Obviously the gearing would need to be different. Gearing is what lets us take a low torque motor and make it accelerate quickly by multiplying the engine torque by the gear ratio. I assumed this much.

Anways, this is going in circles. We are not going to agree and I have alot of work to do.

 

Nope, it doesn't mean higher torque, it means torque is sustained longer which results in higher HP numbers.

 

To keep it simple. Notice that most don't include AWD into the equation as well.

Any good simulator, including the one by the author mentioned earlier, will need to know peak HP and torque and their respective RPM. It will also need the weight and gearing of the vehicle.

 

And that means what...

HP = RPM / 5252 * Torque

If a car makes 300 lb/ft at 5252 RPM it makes 300 HP. Again, why is it you are referring to HP and torque as different values when HP is a subordinate of torque??

 

i said "higher torque at higher RPMs". i.e. a flatter torque curve. And yes it results in higher HP numbers, which is what I have been saying all along and why high hp is a good indicator.

 

of course I always agreed that all these variables have an impact.

but this whole argument is about engine hp vs engine torque. 2 numbers. And if one only has those 2 numbers, HP is the better indicator. which is why the 1/4 mile calculators use HP, not torque.

 

Nope, it is just that HP is advertised more and more well known. You could take torque and estimate numbers just as well but most people spout HP numbers only.

My position is that you can't rely on a single value to get an indication of performance. That is the really cheap way to bench race....

 

That position has nothing to do with this argument. I think we are all in agreement on that position. And noone is arguing that torque is not the "force" that moves a car either.

But in most cars, with an assumed relatively flat torque, and assumed optimum gearing, peak horsepower will be a MUCH better indicator than peak torque. If I have 200 ft/lbs of torque but produce 100 HP, I'm gonna get smoked by the guy with 200 HP and 100 ft/lbs of torque. I really cant see how you can continue to argue against this

 

I never said that HP wasn't related to torque... now you're just making things up.

My point was that your engine's hp is very high at low rpm compared to most engines because you have very high torque at low rpm. If you restricted an F1 engine to your trucks redline, you'd smoke it all day long.


300hp is 300hp regardless of rpm. The amount of power you can deliver to the ground is no different if you have an engine that does 300hp @ 18,000 rpm or 300hp @ 2000 rpm. These two theoretical engines would have to be geared very differently but the acceleration would be the same.

 

Because it depends on many things including gearing.

 

right , which is why I said "assuming optimum gearing".

 

This is why I stopped posting in here. Glad to see you are trying to explain things still.

 

They also don't have a transmission

 

this is the wrong subject to argue w/ scalbert about.

 

siggy, i suggest you read all the posts before commenting. I don't think your argument has much to stand on any more.

 

obviously its not.

 

Which means that the gearing issue goes away. Then we can observe them flying down the track not at peak torque (mid RPMs), but at peak HP (high RPM-redline). And what top-fuelers care about most is ET, right?

 

I did...

I ask you... What is my argument. I'd like to know what you think I'm arguing?

Much to stand on? you ignored my M5 to E55 comparsion. Showing a properly geared 7 speed high reving, high HP LOW torque engine vs a lower HP high torque engine. And to top things off the E55 is heavier!

I don't have any desire to really continue discussing this with you. However if you feel the need to (hopefully) answer my question go ahead.

Have you ever done any benchwork yourself? i.e. testing? engine building? where do you get your math background from that would make your *theories* founded?

The people your arguing with have lots of practical hands on experience, and a good technical background.

 

Actually no, they gear the rear end to match the torque curve. And they stall the engine at the start of the powerband.

They use the torque to *move* the car down the track. They don't rely on high RPMs and low torque/high HP too. Most of drag racing is the 1st 300 feet

 

I answered your question about 10 times already, as well as provide tons of other evidence. So have others. I think thats enough. If 2 cars, including the 2 cars you mention are geared for the same purpose, the higher HP car will be faster.

 

I will attempt to sum up this conversation using link to quotes and comments.

Your early post:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...8&postcount=27

My rebuttal:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...9&postcount=30

Early on I said that when making these comparisons you have to consider gearing. You did not mention anything early on about gearing, just HP. It wasn’t until later that you changed your tune.

Your next response said nothing about gearing:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...8&postcount=27

I followed up again with mentioning gearing is relevant:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...8&postcount=35

In the following post you try to state that ” the longer you can stay in a given the gear more torque to the wheels you will produce.” which makes no sense; maybe I read it wrong. But it is certainly not an absolute and very rarely correct. But your next statement did have validity.
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...7&postcount=42

Finally, some common ground:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=55

https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...9&postcount=63

But once again we are limiting the application:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...6&postcount=70

I cited contrary examples where torque can create quick vehicles; they are blindly rejected:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...6&postcount=70

https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...4&postcount=71

You claimed that the same ET would have been had even if the torque had been lower but the HP was the same. That is so far from the truth it is ridiculous.:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...3&postcount=74

Later you clarified the statement by claiming that gearing would need to be changed but that was not originally mentioned:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=81

That change of gearing to net the same results would not make the vehicle feasible to drive on the street.

It does appear that the ideas were not too far off but pieces were being left out. Gearing became an area of focus once its relevancy was determined. However, it was left out in the beginning and now seems to be a focus point.

 

Laws of physics > experience

They have this neat little competition every year that awards somthing called the Nobel Prize. If your exprience is different than the current laws of phyisics, you are indeed eligible to claim this prize.

If you want to prove to me that an engine that makes 300hp at 2000rpm does not produce the same amout of power as 300hp at 18000rpm then I'll take back everything I've said.

Yes there's a huge difference between these two engines in terms of torque, but that torque number is meaningless once it reaches the ground.

The 300hp @ 2,000rpm engine needs 787.8 lb ft of torque to produce 300 HP.
The 300hp @ 18,000rpm engine needs 87.53 lb ft of torque to produce 300 HP.

Obviously you don't want your wheels to be spinning at 18,000 rpm so you need to reduce the speed with a transmission. In this case, you'd need to reduce the rotation of the 18,000 rpm engine by a factor of 9:1. As you decrease the rotational speed with gearing, you increase the amount of available torque by the same amount.

87.53 lb ft x 9 = 787.8 lb ft

Imagine that! The final amount of power being delivered to the wheels by a 300hp engine spinning at 18,000 rpm with a 9:1 gear reduction is exactly the same as a 300hp @ 2000 rpm engine with a 1:1 ratio.

 

scalbert, wow you have alot of time on your hands. Unfortunately i dont have quite as much but I can see already you're spinning things and twisting my words.

I never mentioned gearing because I ASSUMED THAT GEARING WOULD BE OPTIMAL. Obviously a badly geared car will be slow, regardless of HP or torque. I'm talking about what tells you more about the straight line performance of a car, engine torque or HP. And the answer is HP , all else being equal. On this point you are completely wrong.

I have always been in agreement on the impact gearing will have on acceleration, but this changes nothing about my origional point.

 

What does that have to do with the price of eggs?? Also, what are you arguing??

You said the following:
Even fdl stated that a vehicle accelerates hardest at peak torque for a given gear.

 

 

Twisting no, just rehashing what was posted. I am glad to hear gearing was assumed but it is unfortunate it wasn't mentioned earlier on.

Concurrently I would also like to state that gearing is not always optimal either. Only on some road cars and race cars. Most road cars share transmissions with other cars by the same make. Often these different cars have different power bands but still the same ratios. So ideal gearing is not often acheived.

I can see where you are coming from and perspective is a part of misunderstanding.

 

If you hadn't noticed, that was not the arguement.

 

My final post in this thread will be this:

Torque is a good thing.
HP is directly related to torque.
All else being equal, the more torque you have the more HP you have.
HP is HP regardless of RPM.
Shift at maximum HP to accelerate the fastest.


Thank you and now I return you to your regularly scheduled program.

 

how come desil's that have like 110hp and 250 lb-ft of torque are a lot slower then my car, which was 200 and 200

 

optimum gearing IS often acheived, to the extent that can be expected. i.e. optimized as well as any high torque car.

You've been proven wrong. Let it go. Its the not the end of the world anyways. sheesh. When 1/4 mile calculators start using torque ONLY instead of HP then we'll talk.

 

i haven't bothered reading though all the fluff, but why the flame war? I know scalbert is the acura-cl tech guru, and quite knowledgeable about cars and tuning , but can it even be argued that HP is the best indicator of a cars performance with the caveat that it has proper gearing to take advantage of it?

I've always been a proponent that peak hp and toque numbers are often misleading...give me the rpms they occurr at and a dyno graph and gear ratios and you'll have a good picture of the cars performance.

 

Not optimal, please show me where a GTP with the L67 engine and 4T65E transaxle is optimized. Even the CL-S6 could have better ratios.

Proven wrong, keep dreaming as it was you who finally started admitting omissions.

 

Bingo, there is more to it than a single value.

And BTW, I don't think there is a flame war, just spirited discussions.

 

So your ignoring my M5 to E55 comparsion I see.

 

I have nothing but respect for scalbert and SiGGY. I apologize if it came off as a flame war but sometime people get passionate trying to defend what they believe.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

You know what, this is getting silly. I'm going to try and leave on a high note hear and say I think most of us here know what we are talking about, but some of us are being a bit stubborn. Have a good day guys this was fun.

 

Right, I was just reading his thread going "ok, and we're not discussing that"

Don't worry I don't think this is a flame war just a discussion.

 

M5 has a close ratio 7 speed transmission geared for a high RPM high HP engine. Take a moment and read about the engine/car it's a phenominal engine if you haven't already.

However the lower HP higher torque (and heavier I may add) E55 is faster.

But, I'll stop with this thread. Just giving a real world example of how HP isn't always a sign of speed.

I'm out anyway, got a ton of fuggin work to do

 

torque> HP

Legacy >> TSX

 

I almost feel like deleting your post because it's just painful to read.

Yes the Legacy is faster and I don't think anyone is disputing that.