"Blue Devil" News: Test Details Roll In

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

the 0.6Nm/5kg is the difference between the Cummins 2500 and the Enzo. The ratio on the 2500 is 1.76Nm/5kg.

I see, that was a little confusing.

 

[Onikaze]

I've always looked at torque vs. power this way: Torque gets the wheels spinning on launch. Horsepower keeps the car going afterwards.

Again, horsepower is a measure of work done, it's showing how you used the torque, that's why super high revs give such high horsepower figures off such low torque amounts, the extra revs give more swings with the torque bat at the mass ball.

Horsepower is ALMOST useless really, all it is ultimately is a way to say how well you are using the torque.

Torque is what is real, it is what actually does everything.

Torque exists whether you know horsepower, horsepower is just an extrapolation of torque.

This goes to show that HP/L is EVEN MORE retarded to argue, since it actually says "amount of work applied per liter".

 

[Jim Prower]

I've always thought HP is a measure of Energy, where as Torque is the effect of a force on a radius.

 

[Famine]

Again, horsepower is a measure of work done, it's showing how you used the torque, that's why super high revs give such high horsepower figures off such low torque amounts, the extra revs give more swings with the torque bat at the mass ball.

Horsepower is ALMOST useless really, all it is ultimately is a way to say how well you are using the torque.

Torque is what is real, it is what actually does everything.

Torque exists whether you know horsepower, horsepower is just an extrapolation of torque.

This goes to show that HP/L is EVEN MORE retarded to argue, since it actually says "amount of work applied per liter".

And crank torque ratings matter little, since it's the wheels that actually drive the car. Once the torque has been multiplied by the gearbox, what you stick on the ground can be wildly different from what's at the crank.


All other things (including gearbox and vehicle weight) being equal, which do you believe is the fastest way round a track - a 140hp/190lbft engine or a 190hp/140lbft engine?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I think you might want to go see what a Black Series model is like then. The suspension in the CLK63 AMG BS is just as advanced as Porsche's RS models.

Really? Thanks for the tip. Where can I find some video or comparos of it do you know?

LOL wut? 300Nm is, oh wait, 221 ft-lbs. Which is less than a WRX and a little more than a GTi. Massive amounts of torque, and I am sure the GTi delivers it some 10,000 RPM sooner as well.

You sound like any other person that doesn't want to step away from OHV and just argues torque, torque, torque. Torque is great, provided you want to pull trees out of the ground. Torque is basically how much force you can put out, and power is how fast you can do it. By your logic, electric motors would be the best thing for racing, ever, because they generate peak torque at virtually zero RPM.

An F1 car is fast because of the some 800 HP it makes around 18,000 RPM, not because of the 200 ish ft-lbs of torque. Or its weight so much even. It would still be fast if it weighed twice as much.

EDIT: Figure I'd add this fun fact in: The Cummins diesel Dodge 2500 makes 881 Nm of torque and weighs 2500kg. Oddly enough, its much slower than an Enzo, far more than the .6Nm/5kg might want to imply.


And the fact you that you had to point out my blunt sarcasm and such, and then provoke with genius insults such as "lame" and "immature" just works to validate yourself as such. You could have taken the high ground and ignored it

*sigh* You have more problems you are overlooking. First, what kind of torque curve does the Dodge have? I bet that big number would disappear by 3500rpm, so basically that torque is useless because truck engines are optimised for towing and carrying large loads. Second, as Famine has pointed out below, torque at the wheels is what really counts. An F1 car has 7 gears all closely spaced together meaning it may even beat the Veyron in torque at the wheels/weight so the torque argument still holds up. Third, the Dodge's torque at the crank/weight is still much worse than the supercars even at peak torque. Fourth, electric motors don't produce much torque yet, but for what they have, any journalists who have driven them immediately comment on the instant acceleration you get thanks to the always there torque. If those electric cars produced more torque they may be much better than petrol engines, but that's nearly impossible. Petroleum is a very powerfully explosive fuel.

the 0.6Nm/5kg is the difference between the Cummins 2500 and the Enzo. The ratio on the 2500 is 1.76Nm/5kg.

Also, a WRX is 1.1Nm/5kg. I'll keep producing more numbers to show how meaningless torque/mass is for performance figures.

Again, torque curve. The WRX is no supercar which is why the torque/weight and acceleration is not up to the times of supercars. It produces much of its torque on its comparatively low weight (compared to the Dodge) through most of its revs meaning it will pul hard and have an average higher torque/weight ratio when accelerating. Traction is another thing to be considered off the line.

And crank torque ratings matter little, since it's the wheels that actually drive the car. Once the torque has been multiplied by the gearbox, what you stick on the ground can be wildly different from what's at the crank.


All other things (including gearbox and vehicle weight) being equal, which do you believe is the fastest way round a track - a 140hp/190lbft engine or a 190hp/140lbft engine?

Depends on the torque curve. Assuming relatively similar the 190ftlb engine. Drag racing proves that. We're talking straight line speed here. If they handled the same, put that torque to the road the same, then the 190 engine.


Edit: The JDM-Spec WRX produces closer to 1.38Nm/5kg.

 

[niky]

It'll all depend on the shape of the powerband.

The powerband is all that matters in racing. To hell with torque as a measure of power. You can have a diesel engine with 800 Nm of torque that'll still take forever to get to 60 mph, simply because it develops 800 Nm of torque at 1500 rpm and 0 Nm of torque at 4000 rpm.

A turbocharged car is not fast because of its torque. It's fast because it's turbocharged. Turbocharging gives you a wide plateau of peak torque, where you're making 130-140 hp over a rev range of, say, 2000-3000 rpm. A naturally aspirated 190 hp/140 ft lb car, on the other hand, is most likely making its power through revs, revs revs... at the same rpms that a 140 hp/190 ft lb car is making peak power, the high revver is only making, say, 125 hp... but long after your 140 hp car has stopped producing anything useful, your 190 hp engine is going, going, going, going... producing power in a narrow (usually 2000 rpm) band that nevertheless has more power under the curve than your torquer does.

Believe me, I know... torque advantage means little unless you're making a ton of hp using that torque over a large rev range. Otherwise, the peak figures are meaningless.

As a friend said about WRC cars. They may be making "only" 300 hp... but over how many revs? Are they making a flat plateau of 300 hp from 4000 rpms to redline? That's what matters. And that's whay you look for on a dyno sheet, to see how flexible an engine is.

All other things being equal, the 190 hp car should win, because shifting between gears will put you higher up in the useable powerband on the 190 hp car than the 140 hp car... and the 190 hp car's top speed will likely be higher, because at 7500 rpms (if either car can rev that high), the low torque car is still making nearly 130 ft-lbs of torque while the 140 hp car will only be making 98 ft-lbs... and only if it makes 140 hp at 7500... it'd probably make a hell of a lot less in the real world... and probably wouldn't even rev over 6000 rpm.

EDIT: 190 hp wins, even in drag racing, simply because you can drop the clutch from whatever engine speed the car develops useable power at... stoplight to stoplight, the 140 hp engine would win over short distances. Remember... given the same gear ratios.

Oh, EDIT: the correct answer to Famine's question is that a 190 hp / 190 ftlb car would beat the snot out of both of the above.

 

[Azuremen]

A lot of poor assumptions...

I'm just done. You clearly know all there is to know about physics and engineering, so I'll just ignore the degree I am going for and admit it - you know all.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

It'll all depend on the shape of the powerband.

The powerband is all that matters in racing. To hell with torque as a measure of power. You can have a diesel engine with 800 Nm of torque that'll still take forever to get to 60 mph, simply because it develops 800 Nm of torque at 1500 rpm and 0 Nm of torque at 4000 rpm.

A turbocharged car is not fast because of its torque. It's fast because it's turbocharged. Turbocharging gives you a wide plateau of peak torque, where you're making 130-140 hp over a rev range of, say, 2000-3000 rpm. A naturally aspirated 190 hp/140 ft lb car, on the other hand, is most likely making its power through revs, revs revs... at the same rpms that a 140 hp/190 ft lb car is making peak power, the high revver is only making, say, 125 hp... but long after your 140 hp car has stopped producing anything useful, your 190 hp engine is going, going, going, going... producing power in a narrow (usually 2000 rpm) band that nevertheless has more power under the curve than your torquer does.

Believe me, I know... torque advantage means little unless you're making a ton of hp using that torque over a large rev range. Otherwise, the peak figures are meaningless.

As a friend said about WRC cars. They may be making "only" 300 hp... but over how many revs? Are they making a flat plateau of 300 hp from 4000 rpms to redline? That's what matters. And that's whay you look for on a dyno sheet, to see how flexible an engine is.

All other things being equal, the 190 hp car should win, because shifting between gears will put you higher up in the useable powerband on the 190 hp car than the 140 hp car... and the 190 hp car's top speed will likely be higher, because at 7500 rpms (if either car can rev that high), the low torque car is still making nearly 130 ft-lbs of torque while the 140 hp car will only be making 98 ft-lbs... and only if it makes 140 hp at 7500... it'd probably make a hell of a lot less in the real world... and probably wouldn't even rev over 6000 rpm.

EDIT: 190 hp wins, even in drag racing, simply because you can drop the clutch from whatever engine speed the car develops useable power at... stoplight to stoplight, the 140 hp engine would win over short distances. Remember... given the same gear ratios.

Oh, EDIT: the correct answer to Famine's question is that a 190 hp / 190 ftlb car would beat the snot out of both of the above.

What you said still proves that torque is more important. Powers gives you an idea of the torque band assuming similar revs if you don't have a graph to look at.

I'm just done. You clearly know all there is to know about physics and engineering, so I'll just ignore the degree I am going for and admit it - you know all.

Or how about you provide proof that dismisses the torque argument completely and proves power is all that matters. You haven't provided any proof that I couldn't dismiss with numbers yet. There's a reason big V8s are used for drag racing, because they may so much torque to make them accelerate. So come on, prove that torque/weight means nothing. Using trucks as proof is silly. It's like comparing a tractor to a rocket. Very different purposes.

Oh, and from what I've learned, physics agrees with me.
W=Fs
F=ma

Torque is work, so more torque= more force the car is producing, and the more force, assuming a static weight then more acceleration. Where is power in that?

Edit: I know those formulae are the most basic of physics, but they prove the point. Just because you're going to university doesn't mean what you think is right. It sounds like a kid saying he is good at soccer because he plays for a club. I remember those kids back when I was in school, and they were never very good at their sport.

 

[Azuremen]

They don't prove anything except you don't know what you are talking about.

Electric motors generate absolute gobs of torque, instantly. They produce so much MORE torque than a petrol based engine. Petrol is just an extremely efficient way to store energy compared to batteries.

Force = mass * acceleration
Torque = Force * distance = Work
Power = Work / time

More power means more work done over the same period of time. Which means more change in position. Which means a great delta velocity and thus a higher speed over a given period of time. Your less than high school physics agrees only partially with you; you are over looking the rest of the materially. Perhaps initially, I do not know.

You have several contradictions in your argument as well. You argue it's all about a smooth torque curve, but then state a Formula car is fast because of close ratio gearing. Close ratio gearing is designed to ignore peaky power bands, allowing you to stay in said peaky range constantly. You also state the WRX produces more, oh god, what was it... oh wait

The WRX is no supercar which is why the torque/weight and acceleration is not up to the times of supercars. It produces much of its torque on its comparatively low weight (compared to the Dodge) through most of its revs meaning it will pul hard and have an average higher torque/weight ratio when accelerating.

So more revs = more torque? No, it means more power per amount of torque, and more acceleration.

Power isn't the only thing that matters, and I never said it was. I was saying torque isn't the only thing you should care about, ever. Because you could have a Mack truck that makes thousands of Newton meters of torque but doesn't rev over 1800 RPM, so it has no acceleration. In order to accelerate quickly, you have to apply said torque over a rapid period of time. Thus why high revving, low torque/displacement motors still make fast cars.

Big V8 are used for drag racing because the high displacement makes it easier to produce more power in generally. Stress on an engine increases at a rate of x^2 with RPM, where x is the RPM of the engine. More precision is required the faster something spins, along with more upkeep. Thus the extremely high costs in producing Formula 1 engines versus drag racing V8 engines. It is also part of why Americans have stuck with OHV engines that spin slower but have higher displacement. Where displacement and force induction is restricted, the engine that spins faster will be quicker. Why? Because it produces more power. End of story.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

They don't prove anything except you don't know what you are talking about.

Electric motors generate absolute gobs of torque, instantly. They produce so much MORE torque than a petrol based engine. Petrol is just an extremely efficient way to store energy compared to batteries.

Force = mass * acceleration
Torque = Force * distance = Work
Power = Work / time

More power means more work done over the same period of time. Which means more change in position. Which means a great delta velocity and thus a higher speed over a given period of time. Your less than high school physics agrees only partially with you; you are over looking the rest of the materially. Perhaps initially, I do not know.

You have several contradictions in your argument as well. You argue it's all about a smooth torque curve, but then state a Formula car is fast because of close ratio gearing. Close ratio gearing is designed to ignore peaky power bands, allowing you to stay in said peaky range constantly. You also state the WRX produces more, oh god, what was it... oh wait


So more revs = more torque? No, it means more power per amount of torque, and more acceleration.

Power isn't the only thing that matters, and I never said it was. I was saying torque isn't the only thing you should care about, ever. Because you could have a Mack truck that makes thousands of Newton meters of torque but doesn't rev over 1800 RPM, so it has no acceleration. In order to accelerate quickly, you have to apply said torque over a rapid period of time. Thus why high revving, low torque/displacement motors still make fast cars.

Big V8 are used for drag racing because the high displacement makes it easier to produce more power in generally. Stress on an engine increases at a rate of x^2 with RPM, where x is the RPM of the engine. More precision is required the faster something spins, along with more upkeep. Thus the extremely high costs in producing Formula 1 engines versus drag racing V8 engines. It is also part of why Americans have stuck with OHV engines that spin slower but have higher displacement. Where displacement and force induction is restricted, the engine that spins faster will be quicker. Why? Because it produces more power. End of story.

So how about instead of being an arse and simply stating what you know/believe next time you say it straight up like this? Sheesh. Thanks for (finally) explaining what you mean. So when an engine is spinning faster it is igniting more times per second making its torque more often. But even by your reasoning, torque comes before power. Torque is the variable of an engine. You need torque to make power. There are many cars out there that rev much faster than others, and still produce a lot less power because they don't have enough torque. (eg. Spoon Civic vs Chevrolet Chevelle). So torque is still more important if you ask me, which is why I said torque means everything. You just happen to be the first person to explain what role power plays to me. Now I know what role power plays. This next part is going to hurt me, because of how long it took me to get you to tell me: Thankyou.

See, I'm willing to learn, others may not be.

 

[Onikaze]

I didn't say Torque was the only thing you had to worry about either, I said Torque is what actually moves the car, Horsepower is how well you're using the Torque.

HP is applied Torque, Torque just means rotational force, twist if you will.

Horsepower is a term made up to describe how far/fast/well you could move something with a given engine setup.

1 Horsepower means you could drag something about as far/fast/well as one horse (supposedly it was going too), but with a rotational engine you need a certain amount of torque applied at a certain amount of revolutions per minute to produce a certain amount of torque.


You want to see why HP matters so little at times?

625 hp 553 lb-ft.

650 hp 811 lb-ft.

One of those cars doesn't rev very high at all, yet if the limiters put on both cars were removed, the lower revving one would most likely be significantly faster.

Alot faster than a 25 Hp difference would suggest.

The Audi R8 and R10 racecars, btw.

 

[Venari]

I didn't say Torque was the only thing you had to worry about either, I said Torque is what actually moves the car, Horsepower is how well you're using the Torque.

Not quite true. In rotational output engine terms, power is torque at a rotational speed. Maximum power is a absolute indication of how fast you can make a car go. If you used a CVT gearbox, and set the engine at maximum power, the torque applied to the wheels would be the maximum available at all vehicle speeds, and thus your acceleration would be the best available right up until the point where drag = power and you were going as fast as possible.

 

[Dave A]

I didn't say Torque was the only thing you had to worry about either, I said Torque is what actually moves the car, Horsepower is how well you're using the Torque.

HP is applied Torque, Torque just means rotational force, twist if you will.

Horsepower is a term made up to describe how far/fast/well you could move something with a given engine setup.

1 Horsepower means you could drag something about as far/fast/well as one horse (supposedly it was going too), but with a rotational engine you need a certain amount of torque applied at a certain amount of revolutions per minute to produce a certain amount of torque.


You want to see why HP matters so little at times?

625 hp 553 lb-ft.

650 hp 811 lb-ft.

One of those cars doesn't rev very high at all, yet if the limiters put on both cars were removed, the lower revving one would most likely be significantly faster.

Alot faster than a 25 Hp difference would suggest.

The Audi R8 and R10 racecars, btw.

The examples a bit skewed, firstly your using a race built engine against a road use one, secondly one engine not only has more torque but it also has more power. It's a no-brainer to say that it's considerably faster. It's also worth nothing that everything about the R8 is designed to make it as fast as possible within it's class rules, it't a lighter car, a more aerodynamic car, a more powerful car. Yes it's going to be a lot faster than the extra 25hp alone would make it.

Here's another example for you, the Renault Clio, two engines, two different outputs, two differnt speeds.

Clio 1.5 dCi
85 bhp
148lb-ft
0-60 120.7
Top speed 114mph

Clio 1.4
97 bhp
94 lb-ft
0-60 11.3
Top speed 118mph

In that example the torque loses both in top speed and acceleration. They are the same car minus the different engines.

How about this...

Honda S2000
237 bhp
154 lb-ft
0-60 6.2
Top speed 150mph

Nissan 350Z
296 bhp
268 lb-ft
0-60 6.2
Top speed 155

From thoes examples the torque doesn't seem to be getting the upper hand performance wise. I'm not going to claim I know more than you on this subject because I highly doubt that I do, but unless I'm missunderstanding what your saying, this seems to disagree with what your saying.

 

[niky]

RE: what I said doesn't prove that torque is all that matters.

What matters is how much power that torque produces over the rev range.

That's why the R10 is a good example. Turbocharging gives it a fat powerband with easily accessible power. It is fast because it makes enough torque at enough revs to give it power at those revs, not because it has more torque. And it takes advantage of a rule loophole that allows the R10 to use variable geometry turbocharging where gasser LMPs don't. A variable geometry turbo increases the size of the powerband by acting like a turbocharger VTEC... one profile for low revs, one profile for high revs. Give it the same turbo restrictions as the gasser, and it'd be much slower than it is now, with a very short and very peaky powerband (like most "tuned" turbodiesels)

If all that mattered was the amount of torque produced, period, then you shouldn't have to rev, as Azureman pointed out. But if you can extract a godawful lot of revs out of an engine, you can make a godawful lot of power out of very little torque.

If two cars make 190 hp, both NA, but one makes 190 at 4000 rpm and one at 8000 rpm, they'll both be exactly as fast if they're geared properly. And that car that makes 190 hp at 8000 rpm is using less torque to make it.

That short distance the 140 hp car would win over? That's the distance it takes the 190 hp car to rev past the 140 hp car's power peak. After that, it's dead in the water, because at all points after that, the 190 hp car is making more power.

Again, torque ain't the be-all and end-all. It's just a tool we use to make power. What matters is how much power within the powerband we make with what torque is given us, not just how much torque we use to make it... up to a point... if you need 15000 rpm to make power, your engine will likely be too peaky for road use.

 

[Tornado]

Clio 1.5 dCi
85 bhp
148lb-ft
0-60 120.7
Top speed 114mph

Man, it would probably be faster to throw it off a cliff.

Also, not that I particularly agree with the "torque is all the matters" argument, but the diesel car usually weighs more and the 350Z weighs considerably more.
That being said, the only example I know of where the diesel version of a car is faster than the NA version is in the BMW 1 series.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

The examples a bit skewed, firstly your using a race built engine against a road use one, secondly one engine not only has more torque but it also has more power. It's a no-brainer to say that it's considerably faster. It's also worth nothing that everything about the R8 is designed to make it as fast as possible within it's class rules, it't a lighter car, a more aerodynamic car, a more powerful car. Yes it's going to be a lot faster than the extra 25hp alone would make it.

Here's another example for you, the Renault Clio, two engines, two different outputs, two differnt speeds.

Clio 1.5 dCi
85 bhp
148lb-ft
0-60 120.7
Top speed 114mph

Clio 1.4
97 bhp
94 lb-ft
0-60 11.3
Top speed 118mph

In that example the torque loses both in top speed and acceleration. They are the same car minus the different engines.

How about this...

Honda S2000
237 bhp
154 lb-ft
0-60 6.2
Top speed 150mph

Nissan 350Z
296 bhp
268 lb-ft
0-60 6.2
Top speed 155

From thoes examples the torque doesn't seem to be getting the upper hand performance wise. I'm not going to claim I know more than you on this subject because I highly doubt that I do, but unless I'm missunderstanding what your saying, this seems to disagree with what your saying.

First of all, I think the argument's over. I understand how and what role power plays now, it's like if 1 engine is producing 300Nm/second, and the other 400Nm/2 seconds, the one making 300Nm every second is obviously the one with more power, even though its outright peak torque is not as high it applies more torque in a given time period making it faster.
You could still say torque is all that matters, because power only tells you how well torque is being used, correct?
Also, you can't compare diesel to petrol, not really. Diesel engines lose all their torque producing capability at pretty low revs. The racing engines might be a different story. And yes, the 350Z is much heavier than an S2000 I think.

So, given the same car, assuming everything is the same other than the engine, which is faster?
One with 300hp and 380Nm
Or one with 300hp and 330Nm?

 

[Tornado]

Newton meters is not a measurement that I will both to convert, but I will note that the BMW 335i and 335d have pretty similar power, the diesel has only a hundred pounds more weight, and the 335 obliterates it in acceleration.
As they are both turbocharged, they also have similar torque curves.

 

[Dave A]

So, given the same car, assuming everything is the same other than the engine, which is faster?
One with 300hp and 380Nm
Or one with 300hp and 330Nm?

Obviousely it would be the one with the same power and more torque, but that doesn't prove the torque is more important that just proves that one engine has more torque and equal power to the other. I'm not saying that torque is or isn't more important, I'm just saying that my example kind of suggests the opposite of what I was replying to. I'm not overly knowledgabe on this, which is why I'm asking for clairification. Your example seems to me to be way off proof of any kind, ofcourse a car with equal power but more torque will be better than the other, but what about 300hp and 380Nm v 380hp and 300Nm. Assumine the cars are euqal in every other way, which is best then and why?

 

[niky]

Actually, not quite so obvious, as you'd have to consider the shape of the curve.

And that's the problem... Unless you know the shape of the curve, "peak" numbers can be deceiving... especially when manufacturers, whether for matters of engine longevity, "gentleman's agreements" or product placement (wherein you stick to a certain power level to avoid competing with the brand's next higher and next lower models...) artificially cap peak power.

When I see claims for a turbocharged gasser that makes a ton of torque while producing just okay hp numbers, I don't think... "wow, what a torquey car"... Instead, I think... so... what does the engine really make when you unplug the boost controller?

That's why your 300 hp 380 Nm car is so quick. It's actually a 400-450 hp car that's "capped" at just 300 hp peak. If it were uncapped (making bigger peak hp numbers than peak torque numebrs), it would be faster still.

 

[Azuremen]

Actually, not quite so obvious, as you'd have to consider the shape of the curve.

And that's the problem... Unless you know the shape of the curve, "peak" numbers can be deceiving... especially when manufacturers, whether for matters of engine longevity, "gentleman's agreements" or product placement (wherein you stick to a certain power level to avoid competing with the brand's next higher and next lower models...) artificially cap peak power.

When I see claims for a turbocharged gasser that makes a ton of torque while producing just okay hp numbers, I don't think... "wow, what a torquey car"... Instead, I think... so... what does the engine really make when you unplug the boost controller?

That's why your 300 hp 380 Nm car is so quick. It's actually a 400-450 hp car that's "capped" at just 300 hp peak. If it were uncapped (making bigger peak hp numbers than peak torque numebrs), it would be faster still.

Not so much, unless it is bleeding boost the higher it revs. However, if you "un-plug" the controller, the next question is ask is how are the internals on the engine setup? Is it a long stroke engine that simply can't rev, or is it more complex than that? Typically, stress on an engine comes from revving higher, and that is where the engine is held back by the factory. So I think it is a lot more complex than just un-plugging that boost controller.

 

[Onikaze]

Whoa whoa whoa.

I was using the Audi R8 Racecar vs the Audi R10 Racecar, NOT the road car.


I was actually pointing out how much of a difference torque curves make.

Hp isn't seperate of Torque, ever.

In the chicken and the egg scenario, the torque comes first, because it's what the horsepower is a measure of.

HP is just a converted measurement of torque applied by the engine, it's a measure of engine efficiency ultimately.

 

[niky]

Never. The simplest way to say it is that it's torque+revs that matter. A lot of either with only a tiny bit of the other will produce no power. HP is the description of what we actually do with those two things.

HP is the measure of applied torque... which is why it's important. Having very little hp means that you're not efficiently applying that torque to the ground.

Not so much, unless it is bleeding boost the higher it revs. However, if you "un-plug" the controller, the next question is ask is how are the internals on the engine setup? Is it a long stroke engine that simply can't rev, or is it more complex than that? Typically, stress on an engine comes from revving higher, and that is where the engine is held back by the factory. So I think it is a lot more complex than just un-plugging that boost controller.

Shhhhh... we don't want to get into all that!

But it's all true, however. Some engines have boost capped simply because they can't take the stress. Most manufacturers are happy having a ton of boost at low rpm because the stress on the rods is very small at low rpms. High revving means a lot for engine longevity, which is why newer Honda Type Rs are being designed to make more power at lower revs.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Obviousely it would be the one with the same power and more torque, but that doesn't prove the torque is more important that just proves that one engine has more torque and equal power to the other. I'm not saying that torque is or isn't more important, I'm just saying that my example kind of suggests the opposite of what I was replying to. I'm not overly knowledgabe on this, which is why I'm asking for clairification. Your example seems to me to be way off proof of any kind, ofcourse a car with equal power but more torque will be better than the other, but what about 300hp and 380Nm v 380hp and 300Nm. Assumine the cars are euqal in every other way, which is best then and why?

Well it seems the one with more horsepower would win, but you'd rarely compare those 2 anyway. Consider this, go and look up all the modern 6 cylinders you can find. Most of them are around 200kw. However their torque numbers vary anywhere between 300Nm and 400Nm. These cars you compare, and generally the torquey ones are faster, generally. The other thing is a big OHV V8 vs a small DOHC V8. Power is often similar, but torque is very different.

Shhhhh... we don't want to get into all that!

But it's all true, however. Some engines have boost capped simply because they can't take the stress. Most manufacturers are happy having a ton of boost at low rpm because the stress on the rods is very small at low rpms. High revving means a lot for engine longevity, which is why newer Honda Type Rs are being designed to make more power at lower revs.

You mean high revs hurts engine life? That's what I thought.

 

[YSSMAN]

Not Surprisingly, Only Select Dealers Will Receive the ZR1

If you were planning on heading down to your local Chevy dealership and placing an order for a new Corvette ZR1, think again. The new super-Vette is the fastest ever made, yet despite its $105k price tag, there'll be a lot of eager customers lining up. But General Motors will only allow certain Chevrolet dealerships to sell the supercar.

Cauley Chevrolet, for example, sells 150 Corvettes a year, and claims it has 60-70 eager customers waiting for the ZR1, but GM will only be allocating four vehicles for the West Bloomfield, Michigan, dealership to sell. Fitchner Chevrolet in Laurel, Montana, sells 35-40 Corvettes a year, but won't be allocated any of the new ZR1s. Out of nearly 4,000 Chevy dealerships in the United States, only 338 will have the chance to sell the ZR1. GM has not released final production numbers for the uber-Vette, but if you want to get your hands on one, you might have to do some hunting.

Berger Chevrolet, the big dealer around here, at most will get four I bet. Futhermore, I'm going to assume they'll be the only dealer in Grand Rapids (maybe West Michigan on the whole?) that will carry the ZR1.

 

[Jim Prower]

I can assure you that either Uftring or MaComb Chevrolet will get at least one, if not four split between them. They're part of the Uftring dealer network...pretty powerful one 'round here. I think the guy may still own a Jaguar/Land Rover dealership: he's got plenty of clout and money. His Nissan dealer may even get a GT-R, if the one at the local auto show was any omen.

 

[YSSMAN]

We're only getting two GT-Rs AFAIK around here as well... So yeah, we're sitting pretty when it comes to the "cool" cars of 2008.

 

[Jim Prower]

And I've got the Infamous Roanoke Dodge (a Viper dealership) sitting about 15 minutes away from my house.

Couple Midwestern boys, sitting in the middle of affordable "Supercar" Heaven.

 

[Joey D]

I'm trying to figure out what dealer around here will get them, I'm guessing the one at the Troy Motor Mall since that is where anyone in the area goes to buy something exotic and fast. I wouldn't be surprised if a GT-R showed up at the Nissan dealer there as well.

 

[UnoMOTO]

not right one, but...

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

That looks like the Lingenfelter C6