torque or horsepower

[digger]

really? explain to me in scientific terms how you can measure horsepower and how that measurement comes to equals 33,000lb-ft./min.

James Watts invented the term so that he could sell steam engines. Naturally, Mr. Watt wanted to tell everybody how powerful his engines were. So, after some tests (not with engines but with horses) he established that on the average, a horse could haul coal at the rate of 22,000 lb-ft per min. For some reason he decided the raise this number by 50% to arrive at 33,000 lb-ft per minutes. So, if an engine can push 33,000 Lb of something one foot in one minute, we say that is a one-horsepower engine.

so you see horsepower is based on a completely arbitrary number and has nothing to do with how much work a horse can really do. your point continues to be that horsepower is more relevant to the performance of a motor then it's torque, but in reality you can not calculate the horsepower of a motor without first measuring it's torque, but you can certainly measure a motor's torque without ever calculating its horsepower. that fact alone makes torque king of this debate.

now from a practical standpoint torque is always better to have. it's torque that gets your car moving, it's torque that hauls it up the hill, it's torque that we drive on a daily basis. how many people do you know that drive thier M20's at 6000 rpms? none!

the only reason the term horsepower is relevant at all is so that we can compare different power plants to each other and think we know what we're talking about, that and having these silly debates.

blah blah blah........prove it with an example

hp is a concept that is useful for those that understand physics and vehicle dynamics. whether you directly measure it or not doesn't change the fact those it is extremely useful comparison tool.

the more hp you have at the wheels the more torque you potentially have in the axles which is all that matters. engine torque magnitude is extremely misleading the shape of the torque curve is useful though.

the E60M5 was just as fast as the e55 of the same era with a massive deficit of engine torque because the hp and mass was about the same. this works becasue you can use more aggressive gearing and more gears in total to provide performance through torque mulitplication

[mr2peak]

Me. I drive around in second bouncing off the limiter all day everyday.

The only way to drive haha

[Hooffenstein HD]

how many people do you know that drive thier M20's at 6000 rpms? none!

Me. I drive around in second bouncing off the limiter all day everyday.

[tom d]

really? explain to me in scientific terms how you can measure horsepower and how that measurement comes to equals 33,000lb-ft./min.

James Watts invented the term so that he could sell steam engines. Naturally, Mr. Watt wanted to tell everybody how powerful his engines were. So, after some tests (not with engines but with horses) he established that on the average, a horse could haul coal at the rate of 22,000 lb-ft per min. For some reason he decided the raise this number by 50% to arrive at 33,000 lb-ft per minutes. So, if an engine can push 33,000 Lb of something one foot in one minute, we say that is a one-horsepower engine.

so you see horsepower is based on a completely arbitrary number and has nothing to do with how much work a horse can really do. your point continues to be that horsepower is more relevant to the performance of a motor then it's torque, but in reality you can not calculate the horsepower of a motor without first measuring it's torque, but you can certainly measure a motor's torque without ever calculating its horsepower. that fact alone makes torque king of this debate.

now from a practical standpoint torque is always better to have. it's torque that gets your car moving, it's torque that hauls it up the hill, it's torque that we drive on a daily basis. how many people do you know that drive thier M20's at 6000 rpms? none!

the only reason the term horsepower is relevant at all is so that we can compare different power plants to each other and think we know what we're talking about, that and having these silly debates.

[digger]

you're right, both torque and revolutions per minutes can be measured, but to say that multiplying one by the other and then dividing the two by a number that is based on the ratio of what a horse can do compared to how far a foot pound travels around a pivot does not make it a real scientific fact.

that would be like saying peanut butter and jelly makes one good sandwich, so ham on rye must be 5.5 good sandwiches.

kW is also a unit of power and not based on horses does that help you?

please stop posting your logic is embarrassing and your arguments are weak

[tom d]

so you measure torque "scientifically" and you measure rpm "scientifically" and anything done with those two bits of data suddenly becomes nonsense....right what were you saying about ridiculous?

you're right, both torque and revolutions per minutes can be measured, but to say that multiplying one by the other and then dividing the two by a number that is based on the ratio of what a horse can do compared to how far a foot pound travels around a pivot does not make it a real scientific fact.

that would be like saying peanut butter and jelly makes one good sandwich, so ham on rye must be 5.5 good sandwiches.

[tom d]

digger, think about it. horsepower is based on the amount of work that a horse can do and that is subjective, the number has been changed several times over the course of history, not so with torque. horsepower is a made up term, there is no way to measure it scientifically.

[digger]

[QUOTE=tom d;4072352]

a 900hp 250ft-lb F1 car would spank a 600hp 600lb-ft F1 car everyday of the week.[qoute]

while I get your point, this is probably the most ridiculous statement made in this tread.

one more time; torque is real and can be measured scientifically, horsepower is a made up term and can only be calculated.

we buy horsepower, but we drive torque!

so you measure torque "scientifically" and you measure rpm "scientifically" and anything done with those two bits of data suddenly becomes nonsense....right what were you saying about ridiculous?

[tom d]

[QUOTE=digger;4072072]
a 900hp 250ft-lb F1 car would spank a 600hp 600lb-ft F1 car everyday of the week.[qoute]

while I get your point, this is probably the most ridiculous statement made in this tread.

one more time; torque is real and can be measured scientifically, horsepower is a made up term and can only be calculated.

we buy horsepower, but we drive torque!

[digger]

Here's my last dyno with a 3.73 gear 235/60/15 tire and 265 gear box.

ill plot some stuff out this weekend i cant see linked pics on this computer

[Dtmevo3]

Only 384ft lbs torque jeeze as if that is not much lol

[Good & Tight]

if you want to find out why you beat some other cars will need a dyno graph, gear box ratio, diff ratio, tyre size for both cars. you can plot hp vs mph for both and that will probably reveal it

Here's my last dyno with a 3.73 gear 235/60/15 tire and 265 gear box.

[LJ851]

if you want to find out why you beat some other cars will need a dyno graph, gear box ratio, diff ratio, tyre size for both cars. you can plot hp vs mph for both and that will probably reveal it

Yes. Its all about how much rotational torque the ground sees from the tire divided by vehicle mass. It doesn't take much extra to walk away from somebody.

[digger]

Horsepower etymology is romantic, but my internal dyno has a narrow, philosophical, and experiential preference for torque.

i prefer acceleration myself

[ForcedFirebird]

LOL.. faster than eta..

HAHA! Looked on a box, guess it is in/lb They don't say what gear, though, and the heavy duty drills in low will rip out of your hands easily. Not nice when they hit you in the face, either...