Right, you realize we've moved away from that point about 3 pages ago?

Actually, I completely disagree with that last statement. The best example to disprove that statement? Two engines in two cars identical in every way except for their tq curves, hp curves and peak tq. They make the same max hp, but they sure as hell don't accelerate the same. Why? To put it simply, the difference in tq. (Short version)

It's about horsepower, not peak horsepower. Get the difference? With only a peak hp number, how can you determine the some of the rest of the hp? By using the peak tq figures! So how is tq worthless in this case? Please do enlighten me.

(Long version)

Difference in tq implies difference in tq curves implies difference in power under the curve implies difference in acceleration. However, that all starts from the difference in tq.

I can easily give you an example of 2 engines making the same hp at the same hp peak for the same redline that will accelerate the same car at two different rates. Care to explain how I can do that?

while you guys were arguing about how to make power, if you all put that effort into actual testing in one place you would have probably gone farther than making induvidual hypothesis'.

what it all eventually boils down to again is trial and error. you can take a starting point and either move forward or back, if you move back then you know what you did was the opposite of what you need to do and try again.

airflow through a combustion engine is a tricky subject, one where theory has its limitations and trial and error is the only way to truly prove things.

i'd love to test the ported 4-port vs the ported 6-port.....too bad I don't have either engine.

Even so, If I actually tested it and went out and dynoed both engines, and they came back with the same hp, I bet you that iceblue would tell me that they would accelerate a car the same, no matter what the tq figure was, or the tq or hp curves.

Now I study engineering, but I have NO idea what you just said....

We might have moved away from it but you're still not getting it is the point. Two cars identical setups the only determining factor is how much hp they have regardless of tq. And no where did I state peak, quit being foolish.

When the secondaries are brought online, all four injectors are fired together at half the pulse width the primaries were firing at immediately before the transition. This means the total amount of fuel being injected doesn't suddenly change and the transition is smooth and unnoticeable.

If you have a Haltech E8 or E11 manual, it mentions this in the Staged Injection Modes section and refers to it as Common Mode, as opposed to Primary Hold Mode which is what you initially described. I'm not really sure what advantages either of these methods has over the other, but Common Mode seems a more logical to me. :)

The ignorance in this statement is staggering, particularly since you've then gone and cut and paste the formula showing exactly how power and torque are directly related to each other. It should be completely clear (and it's already been stated more than once) that if you increase torque at a particular rpm, power at the same rpm increases by the same proportion. It's a very simple mathematical relationship. If you change torque, you change power. The only way to increase power is to increase torque at the same rpm.

This is another worthless statement that I hope wasn't supposed to be some important technical fact. The number is pretty much meaningless, as proven by the fact that if you use kW and Nm (instead of Stone Age units) the number changes to 9549rpm. It's an irrelevant product of the math, nothing more.

I know exactly how you feel. A lot of talk, not a lot of sense... :rolleyes:

Torque sucks! Down with Torque!!!


Bored....

I can say exactly the same. You’re missing a few things. 1st just so people know my stating speed I am referring to acceleration. Next if you increase the TQ and power moves according too, this still has no merit what so EVER that TQ itself is increasing acceleration! It can’t under any definition. View some dyno sheet above 5252 and you will clearly see a motor creating more hp over a period of RPM without increasing TQ actually while TQ is falling. Thus the equation of RPM. You can’t just slap tq and hp alone to determine any type of acceleration and say by adding tq you add power because that is false.

If we exert the same amount of force and I do it faster then you by 25% we exhibited the same amount of tq but I produce 25% more HP

Let me put my .02...

:rlaugh:

So what you are arguing is that if we are making the same torque, but you enigne ismoving 25% faster than mine, you will be accelerating faster.

DUH.

However, when your engine was moving the same speed as mine it is highly likely that you were producing less power and torque then I was. In which case you would be accelerating slower than I am. You are arguing that at a static rpm if your engine is moving faster, but producing the same amount of torque, you will be moving faster. Great. awesome. But that doesnt mean jack shit in acceleration. Because when your engine was spinning at my speed I was accelerating faster than you.


You can determine who is going to accelerate faster by determining who has more torque at a given RPM as this also determines their HP rating. Because if our engines are turning at the same speed the guy who is making more torque at that instant is accelerating faster than the other guy. Why? BECUASE HP IS A FUNCTION OF TORQUE. To argue that torque is inconsequential is dumb.

You are stacking the scenario in a way that it favors your argument, but ultimately your scenario is pointless. No one here will argue that if we have the same torque, but you have a higher RPM at any given instant that you will be accelerating faster. that has NO implication as to who will be faster over a given distance however. Your scenario doesnt take into account what is happenign before or after your hypothetical engine speed, so it is a pointless scenario.


BC

Neither of these two sentences pass for proper English. They make no sense at all. :(

You just don't get it. It's completely normal for motors to be doing that, because that's just how average motors are tuned, with peak torque occuring before 5000rpm. The 5252 number is meaningless. Do I need to actually show you a graph in kW/Nm to help you see this?

The first part of the sentence is gibberish, and the second part is proven wrong by the formula relating power and torque.

Just for once listen to all the people telling you you're wrong.

What he seriously doesnt understand is that OF COURSE the HP is climbing after 5252 rpms.

At 5252 the equation becomes HP = TQ * 1 (5252/5252)

From that point forward you are multiplying by more than 1. If Tq stays the same HP increases very fast. Even as TQ drops off you are multiplying it by more than 1. So HP is OBVIOSULY going to be higher than TQ. Its a mathematical function, get that through your head. It is a function of torque, so it doesnt matter that torque stops increasing an HP continues increasing. Its SIMPLY because TQ is being multiplied by more than one. It has no choice but to continue going up.

I just dont understand how you cant get the idea of math through your head. Its amazing. You increase tq and by the function of how HP is derived you automatically increase HP. period. the end. If you cant figure that out then you havent graduated 7th grade and you are forever hopeless.


Look at it this way. You are the ONLY person arguing your side. You are wrong. Stop arguing.

BC

The fact that one number is higher than the other is still meaningless, because they're measuring two different things. At 7000rpm, hp (power) will be higher than ft-lb (torque), but Nm (torque) will be higher than kW (power), despite the fact that nothing has changed.

Holy crap I'm confused. Can somebody break this down into English for us non-mechanical engineering type people? :p:

Or for that matter can somebody tell me who's right? I'm leaning towards NZ/RotaryGod/anewconvert's side (are they all even on the same side?), but I really have no clue.

No you don't get this and it’s very simple.

I don’t care what your TQ relation going up and down to hp is, it is still irrelevant! Why?

Because: the laws of physics are non-negotiable

Looking back again at an equal gearing scenario and 2 motors with completely different TQ numbers what ever magical number you want to give it.

The outcome will ALWAYS end up in -

the percent difference in the rate of acceleration is EXACTLY the difference in horsepower.

There is no posibly way around this! Why?

Because: the laws of physics are non-negotiable

Huu, dude, what? No, we did not say this nor is this the case, shut up.

Whose side am I on???

My point is that, because more torque implies more horsepower, the rate of acceleration will be different. It may not be directly because of the torque, but the increased torque implies an increased power curve. Which by your statement, will affect the rate of acceleration. We all know the rate of acceleration is exactly the difference in horsepower. No one has debated that since this argument started. I'm just trying to get you to see that torque is not worthless, so you claim. Unless, of course, you spout power dyno numbers to your friends and expect them to understand how your car accelerates.

If you think that Tq and the Tq graph is worthless, even though it gives you an idea of how hp is delivered through a rev range, then I can't really help you.

Anyone else on the inverse function/function point? Am I the only one that thinks hp and f(hp) instead of tq and f(tq)?

Not a clue. I got lost about 3 pages (6 in regular view) back.

It is worthless when judging the acceleration of identical setups. No matter if you make 500tq on a liner graph through the band or 100tq on a liner graph through the band. You can tape the tq curve completely off from the dyno sheet of any vehicle and you only need to judge the graph of the HP to judge acceleration of any vehicle!

If you can’t understand this then there’s no point in helping you anymore.

Didn't you hear me say that already? You gotta read my posts better. I already understand that, thank you very much. I agree with it, as I've said many times already. I agreed with ericgrau's post, which pretty much says what you wrote much better, a couple of pages ago. It's you who seem to disagree with my points, that others believe are valid.

My point is, how many times are you going to carry a dyno graph with you? When you talk to your friends, and spout off dyno results, "I make 350 hp@ 7500 rpm and 280 tq @ 5000 rpm" and another friend says "Yeah, I make 350 hp @ 7500 rpm also, but I make 300 tq @ 5000 rpm!". You both have the same car, so right away you can tell, by the tq number, who's car is faster. We all know it's because he makes more power under the curve, but that's not obvious if you only have a peak hp number. The tq number clarifies that. That is, unless you carry dyno graphs with you 100% of the time. If that's the case......you might have some issues. =P How can you say that tq is worthless? It has it's applications.

Just because something doesn't directly affect something else, does not make it worthless. Indirect relations are substantial in many cases!

For example, if I saw a tq curve with a peak at 500 lbs-ft and one with a peak at 100 lbs-ft, both at identical rpm's and near the crossover point, and if i know the peak hp at the peak hp rpm, which is identical, of both cars, then without a power curve, I can tell which car is faster. It's obviously the 500 lbs-ft car. You're going to tell me that both cars will accelerate the same??? I don't need a power curve to see which car is faster. The argument works both ways. If I know hp at every single point, then I can tell which car is faster. I don't need peak tq or tq curve. However, if I know tq at every single point, and peak hp, I can estimate which car is faster, given certain conditions. While that may have a limited functionality, it's not by any means worthless, especially when comparing custom engine setups on the same car.

Remember, if two cars make similar peak hp at similar peak rpm, but have different tq graphs, one car will be faster than the other! It's as simple as that. That's because different tq graphs implies different horsepower curves. That being said, I can't see why tq would be a worthless figure to measure.

If your statement is that tq is completely worthless and that we should remove it from all dyno graphs, I believe that it is too strong of a statement, and you won't be getting anyone to agree with you, especially the tuner's who've had real-world tuning experience.

If you already understand that then why are you arguing?

I also never said tq is useless without application stop putting words in my mouth. I have NEVER straighed from the argument at all of acceleration as that is what this started with and is ending with. And people want to keep putting in that TQ matters and it DOES NOT. If he has more tq whoopty, if it made his HP curve stronger longer then yes he is faster but that is because his HP curve is higher who gives a damn about the TQ curve it is not a factor in this comparison of acceleration. If HP or TQ is a bi product of each other so be it that still does not change the determining factor by definition and physics period. The people that keep arguing this are just being foolish.

If we were pulling stuff then yes but were not.

Why is this argument still going on? Here are the FACTS. These are indisputable. To do so would be changing physics and is quite frankly wrong.

You ALWAYS have less horsepower than torque at the same corresponding rpms below 5252 rpm.

You ALWAYS have more horsepower than torque at the same corresponding rpms above 5252 rpm.

Torque and horsepower are ALWAYS equal at 5252 rpm.

Torque is a resistance to twist. It does NO work. PERIOD!

Torque applied over distance and time is now doing work. It is also referred to as horsepower. ONLY horsepower does work and it is the ONLY thing moving your car.

A transmission is a TORQUE multiplier. It changes the leverage on the crank when in gear. It changes the resistance to twist. Jack the car up in gear and try to spin the drive wheels (tough to do both with the differential). Change gears. The leverage you have is changed by which gear you are in and it may be easier or harder to spin (twist) the engine. That's torque multiplication. It's leverage. Once you apply motion in the form of time and distance to this leverage, such as when the car starts accelerating, now you are getting the HORSEPOWER to the ground. That's what moves the car.

AVERAGE HORSEPOWER through the usable powerband , not PEAK HORSEPOWER, is what makes you faster. If you have a car with higher peak horsepower, it also had higher average horsepower (assuming of course everything else such as weight etc are equal). You CAN NOT make the same correlation with torque as it depends on rpm (revolutions per minute) (This adds the distance and time equation in and that's horsepower!)

You can not increase horsepower and not also increase torque in the same spot.

You can not decrease horsepower and not also decrease torque in the same spot.

You can not increase torque and not also increase horsepower in the same spot.

You can not decrease torque and not also decrease horsepower in the same spot.

I think that pretty much covers it. If you disagree, you are wrong and need to go study some more!

The people that say horsepower moves the car and more of it moves it faster are correct. The people that say torque moves the car and more of it moves it faster are half correct. It's not torque that moves the car, it's horsepower. This is where they are wrong. More torque is also more horsepower and that's what moves the car so saying more torque is faster than less torque is easy to explain. It's more horsepower.

To say that torque doesn't matter at all is a bit inaccurate. If it doesn't matter and you don't need it, you also don't have any horsepower either! When it comes to making you faster, the greatest AVERAGE horsepower within the rpm range that you'll be shifting in is all that matters.

Torque does not increase pulling power. It does no work! Greater low end torque is also greater low end horsepower and this is what a stump puller has more of that it's using. It's not the torque.

The last 4 pages were arguing about semantics, that's what I was arguing.

EDIT: 5252 for hp and lbs-ft, crossover points are different for other units (N-m, kW, ps, etc.)

iceblue,

I just don't like the assertion that tq is completely worthless, the assertion is inaccurate, if at all correct, tq does have its uses. If I decrease an engine's tq anywhere along the rev range, I'll directly decrease the hp as well. If hp matters, how can tq not matter, based on the previous example (i.e. laws of physics). If you focus too much on the results (hp), and ignore some of the factors (tq), it'll lead to some inaccurate conclusions.

I also wanted to point out the error in your original assertion that a ported 4-port NA engine is not faster than a ported 6-port NA engine even though they make similar, if not the same, peak power, but the 4-port will be making more low-end tq. Which implies making more low-end hp. This is pretty much why I'm arguing. It seems that you get almost all of what paul's article says, but not completely. If you still continue to think that both engines will perform the same, that is the err in your beliefs that I wanted to point out. Just trying to help you out I guess.

My final piece is a question that I've been posing for awhile now, but no one has answered. I was always under the impression it was hp and that tq = f(hp). Some others have it the other way around, that it's tq and hp = f(tq). Why is this important? I just want to find out what the independent and the dependent variables are in car acceleration mechanics. Can anyone answer this?

I never stated against 4port and 6 port and no you are the one still missing it. This is quite simply to understand I don't get it. The only tq we are worried about is having the leverage to apply force. I have explained it far too many times, a few others including RG have also stated it many times.

And its Force (In lbs.) and distance (In ft.)

Really?

Bottom of page 4 says otherwise. How do you think this debate first started?

Seriously, do you still think both engines will perform the same?