domin8_gt

iTrader: (1)

I've said what I need to say. If you have a hard understanding it that is your problem, not mine.

BTW, how torqueless is your SHO?

Also, if torque means nothing then go race a 1996 Pontiac Sunfire GT against a 2000-ish Ford Escort ZX2 and watch which one will win. Both were rated at 150hp from the factory. Both are fwd coupes with 5-speed trannys. Only major difference I can think of is that the Pontiac has more torque than horspower while the Ford is just the opposite.

SLoW SHO

Obviously you still have not read anything I said...

TXRLU

I don't have time to comb through ALL these posts to find where you're just pulling **** out of your ass. Amazingly, this is just from the first page (ok at least I'm amazed, but it may be an everyday thing for you).

So in one of your posts, you said I lose credibility because I said the Cobalt is rated lower in HP than the current Civic Si, go look at MFG ratings and I guess you're saying they lose credibility as well.

Where YOU lose credibility is saying that one car has more "power" thus it should be faster. You do know that HP and TQ are related right?


And yet the saddest part, you own a GTO. Please stop showing your ass to these guys or else they'll think that all GTO owners are dooshnozzles (some of you fuggers probably think that already ).

evilgoat

coming from you with that new blower everything seems slow, aint that true pal? im jealous now u are faster than me!!

TXRLU

Sorry, but the English language's rules were established way before you decided to implement your version of the English Language. Why don't you try to learn the language that society has already adopted instead of trying to impose your jibberish on everyone?

SLoW SHO

Obviously they under-rated the hell out of ss/sc's everyone knows that! Yet you tried to say that a Cobalt is faster than a new Si b/c of the Torque advantage even though the Si has a power advantage (HAHAHA) Yet everyone knows Cobalts dyno more along the lines of ~210whp as apposed to ~180whp by the Si's.

Horsepower and torque are related, yes! (TQ x RPM)/5252 = HP but you already knew that! But you don't need alot of torque to have a FAST car. This is why a car with 50ft/lbs of tq can slaughter a car with 500ft/lbs. Its WHERE YOU MAKE THE TQ (even a tiny amount!) If you make 100 peak tq at 10,000 rpm (190hp) and have optimal gearing, you're going to run all over a car that makes 500ft/lbs peak tq at 1000rpm (95hp) and optimal gearing! (weight and any other variable obviously the same)

TORQUE RATING MEANS NOTHING!
POWER TO WEIGHT, GEARING, POWER BAND thats ALL that matters TORQUE RATINGS MEAN NOTHING. Anyone who says "I won because my car makes XXX amount of tq, compared to this cars lesser amount" is highly uneducated.

Lots of torque is often confused with low end POWER, but thats a whole nother issue in itself.

When you can disprove me with hard facts I will recant my statements, but you will not be able to since I base my statements on FACTS. You are obviously miss informed.

Badju587

TXRLU, I hate to tell you, but SlowSHO's pretty much right (I slightly disagree that peak torque means nothing, but I think he may have said that more to get the point across).

He's right because even though torque matters, it's where you make it that matters more, higher is better. Let's compare two cars with the same peak torque rating, one which makes 200 ft/lb @ 5000 RPM (Car #1) and one that makes 200 ft/lb @ 5500 RPM (Car #2):

Car #1 HP @ tq. peak: 190 HP
Car #2 HP @ tq. peak: 209 HP

Car #2 gets 19 more HP at its tq. peak just because it makes the tq. peak 500 RPM's later. Of course, this figure doesn't take torque band into account. For all we know, car #2's torque could drop off like a rock after 5500 RPM, but it's more likely that it falls off gradually, like the SS S/C that makes torque at about the same RPM. This also means that just like with real-world cars, the peak HP is probably at a higher RPM than the torque peak. It's a good example of why both torque and horsepower matter, and how they're related.

Hondas generally make lower amounts of torque really high up in RPM's (which is where you spend most of your time when racing anyway), and that's why it can make lots of HP with low torque. Even a relatively small 100 ft/lb @ 7,000 RPM comes out to 133 HP. Weight, gearing and torque band matter because:

- Light weight will help the car move faster with less power
- Proper gearing will ensure the car stays in its optimal torque band, or alternatively:
- The overall torque can be increased, or the fat part of the torque band shifted higher/lower in the RPM range to take advantage of the car's gearing.

Someone posted a link to a good article earlier, which said that all you need to know is: "It's better to make torque at high RPM than low RPM, because you can take advantage of gearing". It's a simplified statement, but it pretty much sums it up. When comparing two cars for speed potential, definitely look at torque, but also look at where it's being made.

TXRLU

I'm not saying that Peak Torque is significant. His wreckless "Torque doesn't matter" statement is what is false. He's definitely changing his original statement to make it sound as if he knows what he's talking about. A flat torque curve is ALWAYS better than a peaky one.

If you define what torque is from a search on google, , so it only stands to reason, if you have the same traction to hook up, then more torque will get you off the line QUICKER than less torque with the other variables being constant.

Some examples used, a sports bike has low torque, yeah but it also has less weight, an F1 car, those aren't exactly heavy cars either, so less torque is needed. A good example of the opposite, a diesel truck with a shitload of torque but not much HP, those things will launch like crazy, but don't have much top-end.

A good car has a good balance of HP, TQ, the perfect gearing to exploit the engine's characteristics, good weight distribution, not too heavy, good suspension geometry, and decent drag for higher speeds if a high top speed is desired.


The last example, look at a torque wrench, if you apply 300 ft-lbs of torque, you're going to complete 1 revolution FASTER than if you apply 100 ft-lbs of torque. Traction, weight, gearing being equal, 300 ft-lbs > 100 ft-lbs.


Now maybe he meant PEAK TQ doesn't give a clear picture of who would win in a drag race, but that's definitely not what he said. AVG torque has more bearing on the outcome of a drag race than Peak TQ.

SLoW SHO

From POST ONE

Yea I changed my story

I said this in anticipation of all the rejects coming in with "Those cars have no torque no way they could win!"

Badju587

Ok, I can agree with what you wrote on the torque curve being important. To continue the discussion then, let's also define horsepower:

One HP is 33,000 pound-feet of torque, applied over one minute. To get 200 HP, you need to apply 6.6 million lb/ft of torque over one minute, with each "tick" of torque being counted at a single revolution of the wheels (you could use the crank, but since you only ever get WHP from a standard dyno we'll use that). I'm not saying you're wrong in your statement that average torque means more than peak torque either, in fact both mean a lot. Your acceleration curve should (in a perfect world) exactly approximate your torque curve, and you accelerate the fastest at your torque peak. Keep the torque output the same over an 8,000 RPM range, and your velocity will continue to rise at the same rate, which as speeds rise is a bonus, since almost all vehicles lose acceleration power at higher speeds.

When you brought on the idea of average torque, you also touched on the idea of applying the torque an engine generates over time, or looking at the entire curve, instead of taking a snapshot of what it makes at a given instant (the peak). Interestingly enough, horsepower is torque applied over time, or pound-feet per minute. That being said, any reliable estimates of how a car will do speed-wise must include the car's ability to do work over time, which is another way of saying horsepower (you also need weight and gearing, but you already mentioned that). You'd need to bust out some calculus to see that when you talk about average torque and horsepower over the operating RPM's of the engine, you're really talking about the same thing.

My thought on the Si winning (the original thread topic) is that given the weight of both the 2000 Si and the '05-'07 SS N/A, I'd still put my money on the SS N/A given equal drivers, the reason being it's easier to screw up a race in a peaky car like the Si. It's not impossible to imagine the Honda winning though, their 1/4 mile times are close enough to make it a driver's race.

How can I say all that and still think Shelby was right? That's another discussion entirely

BLKblurr06

hope you know that the S2000 stock isnt really that fast unless its the 2.2L, not to mention that the S2000 has closer gear ratio's, so the power differences arent the only factors here...... Ok you two may continue with the mud-throwing

SLoW SHO

So far I agree with everything you've said.

TXRLU

I'm glad you are saying that HP AND Torque are related. SOMEONE ELSE actually said that POWER is what really matters. Of course now they're in total agreement with you. But what the hell, if they've learned that you can't just dismiss torque as a non-factor, then I'm happy. The only way you could really say one is more important than the other is depending on what exactly you are trying to do. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat, and this is especially true with cars that go fast. I think it would be a little boring if only one factor mattered.

EceSSiveMod

hahaha n1 cannon

Badju587

They are related indeed, and I'd really never say one is more important than the other... after all, horsepower is just a number to quantify torque's ability to do work over time. It's the torque that makes that number, which is why I get a bit confused when people say they tune for HP. What they're really doing is tuning to make the most torque at an optimal RPM.

I just saw you guys doing this po-ta-to/po-tah-to thing and thought I'd drop in my .02 that both of you were essentially right, which is why I never said either of you were wrong. SlowSHO just states his opinions/facts/claims/whatever he's saying at the moment with a bit more "punch" than ppl are normally used to I guess. Doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to bust anyone's *****, just that he's got a type-A personality. It also doesn't mean I'm defending him, just means I think I understand the way he presents himself. If I thought he was wrong about something, I'd call him out on it