When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Wow, all I asked was why the A4 was rated 360 lbs ft of torque, and MN6 was rated 375 lbs ft of torque. The correct answer I assume is in the programing. Don't need all the other stuff about drive train loss, but thanks just the same. :lol: :lol: :lol:
My post was more for the discussion between dwaynelombardi and Rich. Mitch and gasman have it right in that the A4 can't handle as much torque, so the computer limits how much the engine gives it.
And you think this 2-3% is due just to computer? Please! As I was saying go dyno any two cars that have the same engine and factotry flywheel HP raiting and through them on a dyno and you tell me which one will pull more at the rear wheels. You people base to many of your opinions out of mags.
Your lack of knowledge is showing; and, actually, it's closer to 4%. If you were insane enough, you could use the computer to retard the timing to the point where you're putting down less torque than a stock civic.
The factory rating is the HP and Torque at the flywheel. The LS1 equipped with an automatic is programmed to not overcome the published tolerances of the transmission. The only numbers affected by the fact that an automatic loses more than a manual are the rear wheel numbers. Mitch, Gasman, and WestTexas are all in agreement on this one. This is why the torque numbers are different but the HP numbers are the same at the flywheel between the manual-equipped and the automatic-equipped versions, whereas both the torque and the HP are different at the rear wheels.
It is interesting to note that the published torque numbers for, say, a 1999 'Vette were the same between manuals and automatics; so obviously the transmission does not figure into it.
And you think this 2-3% is due just to computer? Please! As I was saying go dyno any two cars that have the same engine and factotry flywheel HP raiting and through them on a dyno and you tell me which one will pull more at the rear wheels. You people base to many of your opinions out of mags.
dwaynelombardi, It's an effort to keep this civil. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. First, please read the replies carefully before you respond; second, I have owned and operated fast cars for a lot more years than you have been on the planet - most of my opinions come from experience, not magazines; and third, an english class would be in order.
I sure am rich. we had a trans am with 3700 miles on it, and bone stock dyno 321rwh at a local performance shop.
[Modified by dwaynelombardi, 9:49 AM 5/7/2002]
Uh...BS. That translates into 391 BHP if it had an automatic with 18% loss, or into 368 BHP if it had a manual with 13% loss. I seriously doubt that a stock Trans Am is putting out 18-41 more HP at the crank than a stock C5.
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.