Don't be swayed by HP figures....Torque is what really counts.
04-28-14, 09:11 AM
#46
Torque is the big horse.
Horsepower means how many of those you got.
For example, the big muscle cars have a big horse, and the smaller Japanese cars have small dogs, a lot of them, to pull their sled.
HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252
Horsepower means how many of those you got.
For example, the big muscle cars have a big horse, and the smaller Japanese cars have small dogs, a lot of them, to pull their sled.
HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252
04-28-14, 09:25 AM
#47
Lead Lap
Yes, exactly! This subject has been debated to no end. Simple engineering problem muddied by people who fail to grasp the mathematical relationships involved.
GEARING is why engine torque is irrelevant, but the thing I have not seen here that truly is MOST important is peak numbers for torque AND horsepower are meaningless. What Shelby really meant is "(peak) horsepower sells cars, (a flat) torque (curve) wins races."
The perfect example of this is F1's transition from turbo to non-turbo engines. The engineers saw boost going away, which meant they could only use atmospheric pressure. They had a POWER (not torque) to weight ratio they needed to match to be competitive. So what happened? Overnight we saw F1 engine redlines going from 10k to 18k. Why? Simple - as long as the torque curve is wide enough for the available number of gearbox ratios, we can keep our ability to accelerate despite having our engine torque cut in half by nearly doubling the rpm. At the end of the day, F1 still maintained the speeds they previously attained and did it with half the torque they made in the turbo engines.
It's all math and engineering. Pretty simple math at that!
Sorry Mike, but the whole "torque is king" argument is fundamentally flawed and definitely wrong.
GEARING is why engine torque is irrelevant, but the thing I have not seen here that truly is MOST important is peak numbers for torque AND horsepower are meaningless. What Shelby really meant is "(peak) horsepower sells cars, (a flat) torque (curve) wins races."
The perfect example of this is F1's transition from turbo to non-turbo engines. The engineers saw boost going away, which meant they could only use atmospheric pressure. They had a POWER (not torque) to weight ratio they needed to match to be competitive. So what happened? Overnight we saw F1 engine redlines going from 10k to 18k. Why? Simple - as long as the torque curve is wide enough for the available number of gearbox ratios, we can keep our ability to accelerate despite having our engine torque cut in half by nearly doubling the rpm. At the end of the day, F1 still maintained the speeds they previously attained and did it with half the torque they made in the turbo engines.
It's all math and engineering. Pretty simple math at that!
Sorry Mike, but the whole "torque is king" argument is fundamentally flawed and definitely wrong.
04-28-14, 09:30 AM
#48
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mathematics and physics is akin to religion for many people. Despite Shelby likely knowing what he was taking about, people will interpret his words and treat him as a prophet. To contradict the (understood) commandment would be blasphemy.
It's pointless to argue.
It's pointless to argue.
04-28-14, 09:48 AM
#50
Yes, exactly! This subject has been debated to no end. Simple engineering problem muddied by people who fail to grasp the mathematical relationships involved.
GEARING is why engine torque is irrelevant, but the thing I have not seen here that truly is MOST important is peak numbers for torque AND horsepower are meaningless. What Shelby really meant is "(peak) horsepower sells cars, (a flat) torque (curve) wins races."
The perfect example of this is F1's transition from turbo to non-turbo engines. The engineers saw boost going away, which meant they could only use atmospheric pressure. They had a POWER (not torque) to weight ratio they needed to match to be competitive. So what happened? Overnight we saw F1 engine redlines going from 10k to 18k. Why? Simple - as long as the torque curve is wide enough for the available number of gearbox ratios, we can keep our ability to accelerate despite having our engine torque cut in half by nearly doubling the rpm. At the end of the day, F1 still maintained the speeds they previously attained and did it with half the torque they made in the turbo engines.
It's all math and engineering. Pretty simple math at that!
Sorry Mike, but the whole "torque is king" argument is fundamentally flawed and definitely wrong.
GEARING is why engine torque is irrelevant, but the thing I have not seen here that truly is MOST important is peak numbers for torque AND horsepower are meaningless. What Shelby really meant is "(peak) horsepower sells cars, (a flat) torque (curve) wins races."
The perfect example of this is F1's transition from turbo to non-turbo engines. The engineers saw boost going away, which meant they could only use atmospheric pressure. They had a POWER (not torque) to weight ratio they needed to match to be competitive. So what happened? Overnight we saw F1 engine redlines going from 10k to 18k. Why? Simple - as long as the torque curve is wide enough for the available number of gearbox ratios, we can keep our ability to accelerate despite having our engine torque cut in half by nearly doubling the rpm. At the end of the day, F1 still maintained the speeds they previously attained and did it with half the torque they made in the turbo engines.
It's all math and engineering. Pretty simple math at that!
Sorry Mike, but the whole "torque is king" argument is fundamentally flawed and definitely wrong.
04-28-14, 10:05 AM
#51
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
In a conventional auto engine, HP is the actual power produced in the cylinders when the air-fuel mixture is burned. That HP is converted to the twisting (torque) ft-lbs. by the connecting rods, crankshaft, and the heavy flywheel.
04-28-14, 10:58 AM
#55
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
04-28-14, 11:07 AM
#56
Yes, exactly! This subject has been debated to no end. Simple engineering problem muddied by people who fail to grasp the mathematical relationships involved.
GEARING is why engine torque is irrelevant, but the thing I have not seen here that truly is MOST important is peak numbers for torque AND horsepower are meaningless. What Shelby really meant is "(peak) horsepower sells cars, (a flat) torque (curve) wins races."
The perfect example of this is F1's transition from turbo to non-turbo engines. The engineers saw boost going away, which meant they could only use atmospheric pressure. They had a POWER (not torque) to weight ratio they needed to match to be competitive. So what happened? Overnight we saw F1 engine redlines going from 10k to 18k. Why? Simple - as long as the torque curve is wide enough for the available number of gearbox ratios, we can keep our ability to accelerate despite having our engine torque cut in half by nearly doubling the rpm. At the end of the day, F1 still maintained the speeds they previously attained and did it with half the torque they made in the turbo engines.
It's all math and engineering. Pretty simple math at that!
Sorry Mike, but the whole "torque is king" argument is fundamentally flawed and definitely wrong.
GEARING is why engine torque is irrelevant, but the thing I have not seen here that truly is MOST important is peak numbers for torque AND horsepower are meaningless. What Shelby really meant is "(peak) horsepower sells cars, (a flat) torque (curve) wins races."
The perfect example of this is F1's transition from turbo to non-turbo engines. The engineers saw boost going away, which meant they could only use atmospheric pressure. They had a POWER (not torque) to weight ratio they needed to match to be competitive. So what happened? Overnight we saw F1 engine redlines going from 10k to 18k. Why? Simple - as long as the torque curve is wide enough for the available number of gearbox ratios, we can keep our ability to accelerate despite having our engine torque cut in half by nearly doubling the rpm. At the end of the day, F1 still maintained the speeds they previously attained and did it with half the torque they made in the turbo engines.
It's all math and engineering. Pretty simple math at that!
Sorry Mike, but the whole "torque is king" argument is fundamentally flawed and definitely wrong.
Using a torque multiplication device?
04-28-14, 11:25 AM
#57
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
In the early/mid 1960s, this was (arguably) the fastest-accelerating production car in the world. Even today, few production sports cars, outside the ultra-mega-range like Bugattis and McLarens, can keep up with it.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-28-14 at 11:32 AM.
04-28-14, 11:30 AM
#58
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Yes, but the budget is unnecessary. The math is simple and gearboxes are relatively cheap with 8 speeds becoming more common every year. Tractor trailers have had 20 speed gearboxes for years. Why might that be when their diesels make prodigious torque numbers?
04-28-14, 12:02 PM
#59
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Here's a classic example of what I'm talking about......the well-known descent of U.S. 40 down Chestnut Ridge Mountain at Uniontown, PA. (I've driven it myself, in cars, a number of times). Three and and a half solid miles at an average 9-10% grade. A sign at the top of the hill, with flashing lights, warns large trucks to stop, shift into their lowest gear, and maintain 10 MPH all the way down. A runaway truck ramp is built into the side of the mountain about three fourths of the way down if one gets into trouble.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-28-14 at 12:16 PM.
04-28-14, 12:16 PM
#60
Lexus Fanatic
Trust me......one brief ride in Shelby's famous 427 V8 AC-Cobra will teach someone all he or she needs to know about torque.
In the early/mid 1960s, this was (arguably) the fastest-accelerating production car in the world. Even today, few production sports cars, outside the ultra-mega-range like Bugattis and McLarens, can keep up with it.
In the early/mid 1960s, this was (arguably) the fastest-accelerating production car in the world. Even today, few production sports cars, outside the ultra-mega-range like Bugattis and McLarens, can keep up with it.
Last edited by Toys4RJill; 04-28-14 at 12:40 PM.