How Important is torque?
+2
07-12-2008, 02:08 PM
#23
Originally Posted by L. Baggins
I am a huge torque fanatic. I am all for more torque. This is why every BRABUS/AMG makes me all golly. Sure sometimes there is a bit too much torque (100mph burnouts... but come on...you know that's fun as hell). This is another reason I refuse to drive a Honda (No hate, I love the RSX/NSX lol) but the whole V-TEC thing is not cutting it for me. I want that torque. I want to be thrown back into my seat, I wan't people to hold on for their dear lives, I want that.
I know Z or G aren't really torquey beasts, but the VQ engine balances it very nicely and I believe it's a alright balance. Although I feel they really should have added about 150 ft/lbs of torque to every engine.
and like the quote above, “Horsepower sells cars; torque wins races” -Carroll Shelby
Does not get more true than that.
I know Z or G aren't really torquey beasts, but the VQ engine balances it very nicely and I believe it's a alright balance. Although I feel they really should have added about 150 ft/lbs of torque to every engine.
and like the quote above, “Horsepower sells cars; torque wins races” -Carroll Shelby
Does not get more true than that.
07-12-2008, 02:46 PM
#24
Originally Posted by Q45tech
You cannot have any HP without torque since you must know torque and rpm to calculate HP. Thus HP is just an imaginary number derived from torque.
http://hpcalc.boostcontroller.com/
07-12-2008, 05:46 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: arizona
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. Here's the deal, in moderately plain english.
Force, Work and Time
If you have a one pound weight bolted to the floor, and try to lift it with one pound of force (or 10, or 50 pounds), you will have applied force and exerted energy, but no work will have been done. If you unbolt the weight, and apply a force sufficient to lift the weight one foot, then one foot pound of work will have been done. If that event takes a minute to accomplish, then you will be doing work at the rate of one foot pound per minute. If it takes one second to accomplish the task, then work will be done at the rate of 60 foot pounds per minute, and so on.
In order to apply these measurements to automobiles and their performance (whether you're speaking of torque, horsepower, newton meters, watts, or any other terms), you need to address the three variables of force, work and time.
Awhile back, a gentleman by the name of Watt (the same gent who did all that neat stuff with steam engines) made some observations, and concluded that the average horse of the time could lift a 550 pound weight one foot in one second, thereby performing work at the rate of 550 foot pounds per second, or 33,000 foot pounds per minute, for an eight hour shift, more or less. He then published those observations, and stated that 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work was equivalent to the power of one horse, or, one horsepower.
Everybody else said OK. :-)
For purposes of this discussion, we need to measure units of force from rotating objects such as crankshafts, so we'll use terms which define a *twisting* force, such as foot pounds of torque. A foot pound of torque is the twisting force necessary to support a one pound weight on a weightless horizontal bar, one foot from the fulcrum.
Now, it's important to understand that nobody on the planet ever actually measures horsepower from a running engine. What we actually measure (on a dynomometer) is torque, expressed in foot pounds (in the U.S.), and then we *calculate* actual horsepower by converting the twisting force of torque into the work units of horsepower.
Visualize that one pound weight we mentioned, one foot from the fulcrum on its weightless bar. If we rotate that weight for one full revolution against a one pound resistance, we have moved it a total of 6.2832 feet (Pi * a two foot circle), and, incidently, we have done 6.2832 foot pounds of work.
OK. Remember Watt? He said that 33,000 foot pounds of work per minute was equivalent to one horsepower. If we divide the 6.2832 foot pounds of work we've done per revolution of that weight into 33,000 foot pounds, we come up with the fact that one foot pound of torque at 5252 rpm is equal to 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work, and is the equivalent of one horsepower. If we only move that weight at the rate of 2626 rpm, it's the equivalent of 1/2 horsepower (16,500 foot pounds per minute), and so on. Therefore, the following formula applies for calculating horsepower from a torque measurement:
Torque * RPM
Horsepower = ------------
5252
Force, Work and Time
If you have a one pound weight bolted to the floor, and try to lift it with one pound of force (or 10, or 50 pounds), you will have applied force and exerted energy, but no work will have been done. If you unbolt the weight, and apply a force sufficient to lift the weight one foot, then one foot pound of work will have been done. If that event takes a minute to accomplish, then you will be doing work at the rate of one foot pound per minute. If it takes one second to accomplish the task, then work will be done at the rate of 60 foot pounds per minute, and so on.
In order to apply these measurements to automobiles and their performance (whether you're speaking of torque, horsepower, newton meters, watts, or any other terms), you need to address the three variables of force, work and time.
Awhile back, a gentleman by the name of Watt (the same gent who did all that neat stuff with steam engines) made some observations, and concluded that the average horse of the time could lift a 550 pound weight one foot in one second, thereby performing work at the rate of 550 foot pounds per second, or 33,000 foot pounds per minute, for an eight hour shift, more or less. He then published those observations, and stated that 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work was equivalent to the power of one horse, or, one horsepower.
Everybody else said OK. :-)
For purposes of this discussion, we need to measure units of force from rotating objects such as crankshafts, so we'll use terms which define a *twisting* force, such as foot pounds of torque. A foot pound of torque is the twisting force necessary to support a one pound weight on a weightless horizontal bar, one foot from the fulcrum.
Now, it's important to understand that nobody on the planet ever actually measures horsepower from a running engine. What we actually measure (on a dynomometer) is torque, expressed in foot pounds (in the U.S.), and then we *calculate* actual horsepower by converting the twisting force of torque into the work units of horsepower.
Visualize that one pound weight we mentioned, one foot from the fulcrum on its weightless bar. If we rotate that weight for one full revolution against a one pound resistance, we have moved it a total of 6.2832 feet (Pi * a two foot circle), and, incidently, we have done 6.2832 foot pounds of work.
OK. Remember Watt? He said that 33,000 foot pounds of work per minute was equivalent to one horsepower. If we divide the 6.2832 foot pounds of work we've done per revolution of that weight into 33,000 foot pounds, we come up with the fact that one foot pound of torque at 5252 rpm is equal to 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work, and is the equivalent of one horsepower. If we only move that weight at the rate of 2626 rpm, it's the equivalent of 1/2 horsepower (16,500 foot pounds per minute), and so on. Therefore, the following formula applies for calculating horsepower from a torque measurement:
Torque * RPM
Horsepower = ------------
5252
07-12-2008, 05:47 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: arizona
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-12-2008, 05:52 PM
#27
Originally Posted by robertinmesa
OK. Here's the deal, in moderately plain english.
Force, Work and Time
If you have a one pound weight bolted to the floor, and try to lift it with one pound of force (or 10, or 50 pounds), you will have applied force and exerted energy, but no work will have been done. If you unbolt the weight, and apply a force sufficient to lift the weight one foot, then one foot pound of work will have been done. If that event takes a minute to accomplish, then you will be doing work at the rate of one foot pound per minute. If it takes one second to accomplish the task, then work will be done at the rate of 60 foot pounds per minute, and so on.
In order to apply these measurements to automobiles and their performance (whether you're speaking of torque, horsepower, newton meters, watts, or any other terms), you need to address the three variables of force, work and time.
Awhile back, a gentleman by the name of Watt (the same gent who did all that neat stuff with steam engines) made some observations, and concluded that the average horse of the time could lift a 550 pound weight one foot in one second, thereby performing work at the rate of 550 foot pounds per second, or 33,000 foot pounds per minute, for an eight hour shift, more or less. He then published those observations, and stated that 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work was equivalent to the power of one horse, or, one horsepower.
Everybody else said OK. :-)
For purposes of this discussion, we need to measure units of force from rotating objects such as crankshafts, so we'll use terms which define a *twisting* force, such as foot pounds of torque. A foot pound of torque is the twisting force necessary to support a one pound weight on a weightless horizontal bar, one foot from the fulcrum.
Now, it's important to understand that nobody on the planet ever actually measures horsepower from a running engine. What we actually measure (on a dynomometer) is torque, expressed in foot pounds (in the U.S.), and then we *calculate* actual horsepower by converting the twisting force of torque into the work units of horsepower.
Visualize that one pound weight we mentioned, one foot from the fulcrum on its weightless bar. If we rotate that weight for one full revolution against a one pound resistance, we have moved it a total of 6.2832 feet (Pi * a two foot circle), and, incidently, we have done 6.2832 foot pounds of work.
OK. Remember Watt? He said that 33,000 foot pounds of work per minute was equivalent to one horsepower. If we divide the 6.2832 foot pounds of work we've done per revolution of that weight into 33,000 foot pounds, we come up with the fact that one foot pound of torque at 5252 rpm is equal to 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work, and is the equivalent of one horsepower. If we only move that weight at the rate of 2626 rpm, it's the equivalent of 1/2 horsepower (16,500 foot pounds per minute), and so on. Therefore, the following formula applies for calculating horsepower from a torque measurement:
Torque * RPM
Horsepower = ------------
5252
Force, Work and Time
If you have a one pound weight bolted to the floor, and try to lift it with one pound of force (or 10, or 50 pounds), you will have applied force and exerted energy, but no work will have been done. If you unbolt the weight, and apply a force sufficient to lift the weight one foot, then one foot pound of work will have been done. If that event takes a minute to accomplish, then you will be doing work at the rate of one foot pound per minute. If it takes one second to accomplish the task, then work will be done at the rate of 60 foot pounds per minute, and so on.
In order to apply these measurements to automobiles and their performance (whether you're speaking of torque, horsepower, newton meters, watts, or any other terms), you need to address the three variables of force, work and time.
Awhile back, a gentleman by the name of Watt (the same gent who did all that neat stuff with steam engines) made some observations, and concluded that the average horse of the time could lift a 550 pound weight one foot in one second, thereby performing work at the rate of 550 foot pounds per second, or 33,000 foot pounds per minute, for an eight hour shift, more or less. He then published those observations, and stated that 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work was equivalent to the power of one horse, or, one horsepower.
Everybody else said OK. :-)
For purposes of this discussion, we need to measure units of force from rotating objects such as crankshafts, so we'll use terms which define a *twisting* force, such as foot pounds of torque. A foot pound of torque is the twisting force necessary to support a one pound weight on a weightless horizontal bar, one foot from the fulcrum.
Now, it's important to understand that nobody on the planet ever actually measures horsepower from a running engine. What we actually measure (on a dynomometer) is torque, expressed in foot pounds (in the U.S.), and then we *calculate* actual horsepower by converting the twisting force of torque into the work units of horsepower.
Visualize that one pound weight we mentioned, one foot from the fulcrum on its weightless bar. If we rotate that weight for one full revolution against a one pound resistance, we have moved it a total of 6.2832 feet (Pi * a two foot circle), and, incidently, we have done 6.2832 foot pounds of work.
OK. Remember Watt? He said that 33,000 foot pounds of work per minute was equivalent to one horsepower. If we divide the 6.2832 foot pounds of work we've done per revolution of that weight into 33,000 foot pounds, we come up with the fact that one foot pound of torque at 5252 rpm is equal to 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work, and is the equivalent of one horsepower. If we only move that weight at the rate of 2626 rpm, it's the equivalent of 1/2 horsepower (16,500 foot pounds per minute), and so on. Therefore, the following formula applies for calculating horsepower from a torque measurement:
Torque * RPM
Horsepower = ------------
5252
07-12-2008, 06:26 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: arizona
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish I could take credit, but it was plagiarized and posted here for the OP's benefit.
It did not even occur to me the author was a bit condescending with their explanation.
It did not even occur to me the author was a bit condescending with their explanation.
07-12-2008, 07:44 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: japan
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by teh215
“Horsepower sells cars; torque wins races” -Carroll Shelby
Do you want 1000 hp and 300 ft-lbs of torque, or would you take 300 hp and 1000 ft-lbs of torque?
I guess if you are Mr. Shelby you would prefer the tractor motor.
Torque = instantaneous force HP = work done per unit time
Last edited by skylin3R33; 07-12-2008 at 07:47 PM.
07-12-2008, 07:47 PM
#32
Originally Posted by skylin3R33
F1 cars prove otherwise.
Do you want 1000 hp and 300 ft-lbs of torque, or would you take 300 hp and 1000 ft-lbs of torque?
I guess if you are Mr. Shelby you would prefer the tractor motor.
Torque = instantaneous force HP = work done per unit time
Do you want 1000 hp and 300 ft-lbs of torque, or would you take 300 hp and 1000 ft-lbs of torque?
I guess if you are Mr. Shelby you would prefer the tractor motor.
Torque = instantaneous force HP = work done per unit time
07-12-2008, 08:52 PM
#33
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: West Coast/Pacific Rim
Posts: 7,166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by skylin3R33
F1 cars prove otherwise.
Do you want 1000 hp and 300 ft-lbs of torque, or would you take 300 hp and 1000 ft-lbs of torque?
I guess if you are Mr. Shelby you would prefer the tractor motor.
Torque = instantaneous force HP = work done per unit time
Do you want 1000 hp and 300 ft-lbs of torque, or would you take 300 hp and 1000 ft-lbs of torque?
I guess if you are Mr. Shelby you would prefer the tractor motor.
Torque = instantaneous force HP = work done per unit time
07-13-2008, 12:26 PM
#36
Registered User
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: curl lookin boy
Posts: 8,448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torque does not win races.
For those who say otherwise. Please explain how your car continues to accelerate, after torque is falling(see a dyno graph). Furthermore, when racing, you never fall below peak torque anyways.
LS1
LT1
L98
All have 5.7 liter motors and identical torque numbers. But the LS1 is significantly faster because it takes advantage of gearing and more hp. Same thing could be said about the GSR and LS Integra. Both make the same torque numbers, but the GSR is faster due to its higher redline and more hp.
For those who say otherwise. Please explain how your car continues to accelerate, after torque is falling(see a dyno graph). Furthermore, when racing, you never fall below peak torque anyways.
LS1
LT1
L98
All have 5.7 liter motors and identical torque numbers. But the LS1 is significantly faster because it takes advantage of gearing and more hp. Same thing could be said about the GSR and LS Integra. Both make the same torque numbers, but the GSR is faster due to its higher redline and more hp.
07-13-2008, 12:32 PM
#37
Registered User
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: curl lookin boy
Posts: 8,448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davidv
Torque numbers are maximum numbers, and of limited value. More important is where does the torque come on? 2,500 or 4,500 RPM. I would rather have 250 pounds of torque at 2,500 RPM than 260 pounds of torque at 4,500.
Torque only measures where hp will end up. Horsepower is a measurement of work and torque is defined as being a rotational force. I would rather have torque in higher rpm's with a linear curve than peak hp down low. What if you had an engine that made 10,000ft/lbs of torque easily. But it ran at 1rpm. (10000ft/lbs * 1rpm) / 5252 = 1.904 hp.
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
07-13-2008, 01:30 PM
#38
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 971
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O.K., now let's throw a jet-powered car in the mix. How would we calculate torque? HP? I'm guessing the torque numbers are fairly low, relatively speaking. If one watches them race, they don't jump off the line, but they can generate some serious speed at the end of the trap.
07-13-2008, 06:16 PM
#40
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by R-TuneZ
+1. people always come up to me asking to race me with the turbo civics or whatever... and regardless of what any of them can put down, the z will destroy most any fwd on the track. either way i am completely uninterested in racing my car on public roads, well... sort of.
Well said...Some ricers come up to me and are like you want to race. And yes they drove some POS civic hatch with a k20 in it...Yes the car was fast as fuc*, yes it will walk the Z, but if I wanted to drive a fast POS hatch I would of bought 3 or if I really wanted to go fast for cheap in a straight line without regards to anything else, I would of bought a snowmobile and made it a 9 second beast for less than a quarter of the Z.
Some kids just never grow up