Musings on horsepower
06-14-2015, 09:17 AM
#41
Melting Slicks
dont forget that different types of driving and different types of racing require different types of horsepower and torque.
some people use 1/4 mile performance as a measuring stick, where rpm and horsepower are important, whereas other types of racing need more torque (for accelerating out of corners etc)
street driving is different again, and usually requires more torque because you are always stopping and accelerating again (while trying not to be booked or arrested !)
higher torque figures at lower rpms = better fuel economy too.
some people use 1/4 mile performance as a measuring stick, where rpm and horsepower are important, whereas other types of racing need more torque (for accelerating out of corners etc)
street driving is different again, and usually requires more torque because you are always stopping and accelerating again (while trying not to be booked or arrested !)
higher torque figures at lower rpms = better fuel economy too.
06-14-2015, 01:29 PM
#42
Safety Car
For normally aspirated engines, most of the good ones run about 1.20 hp per cubic inch. This is much more common in modern engines with variable cam timing to phase the intake valve opening event...it is like running a big cam without having a big cam.
The LT4 is one of the closest stock 350 sbc to achieve 1.0hp/ci. The later LT5 is 1.16hp/ci and so on (as is the LS3). Usually high revving smaller engines score more on this metric, but when you got more than 1hp per, You got that intangible quality of an engine that is willing to change speed quickly and usually has long usable range of power.
The LT4 is one of the closest stock 350 sbc to achieve 1.0hp/ci. The later LT5 is 1.16hp/ci and so on (as is the LS3). Usually high revving smaller engines score more on this metric, but when you got more than 1hp per, You got that intangible quality of an engine that is willing to change speed quickly and usually has long usable range of power.
06-14-2015, 02:40 PM
#43
Melting Slicks
They have no need to. The flat 6 works great, and makes the same or more power as the V8s. Plus there's already this:
Exclusive: RUF RGT-8 Prototype in action + V8 sound! - YouTube
Exclusive: RUF RGT-8 Prototype in action + V8 sound! - YouTube
Boost throws the whole thing out of the equation entirely.
I can pretty much guarantee if a C7 LT1 came in a 100k car, it wouldn't be making "just" 460 horsepower. Which is the kind of power a 911 GT3 is making.
Porsche isn't making any 600+ hp monsters outside of the 918 either that I'm aware of.
The GT3 engine probably doesn't have much in the way of mods you can free up hp with to make more than 475 hp. 460 out of the C7's LT1 on the other hand, is just the tip of the iceberg, headers alone are showing 15hp worth of gain. (The GT3 IIRC already has headers on it, for example)
The LT1 certainly is brawnier with 460lbft.
And that's an awesome car, but it's not a production Porsche. And that's my problem with it. Needs to make it in a production car!
Sure it's an effective engine, but it's not a particularly pleasant one to listen to in my opinion. And it certainly in NA form at least wouldn't be as fun to drive around town, or on backroads, as a punchy torquey V8.
I still say a Cayenne engine, should be installed in the Boxster at least. The Boxster is the more non traditional porsche. So it's not likely to ruffle any feathers. And if it ends up quicker than the 911? People will deal with it, eventually.
I liked the porsche well enough. But it just wasn't as cool to me, as any given V8 powered car.
Last edited by MavsAK; 06-14-2015 at 02:58 PM.
06-14-2015, 03:25 PM
#44
Race Director
Not really on the power.
Boost throws the whole thing out of the equation entirely.
I can pretty much guarantee if a C7 LT1 came in a 100k car, it wouldn't be making "just" 460 horsepower. Which is the kind of power a 911 GT3 is making.
Porsche isn't making any 600+ hp monsters outside of the 918 either that I'm aware of.
The GT3 engine probably doesn't have much in the way of mods you can free up hp with to make more than 475 hp. 460 out of the C7's LT1 on the other hand, is just the tip of the iceberg, headers alone are showing 15hp worth of gain. (The GT3 IIRC already has headers on it, for example)
The LT1 certainly is brawnier with 460lbft.
And that's an awesome car, but it's not a production Porsche. And that's my problem with it. Needs to make it in a production car!
Sure it's an effective engine, but it's not a particularly pleasant one to listen to in my opinion. And it certainly in NA form at least wouldn't be as fun to drive around town, or on backroads, as a punchy torquey V8.
I still say a Cayenne engine, should be installed in the Boxster at least. The Boxster is the more non traditional porsche. So it's not likely to ruffle any feathers. And if it ends up quicker than the 911? People will deal with it, eventually.
I liked the porsche well enough. But it just wasn't as cool to me, as any given V8 powered car.
Boost throws the whole thing out of the equation entirely.
I can pretty much guarantee if a C7 LT1 came in a 100k car, it wouldn't be making "just" 460 horsepower. Which is the kind of power a 911 GT3 is making.
Porsche isn't making any 600+ hp monsters outside of the 918 either that I'm aware of.
The GT3 engine probably doesn't have much in the way of mods you can free up hp with to make more than 475 hp. 460 out of the C7's LT1 on the other hand, is just the tip of the iceberg, headers alone are showing 15hp worth of gain. (The GT3 IIRC already has headers on it, for example)
The LT1 certainly is brawnier with 460lbft.
And that's an awesome car, but it's not a production Porsche. And that's my problem with it. Needs to make it in a production car!
Sure it's an effective engine, but it's not a particularly pleasant one to listen to in my opinion. And it certainly in NA form at least wouldn't be as fun to drive around town, or on backroads, as a punchy torquey V8.
I still say a Cayenne engine, should be installed in the Boxster at least. The Boxster is the more non traditional porsche. So it's not likely to ruffle any feathers. And if it ends up quicker than the 911? People will deal with it, eventually.
I liked the porsche well enough. But it just wasn't as cool to me, as any given V8 powered car.
The Boxer engines are VERY torquey, and IMO make one of the best sounds that you can get in an automobile. It's not a rumbley V8, and it's not a screeching flat plane crank Ferrari, but it sounds damn good. Nissan's VQ also, sounds damn good IMO.
I think you've missed the point of the thread though. Those cars are fun without needing to have 600hp. They're fun cars with 300hp, and very drivable cars. A Cayman S is probably more fun than a 911 Turbo, or any Corvette, simply because it has a useable amount of power.
The other big reason you'll never see a factory V8 Boxster is the V8 is much larger footprint wise. The flat 6 is compact (relatively speaking), and it keeps all the weight low, which is good for handling. So if you can build a car that has enough power to be fun, has great handling, and people buy the **** out of them, why on Earth would you want to spend millions of dollars to stuff your sedan/SUV's engine in it?
I'm FAR more surprised that Porsche hasn't released a 2 door 928 successor. A 2 door coupe based off the Panamera and you've got yourself a 928, it should be fairly simple.
06-14-2015, 03:40 PM
#45
Melting Slicks
The 3.8L direct injected normally aspirated flat sixes make ~400hp. Yes, they are tough to get extra hp out of, headers and tune will get you 15hp or so, whereas in a smallblock that's easy 50hp.
The Boxer engines are VERY torquey, and IMO make one of the best sounds that you can get in an automobile. It's not a rumbley V8, and it's not a screeching flat plane crank Ferrari, but it sounds damn good. Nissan's VQ also, sounds damn good IMO.
I think you've missed the point of the thread though. Those cars are fun without needing to have 600hp. They're fun cars with 300hp, and very drivable cars. A Cayman S is probably more fun than a 911 Turbo, or any Corvette, simply because it has a useable amount of power.
The other big reason you'll never see a factory V8 Boxster is the V8 is much larger footprint wise. The flat 6 is compact (relatively speaking), and it keeps all the weight low, which is good for handling. So if you can build a car that has enough power to be fun, has great handling, and people buy the **** out of them, why on Earth would you want to spend millions of dollars to stuff your sedan/SUV's engine in it?
I'm FAR more surprised that Porsche hasn't released a 2 door 928 successor. A 2 door coupe based off the Panamera and you've got yourself a 928, it should be fairly simple.
The Boxer engines are VERY torquey, and IMO make one of the best sounds that you can get in an automobile. It's not a rumbley V8, and it's not a screeching flat plane crank Ferrari, but it sounds damn good. Nissan's VQ also, sounds damn good IMO.
I think you've missed the point of the thread though. Those cars are fun without needing to have 600hp. They're fun cars with 300hp, and very drivable cars. A Cayman S is probably more fun than a 911 Turbo, or any Corvette, simply because it has a useable amount of power.
The other big reason you'll never see a factory V8 Boxster is the V8 is much larger footprint wise. The flat 6 is compact (relatively speaking), and it keeps all the weight low, which is good for handling. So if you can build a car that has enough power to be fun, has great handling, and people buy the **** out of them, why on Earth would you want to spend millions of dollars to stuff your sedan/SUV's engine in it?
I'm FAR more surprised that Porsche hasn't released a 2 door 928 successor. A 2 door coupe based off the Panamera and you've got yourself a 928, it should be fairly simple.
And I agree completely about your question of why there isn't a new 928. The car's already practically built. The 928 was a GT car, from what I've read about it's lore. 2 door 2 seat Panamera would have been a natural choice.
06-14-2015, 06:15 PM
#47
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
In an IC engine, if you've got one, you've got the other. If you're missing one, you have neither, and your engine has stalled. 
06-15-2015, 09:30 AM
#48
Melting Slicks
You are not understanding this at all. You'd better go back and look at the torque curve and figure out where the revs are at peak torque. If my car has 900 lbs ft of torque but it maxes at 500 RPM and plunges from there, I will clearly be breaking no records. If my car has the same 900 at 8000 RPM its going to be a rocket. Torque us an absolute number. Horsepower is not. So I can't see how you can say it's meaningless.
http://www.iprocessmart.com/techsmart/formulas.htm
dont forget that different types of driving and different types of racing require different types of horsepower and torque.
some people use 1/4 mile performance as a measuring stick, where rpm and horsepower are important, whereas other types of racing need more torque (for accelerating out of corners etc)
It's all about the gearing. A honda has a 10,000rpm redline... they can hold lower gears for longer. Therefore, you downshift to stay in the horespower band. Whereas most american cars create horsepower at lower rpm's, so therefore you dont need to downshift as much to exit a turn.
street driving is different again, and usually requires more torque because you are always stopping and accelerating again (while trying not to be booked or arrested !)
higher torque figures at lower rpms = better fuel economy too.
This is simply not true. My honda civic produces a max torque figure of 128 ft/lbs @ 4300 rpm's... yet I get best gas mileage between 1500-3500 rpms (where iVtec is engaged... roughly 80mph is where iVtec disengages and the more aggressive cam profiles are engaged).
some people use 1/4 mile performance as a measuring stick, where rpm and horsepower are important, whereas other types of racing need more torque (for accelerating out of corners etc)
It's all about the gearing. A honda has a 10,000rpm redline... they can hold lower gears for longer. Therefore, you downshift to stay in the horespower band. Whereas most american cars create horsepower at lower rpm's, so therefore you dont need to downshift as much to exit a turn.
street driving is different again, and usually requires more torque because you are always stopping and accelerating again (while trying not to be booked or arrested !)
higher torque figures at lower rpms = better fuel economy too.
This is simply not true. My honda civic produces a max torque figure of 128 ft/lbs @ 4300 rpm's... yet I get best gas mileage between 1500-3500 rpms (where iVtec is engaged... roughly 80mph is where iVtec disengages and the more aggressive cam profiles are engaged).
Not really on the power.
Boost throws the whole thing out of the equation entirely.
I can pretty much guarantee if a C7 LT1 came in a 100k car, it wouldn't be making "just" 460 horsepower. Which is the kind of power a 911 GT3 is making.
A GT3 is a track car, not a drag race car. If you consult the following list of track times, you will see that one corvette and one viper has pulled faster track times than a 'measly' GT3. Notice, the closer to the bottom of the track times that you come the more corvettes and camaro's you will see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eife_lap_times
Porsche isn't making any 600+ hp monsters outside of the 918 either that I'm aware of.
The GT3 engine probably doesn't have much in the way of mods you can free up hp with to make more than 475 hp. 460 out of the C7's LT1 on the other hand, is just the tip of the iceberg, headers alone are showing 15hp worth of gain. (The GT3 IIRC already has headers on it, for example)
The LT1 certainly is brawnier with 460lbft.
And that's an awesome car, but it's not a production Porsche. And that's my problem with it. Needs to make it in a production car!
Sure it's an effective engine, but it's not a particularly pleasant one to listen to in my opinion. And it certainly in NA form at least wouldn't be as fun to drive around town, or on backroads, as a punchy torquey V8.
I still say a Cayenne engine, should be installed in the Boxster at least. The Boxster is the more non traditional porsche. So it's not likely to ruffle any feathers. And if it ends up quicker than the 911? People will deal with it, eventually.
You just compared the 2 lowest grade track cars porsche makes (the boxter and caymen), to the finest automobile chevy makes. Fair comparison much?
I liked the porsche well enough. But it just wasn't as cool to me, as any given V8 powered car.
Boost throws the whole thing out of the equation entirely.
I can pretty much guarantee if a C7 LT1 came in a 100k car, it wouldn't be making "just" 460 horsepower. Which is the kind of power a 911 GT3 is making.
A GT3 is a track car, not a drag race car. If you consult the following list of track times, you will see that one corvette and one viper has pulled faster track times than a 'measly' GT3. Notice, the closer to the bottom of the track times that you come the more corvettes and camaro's you will see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eife_lap_times
Porsche isn't making any 600+ hp monsters outside of the 918 either that I'm aware of.
The GT3 engine probably doesn't have much in the way of mods you can free up hp with to make more than 475 hp. 460 out of the C7's LT1 on the other hand, is just the tip of the iceberg, headers alone are showing 15hp worth of gain. (The GT3 IIRC already has headers on it, for example)
The LT1 certainly is brawnier with 460lbft.
And that's an awesome car, but it's not a production Porsche. And that's my problem with it. Needs to make it in a production car!
Sure it's an effective engine, but it's not a particularly pleasant one to listen to in my opinion. And it certainly in NA form at least wouldn't be as fun to drive around town, or on backroads, as a punchy torquey V8.
I still say a Cayenne engine, should be installed in the Boxster at least. The Boxster is the more non traditional porsche. So it's not likely to ruffle any feathers. And if it ends up quicker than the 911? People will deal with it, eventually.
You just compared the 2 lowest grade track cars porsche makes (the boxter and caymen), to the finest automobile chevy makes. Fair comparison much?
I liked the porsche well enough. But it just wasn't as cool to me, as any given V8 powered car.
Say what???
Horsepower = (TORQUE x RPM) / 5252.
I counter that with
T = HP x 5252
__________
N
Where
T = Torque (LbFt)
HP = Horsepower
N = Speed (rpm)
So, w/o torque, you've got NO POWER
I didn't say torque doesn't exist, merely that it doesn't mean as much as everybody here says. Reference my formula 1 car reference with 200 ft-lbs of torque, but would smoke nearly any production car ever produced.
06-15-2015, 09:59 AM
#49
i talked to my dad this weekend about our old cars, he said our
'64 impala wasn't a huge HP engine, he thought it was 200hp (that car seemed plenty fast to me, but my comparison car was a '75 vega wagon!)
he did say that our '69 impala had the 300hp engine in it.
he said that car would go like hell (and i remember that !!!!!)
i actually got to test drive an '89 corvette this weekend w/ an L98 engine (it was a convertible, had newer tires, brand new brakes)....honestly...that car had a nice rumble to the engine and i thought it was plenty fast for driving on the street. it certainly could accelerate....now was it race car fast? i honestly have no idea, but the bottom line, it was fun to drive. my 11 year old went with me, he kept saying to me: "dad, as your corvette adviser, i recommend you buy this car." ha!
'64 impala wasn't a huge HP engine, he thought it was 200hp (that car seemed plenty fast to me, but my comparison car was a '75 vega wagon!)
he did say that our '69 impala had the 300hp engine in it.
he said that car would go like hell (and i remember that !!!!!)
i actually got to test drive an '89 corvette this weekend w/ an L98 engine (it was a convertible, had newer tires, brand new brakes)....honestly...that car had a nice rumble to the engine and i thought it was plenty fast for driving on the street. it certainly could accelerate....now was it race car fast? i honestly have no idea, but the bottom line, it was fun to drive. my 11 year old went with me, he kept saying to me: "dad, as your corvette adviser, i recommend you buy this car." ha!
06-15-2015, 12:12 PM
#50
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
"but torque means. Nothing. Zilch. Nadda."
You can't have one w/o the other, so torque definitely doesn't mean "Nothing. Zilch. Nadda". IF you have one, you have the other.
06-15-2015, 12:33 PM
#51
Melting Slicks
Right....just like ANY math formula, the math formula works both ways. Problem is when you're measuring "hp" what you're REALLY measuring, is force (tq) and speed (RPM). Those are the only tangible metrics that you can measure. Then you calculate hp from force and speed.
You're going to have to cite your source on both those claims. THey made the 928 for almost 20 years. That's a failure? Triumphs, Alphas, MG's Porsche 911's? There were many, MANY popular "performance oriented" cars that sold in America, that didn't have V8's.
You STARTED this whole tangent in the very first sentence of your post with this:
"but torque means. Nothing. Zilch. Nadda."
You can't have one w/o the other, so torque definitely doesn't mean "Nothing. Zilch. Nadda". IF you have one, you have the other.
You're going to have to cite your source on both those claims. THey made the 928 for almost 20 years. That's a failure? Triumphs, Alphas, MG's Porsche 911's? There were many, MANY popular "performance oriented" cars that sold in America, that didn't have V8's.
You STARTED this whole tangent in the very first sentence of your post with this:
"but torque means. Nothing. Zilch. Nadda."
You can't have one w/o the other, so torque definitely doesn't mean "Nothing. Zilch. Nadda". IF you have one, you have the other.
The formula 1 car smashes it in every single aspect. By a long, long margin.
Please tell me again about how torque matters? I'm all ears.
06-15-2015, 12:47 PM
#52
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
You've already been told. B/c w/out tq, your F1 car has no HP, and it won't move.
Your comparison of the F1 car and the Dodge is beyond absurd. First, I think the Dodge will actually beat the F1 car in a drag race, even though it weighs nearly 3000 lbs more! But even if the Dodge won't win, saying that a 600whatever hp car that weighs 1200 lbs can beat a 600whatever hp 43000 lb car...WTF does that prove?? Nothing.
Your comparison of the F1 car and the Dodge is beyond absurd. First, I think the Dodge will actually beat the F1 car in a drag race, even though it weighs nearly 3000 lbs more! But even if the Dodge won't win, saying that a 600whatever hp car that weighs 1200 lbs can beat a 600whatever hp 43000 lb car...WTF does that prove?? Nothing.
Last edited by Tom400CFI; 06-15-2015 at 12:50 PM.
06-15-2015, 12:51 PM
#53
Melting Slicks
A formula 1 engine has 600-1,000hp (some have even more...), yet only ~200ft/lbs of torque. Thats about what your average honda civic has. They have a 0-60 in 1.6 seconds and 0-100 in 4 seconds, ... 1/4 mile in 8.2 seconds @ 180 mph and lastly 1/2 mile (2640 ft)... 12.93 sec @ 200 mph
Notice, the lack of torque? Torque doesn't mean anything. Area under the curve, gearing, maximum rpm, amount of gears, weight all matter... torque, unfortunately, does not.
A 2013 dodge viper SRT has 640 at 6150 rpm and 600 lb-ft of torque, and can only muster a 0-60 mph @ 3.1 and Quarter mile @ 11.4 Over 3x the torque, yet eons slower.
2015 challenger srt hellcat has 707hp, 650 ft/lbs of torque. It does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, and has a 11.9 second 1/4 mile at 124mph.
As you can see, the formula one car does a half-mile in near the amount of time a new challenger does the 1/4 mile in. You brag about the challenger weighing 3,000 lbs more.... the formula one car isn't even two liters in displacement.
Again. How does a car with 200 ft/lbs of torque annihilate a car with over 3x the torque and 6x the engine size?
Torque means nothing in racing.
Last edited by volkswagens-for-life; 06-15-2015 at 04:30 PM.
06-15-2015, 05:31 PM
#54
Melting Slicks
Better check your calculations again. You can figure out torque with horsepower.
http://www.iprocessmart.com/techsmart/formulas.htm
Porsche tried using a v8 once. The only reason they made it was because Americans, back in the 80s, refused to buy anything "performance oriented" that didn't have a v8. That v8 Porsche failed miserably (although still very fun cars).
See bolded.
Read above. I didn't say it doesn't exist, merely that it doesn't do as much as people claim it does. Read my elaborate post on the previous page.
http://www.iprocessmart.com/techsmart/formulas.htm
Porsche tried using a v8 once. The only reason they made it was because Americans, back in the 80s, refused to buy anything "performance oriented" that didn't have a v8. That v8 Porsche failed miserably (although still very fun cars).
See bolded.
Read above. I didn't say it doesn't exist, merely that it doesn't do as much as people claim it does. Read my elaborate post on the previous page.
And that's not a coincidence. Lower RPM engines, last longer. In addition bigger displacement is bigger displacement. There's no true replacement for it, outside of forced induction,and that's a crap shoot anyway, because there is literally nothing saying you can't put boost to a massive engine.
There's a reason why Warplane manufacturers in WW1 and WW2, and the korean war era to a lesser extent chose Big Displacement engines, rather than a high revving smaller engine. The reasons were Maintenance, Power and Fuel Efficiency. That's physics, and that isn't going to change, regardless.
I don't need to look at the laptimes. I know them better than you do most likely. The "only 1 vette and Viper"..yeah of a given generation.
This isn't the first GT3...and guess what? There's SEVERAL tracks where the GT3 has yet to touch the C6 ZO6, let alone ZR1 and the new C7 ZO6's times. Infact, there's only ONE Porsche faster than a C7 ZO6... and it has a Combined 800 horsepower. If that doesn't tell you how much power actually means nothing will.
By the way your F1 vs Hellcat example is laughably hilarious. An F1 car is a multimillion (near a billion in some cases) project that weighs less than some dune buggies and packs 800 horsepower.
Now..if you were to take the Top Engines made by domestics for Straight Line Murder...
Top Fuel Funny Car. 1/4 miles in 4.8 and less seconds. Almost 1/2 of an F1 car. Guess what? it's alllll about BIG CUBES and Low Rpms. It's ALL about the torque, bout the torque no Weeny Engines. Call me when F1 engines produce 8000+ horsepower. (and guess what? matching torque) Guess what an F1 engine is never going to do. You know why? Because they literally can't get enough revs out of them, to move enough air, to match the Big cube Top Fuel engines. Hell they can't even match Top Alcohol power level. Nor will they ever.
The most powerful engines, are Big Engines, with Big Inches. Period.
Do you know why I compared the Boxster, to a Corvette? Because it costs as much as one, duh. A 911 TT, gets compared to a ZO6 Even though the Stingray can frankly take a 911TT around quite a few tracks, especially in hot weather or on 91 octane. A GT3..gets compared to a ZO6 as well. Because short of a 918, it's the fastest thing Porsche has.
And it's still slower.
A Boxster by the way, even a Boxster S isn't better than an SS 1LE Camaro..infact it's slower.
Other than it's a good seller, and it's kind of fun to drive... as a performance car, honestly that makes it kind of a failure imo. Hell even the Porsche Purists, make fun of the Boxster, and Boxster S on a regular basis.
Might as well put the V8 in it. Make it faster than a 911. (It already handles better)
Also, fun fact, it wasn't the Porsche that got banned from SCCA showroom stock because it won every race for 3 years straight and 8 out of the top ten cars race to race were it...that honor goes right to the C4. You know the car with the engine that you think is inefficient and weaksauce, compared to the Weeny Revver.
Last edited by MavsAK; 06-15-2015 at 05:33 PM.
06-15-2015, 10:34 PM
#55
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
Just as worthless as this video, as a case for "HP is worthless...it's all about TOWAK!":Can't have one w/out the other. If you have HP, you have torque. If you don't have torque, your engine is not running.
Right. I'd like to see you operate a car that produces zero tq...since it's so worthless.
I really have to wonder if you even know what "torque" is?? .
Last edited by Tom400CFI; 06-15-2015 at 10:40 PM.
06-15-2015, 11:21 PM
#56
And that's the beauty of having engineers to determine the proper application of HP and torque.
Here's my take to keep my own sanity..
A CBR 600 motorcycle makes roughly 2x HP to torque. Even through it puts down more HP than a 22RE Toyota 4x4 you wouldn't want that in your truck.
The opposite is true where you wouldn't want a Cummings turbo diesel in a F1 car.
It looks like the 1:1 ratio is where the street balance for cars lies.
When I remove a stuck bolt, I want lots or torque. Measurement of force is what I'm capable of with my arms. If my arms aren't enough, I need a breaker bar.
If I need to remove 10 bolts in 10 seconds, I need HP. It's the amount of work I can do in a set time. If the bolts aren't very tight then a minimal amount of torque is needed to remove them
Here's my take to keep my own sanity..
A CBR 600 motorcycle makes roughly 2x HP to torque. Even through it puts down more HP than a 22RE Toyota 4x4 you wouldn't want that in your truck.
The opposite is true where you wouldn't want a Cummings turbo diesel in a F1 car.
It looks like the 1:1 ratio is where the street balance for cars lies.
When I remove a stuck bolt, I want lots or torque. Measurement of force is what I'm capable of with my arms. If my arms aren't enough, I need a breaker bar.
If I need to remove 10 bolts in 10 seconds, I need HP. It's the amount of work I can do in a set time. If the bolts aren't very tight then a minimal amount of torque is needed to remove them
06-16-2015, 09:37 AM
#57
Melting Slicks
while I admire your dedication to sticking to your argument volkswagens-for-life, you might be on a loser here, i think your user name gives away your loyalties to little 4 cylinder engines.
all your examples of low torque engines are powering very light vehicles.
the guys below might know a thing or two about driving small capacity engines in very light cars,
"Despite all the changes to the technical regulations this year, specifically with engines, it appears as if the Renault still has a marked advantage off the line at the start of a race. Firstly do you agree with that and secondly if so why do you think that is?
Mark Webber: I definitely agree. I think they are phenomenal off the line. There is a combination of a few things which in terms of the torque of the engine which is helping them, where the weight is in the car and also the electronics and how obviously the clutch and that stuff is working. In all that stuff, they have had the best situation and have had so for a few years even with the V10 and there were a lot of good V10s out there at the end, so that makes the torque one a bit less of an argument but I think the V8 enjoys some good torque. Fernando and Giancarlo also eat a lot of carrots to look at the lights, but apart from that, that’s the lot. They are the parameters that have the biggest effect. Tyres, too, obviously.
Juan Pablo: About the same, really, yes, gear ratio and it all depends how much torque you have. If you look at an on-board camera from them in Bahrain you can hear there are corners where they have like no revs and it still pulled out of the corners where … it is just a characteristic of the engines and so on."
all your examples of low torque engines are powering very light vehicles.
the guys below might know a thing or two about driving small capacity engines in very light cars,
"Despite all the changes to the technical regulations this year, specifically with engines, it appears as if the Renault still has a marked advantage off the line at the start of a race. Firstly do you agree with that and secondly if so why do you think that is?
Mark Webber: I definitely agree. I think they are phenomenal off the line. There is a combination of a few things which in terms of the torque of the engine which is helping them, where the weight is in the car and also the electronics and how obviously the clutch and that stuff is working. In all that stuff, they have had the best situation and have had so for a few years even with the V10 and there were a lot of good V10s out there at the end, so that makes the torque one a bit less of an argument but I think the V8 enjoys some good torque. Fernando and Giancarlo also eat a lot of carrots to look at the lights, but apart from that, that’s the lot. They are the parameters that have the biggest effect. Tyres, too, obviously.
Juan Pablo: About the same, really, yes, gear ratio and it all depends how much torque you have. If you look at an on-board camera from them in Bahrain you can hear there are corners where they have like no revs and it still pulled out of the corners where … it is just a characteristic of the engines and so on."
06-16-2015, 09:53 AM
#58
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: South-central Missouri
Posts: 6,314
Received 500 Likes
on
395 Posts
Again...see the graph for your argument...
Oh, and I know you didn't mean to besmirch my post, but when you alter a post within the [QUOTES], it will appear in the gray QUOTE box and easily be attributed mistakenly to the original author. Ooops!
but in my post I gave the formula for HP:
HORSEPOWER = TORQUE x RPM / 5252
But, when you transposed it to solve for TORQUE, it becomes:
TORQUE = HP x 5252 / RPM BUT definitely NOT T = HP x 5252! (I make enough mistakes of my own. I doan need no hep from nobody else!!)
Anywayz.... All this is a good exercise. It gets everyone to thinking about things - perhaps even dispelling some myths along the way...a good thing!
06-16-2015, 10:00 AM
#59
Melting Slicks
Actually the 928 went on for twenty years. That's hardly a failure, by any stretch of the imagination. Actually they are the ONLY 20 year old Porsches I have even seen on the road.
And the cavalier was made for 23 years... guess that too was a great car.
And that's not a coincidence. Lower RPM engines, last longer. In addition bigger displacement is bigger displacement. There's no true replacement for it, outside of forced induction,and that's a crap shoot anyway, because there is literally nothing saying you can't put boost to a massive engine.
Lower rpm engines last longer? I'd like something to back this up, since japanese cars spinning 7000 rpms dating back to the 70's have historically lasted longer than american cars that were traditionally disposed of at 100,000 miles.
There's a reason why Warplane manufacturers in WW1 and WW2, and the korean war era to a lesser extent chose Big Displacement engines, rather than a high revving smaller engine. The reasons were Maintenance, Power and Fuel Efficiency. That's physics, and that isn't going to change, regardless.
Yes, 60 years ago when technology was still in it's infancy, large displacement motors and large superchargers were indeed used... not sure the point you are making. American's couldn't produce a military tank until the late 80's that could compare with anything the russians/germans/brit's were making.
I don't need to look at the laptimes. I know them better than you do most likely. The "only 1 vette and Viper"..yeah of a given generation.
This isn't the first GT3...and guess what? There's SEVERAL tracks where the GT3 has yet to touch the C6 ZO6, let alone ZR1 and the new C7 ZO6's times. Infact, there's only ONE Porsche faster than a C7 ZO6... and it has a Combined 800 horsepower. If that doesn't tell you how much power actually means nothing will.
By the way your F1 vs Hellcat example is laughably hilarious. An F1 car is a multimillion (near a billion in some cases) project that weighs less than some dune buggies and packs 800 horsepower.
Now..if you were to take the Top Engines made by domestics for Straight Line Murder...
Funny, the Nissan GTR has a 3.8liter v6 w/ 463 ft/lbs of torque, and does 0-60 in 2.7 seconds (GASP!! Faster than the 'murderlicious 650 ft/lbs challenger srt?!?!?!) and the 1/4 in 10.8 seconds... holy ****, a second faster, again, than the challenger srt w/ 650 ft/lbs of torque. Good thing that 'torque' wins races huh?
Top Fuel Funny Car. 1/4 miles in 4.8 and less seconds. Almost 1/2 of an F1 car. Guess what? it's alllll about BIG CUBES and Low Rpms. It's ALL about the torque, bout the torque no Weeny Engines. Call me when F1 engines produce 8000+ horsepower. (and guess what? matching torque) Guess what an F1 engine is never going to do. You know why? Because they literally can't get enough revs out of them, to move enough air, to match the Big cube Top Fuel engines. Hell they can't even match Top Alcohol power level. Nor will they ever.
A top fuel funny car runs ~8300 rpms... certainly not "low rpm" by any means. Not to mention, they are 500 cubic inch engines.
The most powerful engines, are Big Engines, with Big Inches. Period.
It's easier to get more power out of a large engine... yes. That's simple math. The sole argument that Tom started is that "torque wins races", which I've proved several times over in this thread that torque does not win races.
Do you know why I compared the Boxster, to a Corvette? Because it costs as much as one, duh. A 911 TT, gets compared to a ZO6 Even though the Stingray can frankly take a 911TT around quite a few tracks, especially in hot weather or on 91 octane. A GT3..gets compared to a ZO6 as well. Because short of a 918, it's the fastest thing Porsche has.
Porsche's aren't every day poor peoples cars, like a corvette for instance. Just like a Bentley costs more than a Chrysler. A Maybach is more pricey than a cadillac. What is your point? That one car costs more than the other?
And it's still slower.
A Boxster by the way, even a Boxster S isn't better than an SS 1LE Camaro..infact it's slower.
Other than it's a good seller, and it's kind of fun to drive... as a performance car, honestly that makes it kind of a failure imo. Hell even the Porsche Purists, make fun of the Boxster, and Boxster S on a regular basis.
A camaro ss 1le:
6.2 liter, supercharged.
426hp
420 ft/lbs torque
0-60 4.2 seconds
1/4 in 12.5 seconds
Porsche Boxster S:
3.4 liter 6-banger; naturally aspirated
315hp
266 ft/lbs torque
0-60 4.2 seconds (GASP; the same as the camaro w/ 3x the engine, nearly 200 ft/lbs more torque, and a measly ~100hp more?!?!)
1/4 in 12.7 seconds (DOUBLE GASP; only 2/10 of a second slower with such "weenie motor" specs?! Impossibru!!)
Might as well put the V8 in it. Make it faster than a 911. (It already handles better)
Also, fun fact, it wasn't the Porsche that got banned from SCCA showroom stock because it won every race for 3 years straight and 8 out of the top ten cars race to race were it...that honor goes right to the C4. You know the car with the engine that you think is inefficient and weaksauce, compared to the Weeny Revver.
Boy, are we off track now. At first Tom said torque wins races, and now we're beginning to see that it doesn't. You're right, the c4-cup was formed because the corvette was, and still is, a real dollar-for-dollar handler.
And the cavalier was made for 23 years... guess that too was a great car.
And that's not a coincidence. Lower RPM engines, last longer. In addition bigger displacement is bigger displacement. There's no true replacement for it, outside of forced induction,and that's a crap shoot anyway, because there is literally nothing saying you can't put boost to a massive engine.
Lower rpm engines last longer? I'd like something to back this up, since japanese cars spinning 7000 rpms dating back to the 70's have historically lasted longer than american cars that were traditionally disposed of at 100,000 miles.
There's a reason why Warplane manufacturers in WW1 and WW2, and the korean war era to a lesser extent chose Big Displacement engines, rather than a high revving smaller engine. The reasons were Maintenance, Power and Fuel Efficiency. That's physics, and that isn't going to change, regardless.
Yes, 60 years ago when technology was still in it's infancy, large displacement motors and large superchargers were indeed used... not sure the point you are making. American's couldn't produce a military tank until the late 80's that could compare with anything the russians/germans/brit's were making.
I don't need to look at the laptimes. I know them better than you do most likely. The "only 1 vette and Viper"..yeah of a given generation.
This isn't the first GT3...and guess what? There's SEVERAL tracks where the GT3 has yet to touch the C6 ZO6, let alone ZR1 and the new C7 ZO6's times. Infact, there's only ONE Porsche faster than a C7 ZO6... and it has a Combined 800 horsepower. If that doesn't tell you how much power actually means nothing will.
By the way your F1 vs Hellcat example is laughably hilarious. An F1 car is a multimillion (near a billion in some cases) project that weighs less than some dune buggies and packs 800 horsepower.
Now..if you were to take the Top Engines made by domestics for Straight Line Murder...
Funny, the Nissan GTR has a 3.8liter v6 w/ 463 ft/lbs of torque, and does 0-60 in 2.7 seconds (GASP!! Faster than the 'murderlicious 650 ft/lbs challenger srt?!?!?!) and the 1/4 in 10.8 seconds... holy ****, a second faster, again, than the challenger srt w/ 650 ft/lbs of torque. Good thing that 'torque' wins races huh?
Top Fuel Funny Car. 1/4 miles in 4.8 and less seconds. Almost 1/2 of an F1 car. Guess what? it's alllll about BIG CUBES and Low Rpms. It's ALL about the torque, bout the torque no Weeny Engines. Call me when F1 engines produce 8000+ horsepower. (and guess what? matching torque) Guess what an F1 engine is never going to do. You know why? Because they literally can't get enough revs out of them, to move enough air, to match the Big cube Top Fuel engines. Hell they can't even match Top Alcohol power level. Nor will they ever.
A top fuel funny car runs ~8300 rpms... certainly not "low rpm" by any means. Not to mention, they are 500 cubic inch engines.
The most powerful engines, are Big Engines, with Big Inches. Period.
It's easier to get more power out of a large engine... yes. That's simple math. The sole argument that Tom started is that "torque wins races", which I've proved several times over in this thread that torque does not win races.
Do you know why I compared the Boxster, to a Corvette? Because it costs as much as one, duh. A 911 TT, gets compared to a ZO6 Even though the Stingray can frankly take a 911TT around quite a few tracks, especially in hot weather or on 91 octane. A GT3..gets compared to a ZO6 as well. Because short of a 918, it's the fastest thing Porsche has.
Porsche's aren't every day poor peoples cars, like a corvette for instance. Just like a Bentley costs more than a Chrysler. A Maybach is more pricey than a cadillac. What is your point? That one car costs more than the other?
And it's still slower.
A Boxster by the way, even a Boxster S isn't better than an SS 1LE Camaro..infact it's slower.
Other than it's a good seller, and it's kind of fun to drive... as a performance car, honestly that makes it kind of a failure imo. Hell even the Porsche Purists, make fun of the Boxster, and Boxster S on a regular basis.
A camaro ss 1le:
6.2 liter, supercharged.
426hp
420 ft/lbs torque
0-60 4.2 seconds
1/4 in 12.5 seconds
Porsche Boxster S:
3.4 liter 6-banger; naturally aspirated
315hp
266 ft/lbs torque
0-60 4.2 seconds (GASP; the same as the camaro w/ 3x the engine, nearly 200 ft/lbs more torque, and a measly ~100hp more?!?!)
1/4 in 12.7 seconds (DOUBLE GASP; only 2/10 of a second slower with such "weenie motor" specs?! Impossibru!!)
Might as well put the V8 in it. Make it faster than a 911. (It already handles better)
Also, fun fact, it wasn't the Porsche that got banned from SCCA showroom stock because it won every race for 3 years straight and 8 out of the top ten cars race to race were it...that honor goes right to the C4. You know the car with the engine that you think is inefficient and weaksauce, compared to the Weeny Revver.
Boy, are we off track now. At first Tom said torque wins races, and now we're beginning to see that it doesn't. You're right, the c4-cup was formed because the corvette was, and still is, a real dollar-for-dollar handler.
You've already been told....but here goes again; B/c the F1 car has more power, and ~1/4 the weight. You're argument that a high powered, light car can beat a high powered heavy car is totally worthless.
My numerous examples of torque not winning races is what you are overlooking. The porsche boxter w/ 266ft/lbs of torque keeps up w/ a supercharged 6.2 liter camaro. A 3.8 liter nissan gtr w/ 4xx ft/lbs of torque destroys a challenger SRT in all performance aspects with several hundred less horsepower/torque measurements. A formula one car, with 200 ft-lbs of torque (the same as a new honda civic si) wastes them all. I could go on for hours.
Just as worthless as this video, as a case for "HP is worthless...it's all about TOWAK!":
2012 Nissan GTR gets destroyed by Dodge Ram Cummins - YouTube
For all we know that CUMMINS has 1400 horsepower compared to the GTR's ~4xx hp.
Can't have one w/out the other. If you have HP, you have torque. If you don't have torque, your engine is not running.
Right. I'd like to see you operate a car that produces zero tq...since it's so worthless. I really have to wonder if you even know what "torque" is??
.
My numerous examples of torque not winning races is what you are overlooking. The porsche boxter w/ 266ft/lbs of torque keeps up w/ a supercharged 6.2 liter camaro. A 3.8 liter nissan gtr w/ 4xx ft/lbs of torque destroys a challenger SRT in all performance aspects with several hundred less horsepower/torque measurements. A formula one car, with 200 ft-lbs of torque (the same as a new honda civic si) wastes them all. I could go on for hours.
Just as worthless as this video, as a case for "HP is worthless...it's all about TOWAK!":2012 Nissan GTR gets destroyed by Dodge Ram Cummins - YouTube
For all we know that CUMMINS has 1400 horsepower compared to the GTR's ~4xx hp.
Can't have one w/out the other. If you have HP, you have torque. If you don't have torque, your engine is not running.
Right. I'd like to see you operate a car that produces zero tq...since it's so worthless.
I really have to wonder if you even know what "torque" is?? .
See bolded.
06-16-2015, 10:45 AM
#60
Le Mans Master
When a car is a little raw feeling, it lets you know how hard you are pushing it and it feels fast. Although the later generations of Corvettes are definitely faster on a track than our C4's, they are refined to the point that they don't feel fast even though they are. Even a friend's Cayman R didn't feel fast. It felt like any newer car to me. It is one of the best handling cars and is pretty quick, but it just didn't feel fast or as fun as some of the more "raw" feeling cars.
The hp of cars has changed so much since the "muscle car" era that it is hard to think back on the older cars. I had a lot of modified muscle cars that would be beaten by many stock new cars. Even a sister's SUV (Jeep) has a hemi and would probably beat a lot of "muscle cars". My brother's BMW 750 is a huge heavy car that will outrun most of the C4's.
At the other end of the spectrum, We used to have a '68 VW camper with a 42 hp motor. We pulled a 16' runabout with a 50 hp Johnson on it. You could race constantly (in fact you had to in order to keep up with most traffic) and no one would notice. On the interstate in Iowa (mostly flat) we would just leave the gas pedal on the floor and make a game of guessing how slow we would be going at the top of the next hill. Dead slow, but it was fun.
So much for rambling, but for me street driving is not always about peak hp or performance, but rather the combination of hp, handling, braking, and "feel" that make a fun car. On the track it is very different and only about the performance numbers.
Last edited by QCVette; 06-16-2015 at 10:47 AM.