpms.

[Chad]

yep, one shot.

I choose a 'weapon' to do battle with my peers. Full weight 5spd daily drivers ET mid 6s in 1/8th is the mandate. Settled on a toyota starlet powered by a nissan ca18det 1.8L dohc turbo.

Mine is an exact duplicate of one that has already Et'd 11.1sec, t3/t4 @16-17psi, bone stock unopened 20year old 1.8.

Why would I not hit my goal one shot ?

 

Now for an interesting comparison.

1.8L Starlet I copied et 11.1sec at ~330hp/300tq.

Another G54 starlet, TBI/16g/100 shot Et'd 9.98sec. How much do you reckon that is.... ~370-380 tops ?

Now simply crank the 1.8L to 24psi, where they dyno ~375hp/330tq on a bone stock motor.

Both properly geared, as manifested in its excellent previous 1/4 times.

No way in hell would that 375hp 1.8 see a 9.9x Et. Same car, same hp. Why not ?

Sure the 1.8 revs higher, but that 54 combo has a stout 500 ft-lbs of twist a its disposal, and that is where the magic happens

 

Jinx never said, torque is all that matters. Lemme spell it out for you again. Read it slow this time. With enough torque, you do NOT have to make tq higher in the rpm to outgun a higher peak hp car. I can post lots more examples, but it's a waste of time around here.

You obviously don't understand the merit of a robust tq curve and it's dramatic effect on acceleration. The simple event of an rpm drop at shift point, landing your motor right in the "sweet spot" of the tq curve elludes you! You will never grasp that, until you pull your head out. You prefer to stick another clip in your "excuse gun", and start firing away.

 

 

 

 

that 54 combo has a stout 500 ft-lbs of twist a its disposal, and that is where the magic happens

 

Got a breaker bar and an extension pipe? I bet you can eaily create 500 ft'lb. it only takes 100 pounds of force on a 5' long bar. Lets make a device that only rotates with 500 ft/lb (or more) applied. Now push on that bar of yours real hard till that 500 pound load starts to rotate (100 pounds at 5'). Say you took a shot of NOS evergy drink and were able to push on that bar with 600 ft/lb (120 pounds at 5'), you'll now be pushing it faster than you were before. OK, so I walk in with my 10 foot bar, now I don't push quite as hard cause I'm not as studly as you, but I'm close at 60 pounds on that 10 foot bar (600 ft/lb). If I can run twice as fast as you with that 60 pounds of force at 10', so won't I be turning that load faster tan you? Why not? I'm applying 600 ft/lb to your 500, but I'm only pushign with 60 pounds of force, to your 100. Why do I win? because I can apply my smaller force 2 x's facter than you can apply yours. I have more horsepower than you. My horsepower throguh gearing = more torque on the load than you. Now lets say that device is actually a cars transmission and the load is the input to a rear axle at track, I just smoked your butt in the 1/4 mile with my 60 pounds to your 100 pounds. Just force means nothing man, you gotta apply that force quickly and over time.

 

Your "500 pounds of magaic" means NOTHING untill you put it into motion. All your "magic" is baised on a principle you don't seem to understand. Force in motion is horsepower. Force means nothing untill it does something. 500 pounds of force is easy, sustaining it in motion requires work (work = power). 500 ft/LB at a slow speed isn't as magical as a lesser force at much higher speed, especialy when you use gearing to multiply that lesser force. If I pushed on my 10' bar with half the force as you (50 pounds at 10') but I ran twice as fast, we'll be rotating that load at the same speed. Now if I drink some your NOS and start pushing harder at 60 pounds at 10', I'll pass you. Notice I'm stil not at the same force as you, but I'm running faster with more force than we started with. Speed of force matters. Just raw force means nothing. My 1 year old baby can make more than 500 ft/lb.

 

So Your belief on why torqe motors make better aceleration racers is based on the width of a torque motors power curve. Yes, a wide torque curve is a good thing, but what RPM do you launch your motor at? when do you shift? and what RPM does it drop to when you shift? I'd be willing to bet the whole race is happening in a 1500 RPM band. Where does that width come in handy here? Why do you need 500 ft/lb at 3000 RPM if you don't race at 3000 RPM? Seems kind of silly The study of the "rest" of the power curve becomes moot, since in a race the motor never opperates in the rest of the curve.

 

Did it reaaalllly now ? he only bump the spray to sling outta the gate & spur the T4.

Please don't tell me your math/science took that into consideration. So what hp did you plug in.... the 389 or the 474 ? Or you combined both, put 'em in the kitchen blender and viola! - lol.

 

http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php

 

The NOS-boosted launch of the car was taken into consideration. Type in 3000 pounds and 389 HP. You get an 11.51 ET. Now try adding the benifit of a 100 HP boosted hole-shot, subtract about 4/10 ths for that. Also, 474 predicts a 10.77, so if you averaged the two, you would be in the same range.

 

Lemme spell it out for you again. Read it slow this time. With enough torque, you do NOT have to make tq higher in the rpm to outgun a higher peak hp car

 

So what RPM do you shift at Jinx ? Got a dyno sheet to prove your point? I think if we analyzed it, you would be supprised to see you aren't taking your own advice.

[jinx]

Your "500 pounds of magaic" means NOTHING untill you put it into motion. All your "magic" is baised on a principle you don't seem to understand......

500+ ft-lbs tq at 3800 rpm

do you know what that means ? No you don't

Clever folks do, and they've proven exactly how to "harness" a robust torque curve

...and what do you do ? argue how silly it is and it doesn't work

 

what RPM do you launch your motor at? when do you shift? and what RPM does it drop to when you shift? I'd be willing to bet the whole race is happening in a 1500 RPM band. Where does that width come in handy here? Why do you need 500 ft/lb at 3000 RPM if you don't race at 3000 RPM? Seems kind of silly

Yes.... when you're brainwashed by the peak hp thing

control where your tach 'drops' at launch, by the rpms u release at. Say slicks 'bog' and ~3300 > then spray.... slings that little car out the gate, enroute to a 9.9 et.

These low hp/low rev marvels do most of their damage out the hole. Tall gearing & shift point keeps the motor on the happy side of its "useless" torque curve

 

Look Chad, for you (and most here).... it's all about high revs, peak hp. That is fine.

NONE of those cars have low ETs. Dump the clutch at 7000rpm then if u think it works.

Sooooo many have ET'd their car and went back to stock cam..... even eipquest.

Soooo many believe "these cars will scream with a 4.62, 4.22, etc". They don't.

Soooo many swear how freer revving (fidanza) makes the car "accelerate way faster"

How many times have we seen testimonials of how ET suk'd at higher shift points ?.... and so on

 

Perception is 100% garbage in my book. Stick to science & math then, as that's your thing.

I'll keep on "misunderstanding" what those "dumb quick" guys r doing

Et is where it's at for jinx.

 

Like the Izusu 2 valve example. Even amidst all the higher hp/hi revvin dohc, how many streetable 2300 pound 1.8L have u ever seen et 9.1sec no spray ???

Back to my original statement; lower hp/lower revvin beasts can outgun the best of 'em.

"HP does NOT trumph torque" every single time. Brains behind a good combo prove that

[Chad]

500+ ft-lbs tq at 3800 rpm

 

So what you are saying is the same thind as me, that RPM matters. That is my point, exaclty my point. Why not try to make that 500 ft/lb at 4500 RPM? It will go faster if you do. Just like my analogys of running in circles, same force at a faster speed moves the load faster. No science, no math in that statement, it's just the obvious truth.

 

 

Look Chad, for you (and most here).... it's all about high revs, peak hp. That is fine.

NONE of those cars have low ETs. Dump the clutch at 7000rpm then if u think it works.

Sooooo many have ET'd their car and went back to stock cam..... even eipquest.

Soooo many believe "these cars will scream with a 4.62, 4.22, etc". They don't.

Soooo many swear how freer revving (fidanza) makes the car "accelerate way faster"

How many times have we seen testimonials of how ET suk'd at higher shift points ?.... and so on

 

I don't reccomend gear swapps for the G54B, I reccomend running the torque you have at a higher RPM so the motor can do more work with that force. If you look, you'll see I never did reccomend a rear swap for making a quicker G54B. If you can widen you torque curve, you'll be geared perfectly.

 

Perception is 100% garbage in my book. Stick to science & math then, as that's your thing.

I'll keep on "misunderstanding" what those "dumb quick" guys r doing

Et is where it's at for jinx.

 

Your entire premice is based on perception. You seem to have it all figured out, and you quote specs and details, but you don't even seem to have any -one- example with all the details. This "monkey-see, Monkey-do" approach is dangerous. It's is all based on your perception. You are left with many guesses to make. I realize analysis isn't your thing, but you should alteast consider adding it your existing methodology.

 

We put a man in space in the era of vacuum tubes in a spaceship with less computing power than a modern wrist watch. A lot of that was done with trial an error with real model rockets. Do you think they didn't also do analysis? Do you suppose they used math and science too? There is a time and place for the "monkey-see, monkey-do" approaches, but if you really want to suceed, you gotta do some analysis. You may just succed with your approach, but it will be by accident.

 

BTW, "same force at a faster speed" = more horsepower, but I didn't want to upset you with that word in the first paragraph, but it's the truth.

 

So my 1 year old can generate 500 ft/lb at about .05 RPM. I'd bet you can generate 500 ft/lb at about 10 RPM. Same force, Right? so why is it that you can accelerate a load faster than my 1 year old can? Because you can apply that force at a higher speed. Do you believe it? If you agree that this statement is true, that you can beat my 1 year old in a weight acceleration race, than you already believe what I am saying, you just can't admit that it applies to engines for some reason.

 

So your motor makes 500 ft/lb at 3800 RPM, that is 362 HP. If you could make that same torque out at 4500 RPM, that woudl be 430 HP . Don't you think it would be nice to have another ~70 HP? that's 15% more power with the same force. Do you see what I'm saying now? It's not about making a 9000 RPM capable G54B, that's a stupid paln, the motor is setup all wrong for that with it's rod andgle and bore/stroke. I'm saying if you can make your torque, what ever it is, extend out further into the RPM band, you'll go faster. Why? because that increases the speed of that force, = more horsepower.

 

For you to get your 362 HP 500 ft/lb @ 3800 RPM motor to produce the same 430 HP, you need to make another 94 ft/lb of torque. Which do you suppose is the easer, safer, more useful way to make 430 HP? by adding 94 ft/lb more torque, or my running the same 500 ft/lb of torque at 700 more RPM? Since you are racing at 4500+ RPM anyway, I'd think it would be a lot more useful to just find ways to widen the curve where that force is more useful.

 

You can make your torque peak beast, I'll forcus on making a car with a usable torque curve, ie; one with it's torque higher up in the RPM band where I'll actually need it in a race. It will also by the laws of math and science have more horsepower, which I will be greteful for.

[Shelby]

i think what Jinx and i have been trying to point out is NO formula or example will say X amount of HP will have "X" ET, it's all fine on paper to say a 540 hp car will do a 1/4 in "X" time ,, but in the real world it just don't work out that way ,, 100's and 100's of veriables get in the way

 

how about pointing out any and all spacific points made in the last 8 pages that actualy help make a members car get a better 1/4 mile time in this thread , besides saying higher rpm hp numbers are better

( a fact every one knows already)

[Chad]

i think what Jinx and i have been trying to point out is NO formula or example will say X amount of HP will have "X" ET, it's all fine on paper to say a 540 hp car will do a 1/4 in "X" time ,, but in the real world it just don't work out that way ,, 100's and 100's of veriables get in the way

 

But same can be said about torqe. You can't say one and deny the other. Especially given that they are essentialy the same thing, just that one has more factored into its figure.

 

 

You wanna make a car ET faster? make more HP, choose correct gearing, and find a way to put it to the pavement with propper suspension and traction. Ruin any of these varriables and the rest won't matter, it will be slow. This topic is about horsepower vs torque, not the 100's of other varriables anyway. Those deserve their own topics as they are also very important.

 

Jinx is saynig make more torque, I say HP is torque, so why not make more of that instead since it by it's very nature improves the torque and where the torque is made (in the RPM band where you actually race).

[jinx]

Jinx said, "with enough torque (even if it is lower in the rpm), a clever person can (and has) produce a top notch et". Buick GNs been doing it forever.

This is fact, not perception. I've provided G54 examples. You've given..... none.

Why would anyone bother building 2 valve motors, if they couldn't ?

 

This "monkey-see, Monkey-do" approach is dangerous. It's is all based on your perception. You are left with many guesses to make.

Not if you're a smart enough monkey I'm a sucka for "doing more using less".... my 1.8L starlet will blow away a heavily moded 54 starquest, without ever taking the valve pan cover off = one happy monkey. I'll leave all the guesswork and analysis to you, bud.

 

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".

The 54 'naturally' makes a surge of torque earlier in the rpm. A handful have tuned to that strength, and posted among the best ETs we've seen. Fact, not perception.

Those that share your mindset, can't figure that out and underestimate how effective such a torque curve can be.

The silly comments you've posted is evidence of where "anaylsis" can get you. Math doesn't lie, but your application of it is outta wack imo.

 

i think what Jinx and i have been trying to point out is NO formula or example will say X amount of HP will have "X" ET, it's all fine on paper to say a 540 hp car will do a 1/4 in "X" time ,, but in the real world it just don't work out that way ,, 100's and 100's of veriables get in the way

exactly!!

as Chad mentioned, the wrong gear can railroad an effort. I'm sure he can build a slow car Try building a quick one..... but why go thru a gear swap ? Put on the wrong turbine housing, make more peak hp, turbo fall outta boil every shift = crappy et = dyno queen. Stick that in your formulas and try it.

 

Here is one for you;

A clubmember run the same nissan 1.8L in his full street S13(240sx), body kit custom paint, the works. Walked out the hole at a leisurely 1.7 60ft, 10.4et. Told me he's going slightly taller gear to avoid 3-4th shift just before the trap, as he estimates he's losing a little over a tenth. Car does 1.5s 60ft when on launch control, but didn't wanna risk breaking anything and an expensive flatbed ride home.

Same weight as eipquest. Both excellent tuned combos on top of their game

1.8 dyno'd 679hp (E85) vs eip, nowhere near 474 hp the entire run. Tremendous difference, eh ?

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

 

Now..... let's have a look at some streetable 2300 pound 1.8L sub 9.1sec (no spray) samples

[Komeuppance]

LOL... talking in the third person, yeah!!

 

-Robert

[Chad]

Jinx said, "with enough torque (even if it is lower in the rpm), a clever person can (and has) produce a top notch et". Buick GNs been doing it forever.

This is fact, not perception. I've provided G54 examples. You've given..... none.

Why would anyone bother building 2 valve motors, if they couldn't ?

 

While I get what you are saying, I think it misses other factors that are playing a much larger role in acceleration performance.

 

So if a mountain of torque is more than enough to make up for HP, why is the 3rd gen viper over 2 seconds faster than the 1st gen in a 1/4 mile race? The 3rd gen has ~95 ft/lb more torque, but it's also 150#'s heavier. That 95 ft/lb and extra weight is not going to make up 2+ seconds in the quarter. There is something else going on. I already know what it is, but I'm curious what you think it is. This is a monkey-see, Monkey do moment. I'm not telling you all the facts, Just ET's, wieght, and torque. Just look and see, tell me what is going on.

 

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