wavshrdr

I wish I could find a video I had somewhere from about a year ago. It was a german video where a guy lined up a BMW 330d (3.0 liter diesel) against an M3 (current model). The 330d had a chip and actually pulled the M3 all the way to about 100 mph. The 330d was running high 4's low 5's 0-60 and solid 13 second quarter miles.

My diesel Excursion will toast a stock TL in the 1/4 mile. Obviously it's not stock (looks stock though) but it moves for a 8000 pound truck. My friend's diesel 3/4 ton pickup truck will eat a Viper or Z06 in the quarter mile. He is running in the 11's with his truck. Don't overlook what a well built diesel will do. Mostly we see the low HP/torque version diesels in the US because of the high sulfur content in the fuel but drive a high HP Euro version and you might be amazed. Great performance and mileage are on tap.

wavshrdr

All told in my TDI Bug I have about 6K above the original purchase price but about 2500 of that went for a light weight set of 18" wheels for the street. Hardest thing was getting a clutch to hold up. I ended up with a clutch from the VW G60 (supercharged) Corrado. I used a Quaife LSD to help the car hook up but it helps more in the turns than on a launch. I have big injectors and the fuel pump from a Euro VW TDI. That and an Upsolute chip and you have a totally stock looking TDI (even stock exhaust) that is amazingly fun to drive.

I have a propane tank for when I want an extra boost. I purposely kept it stock looking for a real sleeper. Pop the hood and even the VW dealer has no clue as all the parts have VW part numbers on them! Stock exhaust keeps the car quiet and stock intake was in there until a few weeks ago.

I added a short shift kit to round everything off. I just had to watch EGT temps when dialing it in and now everything has been as reliable as can be. I have almost 60,000 miles on in its modded form and its never failed to start or run. Nothing has broken other than my wife smacking the oil pan on a rock which caused a slow leak of oil and a $500 repair bill. Even in -20F temps it still fires off. Considering the HP has been effectively doubled I can't complain. Someone could replicate my TDI motor for less if they were willing to scrounge a bit for best prices. My injector pump cost me almost 1200 bucks and was the single most expensive part. I would not do the Quaife again. A lot of work for little benefit and drilling out the rivets on the ring gear was a PITA!

Sorry almost forgot about fuel mileage. It is pretty much unchanged. I got more variation from winter fuel and/or when I bolt on my 18's. The 18's have a lot more rolling resistance and it kills my mileage about 2-4 mpg. Winter fuel also kills it a bit. Worst tank of fuel since I've owned it was 37 mpg.

Ken1997TL

The diesel Accord in Europe is getting great reviews, I'm hoping the Acura TSX will have it as an option soon

wavshrdr

The cool thing about diesels is that in stock form they make good torque usually at real world rpms. You don't have to get the motor way up in the rpm range. This makes diesels pretty satisfying in normal driving. I read a German road test where they did a shootout between the Accord diesel and it's competitors and they did like it.

If I remember correctly it was in the high 9's 0-100 kmh. Mileage though was in the high 40 range on the Euro highway cycle. Actually they do mileage in liters burned for 100 kms. of driving. So while a 9 second 0-100 kmh (62 mph) might not seem speedy just wait for a chip to come out. Usually the chips knock off 1.5- 2 seconds on diesels like the Accord's size. So now you have a car running 7 second 0-60 times but still with great mileage and they work great with AT transmissions which is something I can't say about the current TSX. It feels really doggy with the 5AT.

Jirzlee

iTrader: (1)

Well, peak Hp to Weight ratio is always more telling of acceleration than peak Tq to Weight ratio. Don't get me wrong, more torque is always good - more torque mathematically equates to more horsepower.

Ken1997TL

It CAN increase. Remember that HP is created by torque AND engine speed

wavshrdr

I disagree that HP/weight is being more important than torque. In most driving torque is far more important that HP. HP is actually calculated from the torque values and is a function for RPM. Typically motors that spin higher have more HP. A car could have a lot of HP but very little torque and accelerate much slower than a car with a bigger motor (torque) but not as high revving so quite possibly less HP and then would have a lower top speed.

All a transmission is basically a torque multiplier. A car with a high torque to weight ratio is more satisfying to drive in everyday life than high HP to weight. The lower the torque peak (or a broad torque plateau) the more satisfying in daily driving. Perfect example of high hp/weight butt miserable to drive daily is a S2000. Unless you drive it like you stole it, it won't get out of its own way.

I do agree with you that more torque is usually a good thing though. You can try and get around some of this with gearing but not always. High hp/weight is the Euro approach and Americans typically did high torque/weight. Considering the tax structure in Europe they had few choices.

wavshrdr

Well at least we all generally agree on one thing. Torque is good!

To quote Cork Bell (hopefully you all know who he is). "Turbo's make torque and torque makes fun!" That's why every one of my cars (except the TL for now) is either turbocharged or supercharged. I love torque and a healthy dose of HP to go with it is fun too.

samkws

LOL the worst is 37mpg, the best we got probably would less than 37mpg!!!

torque is KING and you gotta love the diesels

Jirzlee

iTrader: (1)

If you increase torque at a given rpm you WILL also increase horsepower at that same rpm, but you are right if you mean that the peak horsepower will not necessarily rise.

wavshrdr

So far the best I've seen out of my TL is 31 with cruise locked at 73. It's not totally broken in yet as it's only got about 1k miles on it so maybe it'll get better. I have noticed that high teens are only a press of the throttle away though.

I also think we can all agree that diesel typically don't make the HP that gas motor due because they don't spin as high. My Excursion is dead by 3k rpm and my TDI Bug is pretty much done at 4700 but will spin to 5200. But they way either of these vehicles pull at their torque peaks would put a huge smile on your face.

Anyone check out how much slower the RL is than the TL even though Acura did a lot of gearing changes to try and mask it? They put in a bigger motor, more torque and HP, dropped the gearing (raised numerically) and it's still slower than the 5AT TL. So...either they lied about the TL torque/HP or the RL torque/HP is a possibility.

samkws

i did my TL with almost 40mpg once on a trip from montreal to toronto, but you have to stay below 2500rpm as the cams do not open fully below that rpm, so it's 75mph would be ok

the RL is a large and heavy car, with 4000lb and AWD and all the gadgets it's hard to make it fast unless they have a V8, but still impressively from a 3.5L V6

Ken1997TL

In the '03 TL for example 33 mpg at 75 mph is easily attainable. I'm willing to bet that at 60 mph I could get mid to high 30's.

And I agree with the statement about the RL. Its not meant to be a record setter for acceleration and it does very well against its 6 cylinder competition in terms of speed.

Jirzlee

iTrader: (1)

You have every right to disagree that Hp is more important than Tq, but as far as max acceleration goes you'd be wrong.

I think it comes down to preferance and how the power is going to be used. In my post I stated that as far as acceleration goes hp is more important and I still stand by that because I believe that I am scientifically (aka as governed by the laws of physics) correct.

"In most driving torque is far more important that HP" This may in a sense be true but it is for one personal prefence if you like to rev up or not, and two, most driving would have to include all types of driving up to but not including the test of max acceleration.

"A car with a high torque to weight ratio is more satisfying to drive in everyday life than high HP to weight" Once again its personal preferance. Do you want to be able to burn the tires on demand with gobs of torque or accelerate as quickly as possible with lots of HP?

Jirzlee

iTrader: (1)

Torque is just a number that represents force applied over a distance. Force alone doesn't mean much unless you also consider time into the equation. This is the reason for horsepower. Horsepower is the measure of work done, and includes force, distance, AND TIME. Like others have said, horsepower is derived from torque and rpm - so then we have all that we need - force, distance and time.

Lets say you have two hypothetical engines with the same torque output but made at different rpms.

The first engine makes 150ft.lbs @ 8000rpm
That calculates out to 150 x 8000 / 5252 = 228.5hp

The second engine makes 150ft.lbs @ 4000rpm
That calculates out to 150 x 4000 / 5252 = 114.25hp

So if torque dictates acceleration these cars should perform similarly right? But thats not the case, as wavshrdr pointed out the - the transmission is basically a torque multiplier, the first car will be much faster because it will be able to use 2 times the gear box torque multiplication of the second car while at the same time keeping the same mph shift points. The torque transferred to the pavement by car number one will be double that of car number two. This is because it has twice the number of revolutions per minute of engine no. 2, so gearing the 8000rpm down with a 4:1 ratio will give 2000 wheel rpm and (150ft.lbs x 4) 600ft.lbs of torque at the pavement...While engine no two would need a 2:1 ratio to keep the same wheel speed of 2000rpm but it would get just 300ft.lbs of torque at the pavement. So torque doesn't tell the whole story because rpm (here we are with TIME in the equation) dictates how aggresive you can be with the gearing. Why do you think F1 engines push rpms as high as possible? They make over 700HP and only ~280ft.lbs of torque, which is less torque than wavshrdr put down at the wheels in his TDI. Now do you think that in a similarly weighted vehicle the TDI engine would out accelerate the F1 engine? The F1 engine could use like 4 times the torque multiplication throught the tranny and still maintain the same speed in each gear. Maybe someone should tell Ferrari that they are shooting for horsepower when they should be going for torque!!

Jirzlee

iTrader: (1)

Now here is a quick real-world comparison of two cars with similar power to weight ratios and similar 1/4 mile times. These are just the first two cars that I thought of with similar performance in terms of acceleration.

'05 S2000
240hp 2835lbs = 11.81 lbs per horsepower

'05 G35 coupe
298hp 3512lbs = 11.78 lbs per horsepower

So their power to weight ratios are very close with the G35 just slightly better.

S2000
162ft.lbs 2835lbs = 17.5 lbs per foot pound of torque

G35
260ft.lbs 3512lbs = 13.5 lbs per foot pound of torque

Now here with the torque to weight ratio we have a much larger difference but yet both cars do the 1/4 mile in about 14.2 @ 100mph give or take a smidge. The great torque to weight advantage of the G35 doesn't materialize as a great acceleration advantage when the cars are taken to their limits.

MADCAT

LOL!...What I find frm the 99TL is that when I get over 3000 and into the high 5000, my car pulls like a running away train!

jhan1102

Well here it goes:

05 TL AT: 270hp @ 6200rpm = 228.716 lbs-ft
05 TL AT: 238lbs-ft @ 5000 rpm = 226.58 hp

03 TL Type-s: 260hp @ 6100rpm = 223.856 lbs-ft
03 TL Type-s: 232lbs-ft @ 3500 rpm = 154.608 hp

05 G35 AT: 280hp @ 6200rpm = 237.187 lbs-ft
05 G35 AT: 270lbs-ft @ 4800 rpm = 246.763 hp


From this, I think TL type-s does pull little faster off the start.

wavshrdr

You didn't factor in the transmission in this instance. As we all know gearing plays a big effect. You need to compare torque to weight after factoring in the torque multiplication of the transmissions since no one is running a direct drive single speed gearbox you can't make the comparison you did as it is flawed logic. Your previous analogy with respect to F1 cars is totally flawed as well. The reason F1 cars rev high is that there are limits placed on them by the ruling bodies that govern racing. In almost any class where there are no sizes on displacement almost everyone goes with large displacement motors as a starting point assuming the chassis can handle it and their is no huge weight penalty.

Another part of your argument that is a little bit skewed is that while in peak acceleration an S2000 and G35 are relatively close how they go about it quite different and that presents an issue. As we all know a S2000 is a high strung car. At peak acceleration it is quick but off the cams it is a dog and lots of slower cars will pull it until its high strung motor gets back on the cam.

So lets take a hypothetical street match up and not on a race track or we could make it a pro-rally type environment. The high strung motor is much harder to drive, launch, etc. If the S2000 is not on the RPM range where it is pulling hard it has no chance against a G35 even though published 1/4 times are similar. The 2000 is a sitting duck if it's not smack dab in VTEC range. I've raced quite a few of them and unless the S2000 "chooses" the speed from which he wants to run, he will get pulled my "slower" cars and hope he can chase them down. That isn't going to happen against a G35. If the G35 gets a jump and the S2000 isn't boiling, it is game over. No chance of running him down. Conversely if the S2000 gets a jump on the G it is probably going to hang with it all the way up as the G has a less peaky motor.

A better indicator of how cars do on the street is to look at street start times that some magazine test. I also prefer to read the German car mags as they publish a greater variety of stats and sometimes plot entire acceleration curves in each gear to give you a better idea of how the car pulls at various rpms. Unfortunately that only helps if they have similar cars and trim as US Spec ones which doesn't always happen.

I understand what you are saying about cars that can be fun to drive like the S2000. My WRX is like that. Once the big turbo spools up it is a rocket and pulls like a maniac to the rev limiter. It is somewhat high strung but it has enough punch once it's spooled up that it can run down most cars even if they get a jump on me before boost is in the really usable range.

I'll personally take the large displacement motors that may have as much HP as a smaller motor but with more torque. They are easier to tune, often more fun to drive and definitely easier to race and gearing isn't such an issue. To each their own but I'll gladly take the biggest engine I can legally run and then go from there. No point starting a disadvantage and it's really more fun when you can run any size motor you want.

That is why I often hate Euro cars. They have the screwed tax systems in many countries that taxed cars on displacement. As a result european car makers made high strung high rpm high HP motors to try and circumvent the tax structure. Couple that with previously more high speed roads than us and high HP was more important often than torque. Germany is about the last hold out with quasi-unlimited speed on the autobahn.

edwards

I agree with you.

I wish that Acura \ Honda with give you more RPMs so you could play with the Vtech more. By the time you hit the Vtech it is all over and you have to switch gears.

Give us 9100 RPMs!

Jirzlee

iTrader: (1)

I've shown in more than one way that peak HP is in fact more telling of acceleration than peak TQ. You have given no evidence. You keep going off on tangents about big displacement vs small displacement (of course a larger motor has a higher max potential for power) and saying goofy things like "If the S2000 is not on the RPM range where it is pulling hard" (well no kidding)...How the two cars go about power delivery is not my arguement because it simply isn't a matter that can be debated, its personal preference!

"You didn't factor in the transmission in this instance. As we all know gearing plays a big effect" This is EXACTLY the point!! I showed previously that a high revving engine actually has a higher gearing advantage, which is why it can keep up with a car with more torque, because it multiplies the torque it does have by a higher value. Besides, both cars have sporty 6-speed trannies, do you really think that the G35 has such extremely inferior gearing that the S2000 can overcome the major 23% torque to weight advantage of the G35 because of it? No, the real reason that the cars performace is so close is because the HP to weight ratio is so close. I could have used any cars for the comparison, I don't know why you start picking on the S2000.

This is really the whole point of my arguement: It is the torqe that is transferred to the pavement that dictates acceration not the amount of peak torque at the crank. The amount of torque that will effectively be transferred to the pavement is better represented by peak HP than peak Tq because:

Torque at the crank does not equal torque at the wheel. And I'm not making reference to drivetrain loss, but rather mathematically speaking. It is not equal because of the tranny. What's happening is you are trading the extra revs for extra torque. What I'm saying is that torque is mulitplied by the transmission, but revolutions per minute are divided at the same time. I don't know why you keep pointing out the gearing thing because that issue is obviously in favor of a high rpm motor.

Horsepower, on the otherhand, stays constant because it is the amount of work done. The amount of work done cannot be multiplied. 200Hp at the crank = 200Hp at the wheel mathematically speaking. If you have 150ft.lbs turning 8000rpm at the crank you will have, regardless of gearing, the same amount at the wheels. The amount of work done at the wheels could be represented by any combination of figures for torque and rpm that calculate to that same amount of work. For example 75ft.lbs at 16,000rpm or 300 ft.lbs at 4000rpm both will equal 228.5hp. This is because even though the torque is mulitplied and the revs are divided, Hp is a function of the two so the end result is the same. The tranny is not some majical piece of equipment that makes something out of nothing. The amount of work done stays the same.

This is why peak HP alone is more telling than peak TQ when it comes to acceleration. This post is not in any way supposed to show that tiny high revving engines are more fun to drive or have a higher potential for absolute power!! I'm simply stating the facts.

Posted by wavshrdr:
"Your previous analogy with respect to F1 cars is totally flawed as well. The reason F1 cars rev high is that there are limits placed on them by the ruling bodies that govern racing. In almost any class where there are no sizes on displacement almost everyone goes with large displacement motors as a starting point assuming the chassis can handle it and their is no huge weight penalty."
Here you go with big displacement vs small. The physical size limitation has nothing to do with the arguement. So the Formula cars are displacement governed..SO WHAT..Tell me this, why don't they tune for low end toque instead of high end torque (hp)? <----this is the arguement.
There is absolutely no debate that if someone is given the free choice between a small displacement motor and a large one and their intended purpose is to accelerate, they should pick the larger one - because it has a higher capacity to pump more air and generate more horsepower. I never argued to the contrary.

samkws

it kinda sick for those who still thinks diesel stinks, kinda ignorant

the diesels are very underrated in america, but look at what MB imports their 320CDI, a smoking diesel that will outrun the E320i gas model with 369lb of torque while still managed to pump out 201hp!!!! some gas engines can't even put out 200hp from a 3.2L

look at that TDI bug, tons of fun with that much power in a small car with 40mpg all day everyday!!!

who would rev up to redline everyday when u driving in a city? all you need is torque, that's the main reason we are buying V6 instead of a 4 banger.

samkws

yes, the US version of the TDI has only 90hp...(now has 100hp from 04)

but you almost forgot the passat TDI engine, the 2.0L TDI is new to america and it has 134hp and 247lb of torque!!! not only it gets more hp than some 2L engines but doubled the torque and it's available at 1800rpm for full!!!

you can see the hybirds are doing the same thing too, increase the torque in low end to get better mileage

cvajs

probably more like those who control oil imports/refining would rather see gas cars over diesels.

my hypothesis, electric/fuel cell cars will be primetime before diesels. gasoline (& diesel) will be a thing of the past.

wavshrdr

Jirzlee- obviously this is more or personal preference issue. If high end torque is so important then why do hybrids use electric motors which make all their torque at essentially 0 rpm. It is because low end torque is what helps move a car from rest where RPMS are LOWER! They tune for high end torque sometimes (not Audi or MB for example) because low end torque makes a car more satisfying to drive at anything other than all out acceleration.

My TDI Bug will smoke an S2000 even though it makes FAR less HP than a S2000. At almost any speed range my Bug will pull it until it tops out due to gearing at ~140 mph. Why have a high strung motor that is miserable in daily traffic like the S2000?

Many manufacturers tune for high RPM torque not because it is better on the street but because spinning a motor higher will often raise the HP assuming torque doesn't fall off so if they want big HP numbers they need to keep the torque peak high or at least keep it from falling off while revs go up.

Nobody (if they had a choice) would choose an S2000 motor if they could drop in a motor that pulled that hard at lower RPM and still had a satisfying topend pull as well. Just because an S2000 may run with a G35 at peak acceleration doesn't mean the motor is as enjoyable or as useful. TDI doesn't make anywhere near the HP/weight ratio of the G35 or S2000 but it will beat them both in the 1/4 mile.

Quality is as important if not more so as quantity of torque and HP. I am not saying that a car with less torque to weigh ratio at the crank can't be as fast my point is that typically higher torque to weight ratio cars are better in daily driving. The real world is not a race track. You used the S2000 as a comparison. If I followed your logic to its conclusion they would put high revving motors in trucks and they don't. Trucks need a lot of torque to get moving more so than HP. Good race cars don't always make good street cars unless you live on a race track.

samkws- drive the Euro version of the TDIs and see how they go. Take a pump deuse TDI motor in a Golf and add a 6 speed gearbox and AWD. You'll have an amazingly fun ride that is fast (less than 7 second 0-100kph stock) and great mileage. Other fast diesels that we don't see are the BMW 330d, 530d, Audi big TDI motors, etc. Tons of torque in the cars and all are sub 7 second 0-100kph cars and with a chip can be 5 second cars and still get over 40mph on the highway. Of course the E320 CDI we get is not a slug. I've driven that car a lot and it goes!

cvajs- fuel cell cars might have a chance but hybrids have some big limitations. They work fairly well until their battery packs are discharged and in cold weather they aren't so great either. If you have to climb a few hills their packs deplete pretty quickly and go help you when you need to replace the battery packs which they tend to rate at 100k-150k. You are going to drop some serious cash on that.

I think an amazing combo could be a diesel/hybrid (or fuel cell car). Diesels make lots of torque and you diesel is a renewable fuel source so no long term supply issues. I've run bio-diesel in my TDI and it's worked great.

I somewhat feel there are not just technical issues at play regarding the whole electric car debate. I think social engineering plays into this as well. I feel the governement wants to adopt a European model of centralized society and if you limit the range and the attendant freedom a car provides us then you can keep the populace centally located and eaiser to manage. You can envision lots of scenarios why this might be good for the government. Some are good and some are nefarious. It is your choice as to why. So if you take away cars or limit their range you force them to localize geographically. Many Americans don't want to live on top of each other like many European cities and our fuel prices aren't so high yet to force us to seriously consider alternatives to a gas motor.

I willingly choose diesels in addition to my TL because they are quite efficient but I love the great amount of torque they provide at low RPM. It is like driving a car with a much bigger gas motor but without the fuel mileage penalty. I don't care if I am down 20HP and have a reduction in top speed I can't use often. I'll take the immediate satisfying fountain of torque available at almost any rpm. It is like the difference between riding a 500cc MX bike as compared to a 250 or 125. Just twist the throttle and the big bore bike goes, no waiting for rpms to rise or a quick stab of the clutch to go, just hit and you go.

Hybrids still have potential and are getting more main stream everyday. Only at high cruising speeds do they not work really well in their current form. FYI, I can often get better mileage at high sustained speeds with my diesel than the hybrids as at that point they are running on their gas engines continuously. That is why I like the diesels more for my usage. In town a hybrid can be awesome.

ericajackhannahjamie?

Actually,

it's Offense wins games, but Defense wins championships.

wavshrdr

Wish the Vikings would learn that. They must have the saddest defense in the NFL. The offense gives them good leads but the defense couldn't stop a line of of cub scouts it seems. Minnesota doesn't seem to have either enough torque or HP!

samkws

diesel is already in primetime and will be the mainstream for the next few years ( at least in Europe) the new direct injection for diesel applied on most new engines and it gives a big improvement over the traditional design.

hybird is not ready just yet due to technology and price most of all, they cannot compete with diesel cars with the operation cost is much lower and they cost less.

only a few hybirds are availalbe now and they cannot produce massively due to high cost.

cpurick

Horsepower is torque multiplied by time. Since acceleration is a temporal concept, horsepower is a better indicator of acceleration performance.

Peak torque, when considered with peak torque RPM and horsepower figures, is a good indicator of driveability -- in particular, whether or not you have to do a lot of downshifting to drive it.

Where the rubber meets the road, literally, it is all about maximizing torque at the wheels. This is done by dividing power -- as a product of torque times RPM at the engine -- into torque times wheel RPM.

Theoretically, it doesn't matter whether power is created 200lb/ft @ 6000rpm or 300lb/ft @ 4000rpm at the engine. With the right gearing you get the same power to the wheels either way. What does matter is whose gearing permits him to get into this peak earliest, and whose gearing better permits him to keep the engine at peak power throughout the run.

In particular, if you're driving a turbo or a Vtec, or anything that depends on a lot of revs for its power, you can't afford to waste time spooling it up or missing shifts. With a "torquier" engine these details are less critical.

Jirzlee

iTrader: (1)

Once again you've managed to elude the point. We are in agreement that power delivery is personal preference.

Its funny that you bring up hybrids. They have gobs of torque, are lightweight, and still SLOW (not incl. V6 accord). They are meant for good gas mileage, we are talking about speed here. Why you bring up hybrids and trucks is beyond me.

"Nobody (if they had a choice) would choose an S2000 motor if they could drop in a motor that pulled that hard at lower RPM and still had a satisfying topend pull as well." - OK, let me get this straight - you'd rather take the motor that had the same great topend pull but ALSO had greater power down low? No kidding huh. And I would also take a low torque engine that had great topend pull as well over one that had only the low end torque. You are killin' me here buddy.

I know that the real world is not a race track - but I though we were talking about max acceleration, somehow the topic got switched on me - it was switched to a personal preference issue about daily driving and picking up groceries and such...

Jirzlee

iTrader: (1)

Well said. The last paragraph shows why many choose low end torque engines, they are often easier to drive on the street. I don't know if wavshrdr will actually read the whole post though. Horsepower is the better indicator because, like I also have pointed out earlier, the peak torque number does not make any concern to TIME.

SergeyM

To get both ends, low and top an engine needs to have both, liters and RPMs. The previous generation M5 engine came pretty close to an ideal motor. It had 5 liters of displacement and 8000 RPM red-line. I wish Honda could build something like that.

wavshrdr

I did read the posts. Actually turbos don't need a lot of rpm to produce usable boost. A well matched system is virtually invisible to the driver.

One by-product of using gearing to compensate for a torque deficit is it reduces the effective useful range of speed in each gear. If you gear the lower torque car to pull as hard as the car that is similar in HP but more torque then you reduce the speed range at which that car can pull hard in that gear. So while it may pull as hard as the other car it may do it for substantially less time thus forcing another gear change. Assuming you have enough gears to get the job done this can work fine but it also makes gearing critical and as we all know each gear change costs time especiall in a normal MT tranny.

To take it to an extreme you might need an 8 spd gearbox to compensate. Sure theoretically you can do it but why would you want to? In the real world on the street it doesn't work that way. Anyone ever see the really fast 50cc road race bikes run? They had HP way up there and 7 spd gearboxes if not more. They were down on torque but they similar HP/wt ratios as bigger bikes and could accelerate with them ONLY if they were smack dab in the perfect gear for that speed. Who wants to drive a car that is that finicky on the street? Back to personal preference issue.

My WRX makes a lot of torque but buying going with a big turbo it is slightly more tempermental but still pulls hard about 2700 rpm and builds progressively. My MB is supercharged so it doesn't matter. The TDI makes peak torque at 1500 rpm so if it is doing anything more than idling it is pulling hard. It has a lower HP/wt ratio than a TL but it will eat a TL for lunch in the 1/4 mile. So maybe the TL needs to be seriously re-geared to take advantage of it's superior HP/wt versus my TDI. So even though my TDI is similar in weight to a TL but is 100 HP shy of the TL, it still out accelerates the TL. OTOH I have about a 100 lb/ft advantage of torque at the wheels.

That is why I personally like a torquier engine. Goes like heck and not critical with gear selection. If my TL is not in VTEC range it is not going to pull even remotely hard as my TDI because the TDI has a very broad torque band. Only place where my TL will pull my TDI is at very high speeds and that has a lot to do with the aerodynamics of the Bug as much as its less HP. All this and the motor is only 1.9 liters and stock tiny turbo.

One last comment about hybrids, often they have paired them with tiny gas motors. Lexus is on the right track and at least the Accord is too. Problem is they don't let the motors sometimes dump all the power they are capable of as they try to balance range with power. Electric cars can be quite quick even if they don't have a lot of HP. There is an electric RX7 running almost 10 second 1/4 miles and the current US record for an electric vehicle is an 8 second run. So electric cars do have some potential. The previous version of that car had a 21HP DC motor and it was in the 9's I think. So I think there is potential to have hi-perf electric cars but you really need big cables to supply the current they need and this could present some risks in production vehicles.

cpurick

Your point is valid where two engines produce comparable power with different combinations of torque and RPM. In that case, the higher torque engine is better.

However, in cases where the high torque engine produces significantly less power, there's no race. Power wins.

If you're going to choose which is more important, between power and torque, then it's power. However, when the power's more closely matched at the peak point, then torque begins to define the usefulness of the rest of the powerband.

Torque is not a substitute for power. But where power is similar, then torque becomes important. Since this is built on an assumption of similar power, then clearly power is more fundamental.

BTW, I have yet to see a turbo that was undetectable. I have seen some that weren't terribly inconvenient, but none that virtually invisible. (Perhaps it would be invisible to a lesser driver, but then I digress...)

Pro Stock John

I read about stock 6MT 2004/5 TL's going 14.2@98mph stock, what does a 03 TL go and what does a 2004/5 S2000 run? I thought S2000's run 14.7's or so.

Diesels make big low end torque and well that's about it. HP is just a number but I'll take a car that makes a lot of HP over a car that makes less HP and more tq any time to the strip.

I have a low 10 second Firebird too.

wavshrdr

cpurick- for turbos use a sequentially based turbo system and you have have a small turbo spool up quickly and then the bigger one can supply the real high boost you might want for the application. At just about idle my TDI is making serious torque and the turbo is virtually invisible in this application. While driving at highway speeds acceleration is immediate as the turbo is also well up in its usable rpm range.

Another technique I used on a turbo Mustang I built which had a big single turbo at first was to use a small shot of nitrous the kicked off when the turbo was making enough boost to take over. This was a pretty good combination when driven at full throttle.

You could also use a VNT type turbo as well. By using a variable nozzle you can make it thinks it is a small turbo to spool up quickly but then transform itself as you need more boost at higher rpms.

Most people put too much turbo for the car to run and then you have issues with lag. I personally hate lag so I try to not sacrifice too much drivability for the sake of ultimate HP. That is why I compromised on my WRX by not going too big but enough that it's WHP is mid 300's and I like to race in the snow and more power doesn't help me much if it is hard to modulate.

wavshrdr

PSJ - I love high HP cars for the strip but that is different than the street. Each type of racing has its own demands and what works great on the strip can totally suck other places. Just try driving a car with a high stall torque converter on the street and see how much fun that is and that fun can even be amplified when Mr. Policeman is sitting behind you just waiting for you to take off.

Unfortunately where I live I have to either make the choice of driving the car in snow and cold or make it a summer only car. This forces compromises I wouldn't normally make if I lived somewhere else and could drive the car year round like I want to. It's bad enough to have to put my bikes away for a few months but to be without at least a fast winter car would be a real PITA.

Pro Stock John

I'm not disagreeing that torque is important, but I think actually that this thread is too full of generalizations.

I have a 4500 stall in my car, it's had a 4500 stall of some kind since 2001.

On motor I used to make 475rwhp/505rwtq. (11.0@123)

I now make:

738rwhp/620tq. (10.3@136)

Reason why the TL has a high powerband is because it's a high revving V6. To make power from a small engine you have to rev it higher. The TL engine makes more power than my old 5.0 Mustangs did.

So who is faster from a roll, a S2000 or a TL? I would say TL, the TL has a bigger engine and should run away from a S2000, cuz the S2000 has to buz some big rpms to make power and it's no bantamweight.

Road Rage

Whatchusmokin, bud? I have both - the S2000 will walk a TL. It weighs 700 pounds less, has a better power/weight ratio, and excellent gearing. Each 100 pounds is good for about 10 HP.

Pro Stock John

Got a link where an S2000 runs better than high 14's stock? I call BS.