View Poll Results: What do you preffer?
More Torque
144
76.19%
More Horsepower
45
23.81%
Voters: 189. You may not vote on this poll
Torque or Horsepower
True .. it has been a good discussion.
Overall, I suppose I need to know what people are thinking. Why do we associate torque with a low-rpm idea, and horsepower with a high rpm idea?
Of course this is assuming constant gearing ... in fact having gearing allows us to torque multiply or divide so that our motors can run in their power generating range from 5mph. to 150+mph.
Another way I like to think of this whole power increasing thing is by seeing torque values are across a lot of rpm values. If you measure the total area under the curve, make a change and the total area goes up in value, you've made a good mod. Horsepower curves are a bit harder to look at ... you look at the slope of the line and if you make a mod and that curve goes up (and doesn't flat or point down) then that's a good mod too. Its just that you're looking at the same data different ways. This is regardless of any magical 5252rpm point on a graph.
The most intuative graphs are by far the torque graphs. If you put them on top of each other, (before and after mod) it is very easy to see where in the powerband (rpm range) where that improvement was made.
Cheers,
jcnel.
Overall, I suppose I need to know what people are thinking. Why do we associate torque with a low-rpm idea, and horsepower with a high rpm idea?
Of course this is assuming constant gearing ... in fact having gearing allows us to torque multiply or divide so that our motors can run in their power generating range from 5mph. to 150+mph.
Another way I like to think of this whole power increasing thing is by seeing torque values are across a lot of rpm values. If you measure the total area under the curve, make a change and the total area goes up in value, you've made a good mod. Horsepower curves are a bit harder to look at ... you look at the slope of the line and if you make a mod and that curve goes up (and doesn't flat or point down) then that's a good mod too. Its just that you're looking at the same data different ways. This is regardless of any magical 5252rpm point on a graph.
The most intuative graphs are by far the torque graphs. If you put them on top of each other, (before and after mod) it is very easy to see where in the powerband (rpm range) where that improvement was made.
Cheers,
jcnel.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
That's why I like my B5 S4 so much.....only 320 bhp but around 370 lb/ft torque over a very wide rpm range (peaking around 3k). You never get caught in the wrong gear and turbo lag is practically non-existent 
Originally Posted by Mercenary3
the whole thing: "you feel toque not hp stuff" really isnt true. The body feels its won acceleration. That "holy crap" feeling you get when a fast car really gets on it is your innards moving out of position from the acceleration of your body.
A lot of you guys are forgetting how an engine works. IC engines are not about power, or torque...its about impulse.
Remember what and engine ACTUALLY does...its small explosions going on at a rapid pace. There is no constant toque, ever. When and engine is at low rpm, the volumetric efficiency allows more air to burn with fuel per cycle. At higher rpm, the volumetric efficiency is lower, meaning less air is burning per cycle...but there are more cycles per given time period.
Engines work kinda like this: Imagine there is a heavy object on the ground. And you can move it by punching it. Would you rather take very large, powerful punches every so often...or weaker punches at a lot faster rate? Ideally, you want hard punches at a fast rate. The punch force is your "torque". The rate at which the object moves is indicative of "horsepower".
A lot of you guys are forgetting how an engine works. IC engines are not about power, or torque...its about impulse.
Remember what and engine ACTUALLY does...its small explosions going on at a rapid pace. There is no constant toque, ever. When and engine is at low rpm, the volumetric efficiency allows more air to burn with fuel per cycle. At higher rpm, the volumetric efficiency is lower, meaning less air is burning per cycle...but there are more cycles per given time period.
Engines work kinda like this: Imagine there is a heavy object on the ground. And you can move it by punching it. Would you rather take very large, powerful punches every so often...or weaker punches at a lot faster rate? Ideally, you want hard punches at a fast rate. The punch force is your "torque". The rate at which the object moves is indicative of "horsepower".
Originally Posted by BMan
generally speaking, torque is made in lower rpms, horsepower is made in higher rpms. An engine with long rods has more stroke and will produce more torque, but can't spin that fast without blowing apart. An engine with short rods (less stroke) will have less torque and more horsepower because it can spin faster.
Torque will give you more pull and if you have high gear ratios, will out perform a horsepower motor, at the cost of breaking things.
Horspower will give you high rpm response and pull on the big end. To get a high horspower car to be good at pulling, you need very low, close gear ratios.
Now at the other end, high rpm causes more heat and wear, a low rpm engine will last longer than one that runs at high rpms but, if wanted to do 200 miles per hour, I'd want high horsepower. For a daily-driver, short-track car I like torque.
Yes, a rocket creates huge force...and then is spent, done, gone, which works great to push out of earths gravity, but a train can pull huge loads every day, day after day.
Torque will give you more pull and if you have high gear ratios, will out perform a horsepower motor, at the cost of breaking things.
Horspower will give you high rpm response and pull on the big end. To get a high horspower car to be good at pulling, you need very low, close gear ratios.
Now at the other end, high rpm causes more heat and wear, a low rpm engine will last longer than one that runs at high rpms but, if wanted to do 200 miles per hour, I'd want high horsepower. For a daily-driver, short-track car I like torque.
Yes, a rocket creates huge force...and then is spent, done, gone, which works great to push out of earths gravity, but a train can pull huge loads every day, day after day.
and your analogy about the rocket is kinda null and void because a train can pull huge loads day after day because it is refueled.... a rocket booster can also be refueled... hence why they reclaim the spent booster tanks... your analogy is drawing on refueling aspects. a rocket is useful for pulling large loads outta the atmosphere... or carrying big loads across the earth in seconds to detonate over a foreign country... if there is not usefulness in that i don't see what is useful about a train.
Last edited by trinydex; Apr 2, 2005 at 09:58 PM.
Originally Posted by trinydex
by your objective point shouldn't the punch be impulse? and your average punches over a very small amount of time your torque.
Originally Posted by trinydex
torque and hp are made at arbitrary points, and depending on gearing you can make an engine do either at any place... i don't think this discussion shoudl be about where torque and hp are or what they are even. you can't have one without the other, so everyone should be talking about maximizing the efficiency of the engine... and after that is done because that increases both values, then decide on what you wanna do with fine tuning your powerband, and i use the very general term of powerband because that's exactly what you want tuned, not torque or hp seperately.
and your analogy about the rocket is kinda null and void because a train can pull huge loads day after day because it is refueled.... a rocket booster can also be refueled... hence why they reclaim the spent booster tanks... your analogy is drawing on refueling aspects. a rocket is useful for pulling large loads outta the atmosphere... or carrying big loads across the earth in seconds to detonate over a foreign country... if there is not usefulness in that i don't see what is useful about a train.
and your analogy about the rocket is kinda null and void because a train can pull huge loads day after day because it is refueled.... a rocket booster can also be refueled... hence why they reclaim the spent booster tanks... your analogy is drawing on refueling aspects. a rocket is useful for pulling large loads outta the atmosphere... or carrying big loads across the earth in seconds to detonate over a foreign country... if there is not usefulness in that i don't see what is useful about a train.
For daily driving, you want good low end/off boost toque. And by low end I mean 1000-3000 rpm.
for long, fast race tracks and drag racing you want a high toque band.
But if you just want a sweet/fast steet car, I would do what most people are doing and split the difference. Short of getting a new turbo, cams are gonna be the biggest determinant of where your powerband is strong. If all you care about it low end stuff, stay with the stock cams. If you want max upper rpm torque...get cams with a lot of duration. But I think splitting the difference and going with a medium aggressive cam is the best for a street car.
Also, an upgraded turbo might not be a bad idea for the steet. Sometimes the instant rush of torque is hard to drive with. A larger turbo, while spools up slightly slower, will give a more progressive toque curve.
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
Okay, I know, I'm a newbie here, don't blame me for it. I'm workin' on it. Anyway I don't know where to ask so I ask right here right now. What's the difference between EVO IV and EVO VI TME? I know who Tommi is but is there any major differenses?
Originally Posted by lan-o
Okay, I know, I'm a newbie here, don't blame me for it. I'm workin' on it. Anyway I don't know where to ask so I ask right here right now. What's the difference between EVO IV and EVO VI TME? I know who Tommi is but is there any major differenses?
Because you are new, I am going to point you in the right direction, check the link at the bottom and go to "Evo turbo information" for the specs you are looking for. If you are looking for real world impressions of each, do a search. In the future, try and find what you are looking for first, many of these questions have been answered many times before. Also try and stay on topic of the thread at hand, and beware the search police!
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=99023
now back to tq and hp...
WIth a Dyno Jet you get a Big spike, hell Mine said I had 370Fp's and maybe fo rthat on instant of boost spike I did but it quickly setteled down to normal levels.
BTW would a Rocket or a Jet beconsidered all HP and No torque? I mean technically it has no torque but GOBS of Horse power.
BTW would a Rocket or a Jet beconsidered all HP and No torque? I mean technically it has no torque but GOBS of Horse power.
Originally Posted by umiami80
WIth a Dyno Jet you get a Big spike, hell Mine said I had 370Fp's and maybe fo rthat on instant of boost spike I did but it quickly setteled down to normal levels.
BTW would a Rocket or a Jet beconsidered all HP and No torque? I mean technically it has no torque but GOBS of Horse power.
BTW would a Rocket or a Jet beconsidered all HP and No torque? I mean technically it has no torque but GOBS of Horse power.
Anyways ... a rocket motor produces a linear (not turning, or rotational) "Force" <-- (dang that word again) ... and that "Force" over time would be considered, yes, Horsepower.
Many people like to describe the *oomph* in a rocket motor as Newton*meters, otherwise called impulse. But ... you can still extract out the measurement of Newtons which is the measurement units for Force.
Hope that helps a bit,
jcnel.