6 port HP!
02-22-07, 02:06 PM
#151
Passing life by
Read it again dude you're just getting annoying now.
You stated 4 and 6 port motors and tq difference. I did not.
I staid it doesn’t matter "what wtf the tq really is" We are interested in the HP curve and peak.
Then later on you go babbling again about I’m stating peak only and other BS. Ok enough just go back to your room and play more playstation where you should be right now.
You stated 4 and 6 port motors and tq difference. I did not.
I staid it doesn’t matter "what wtf the tq really is" We are interested in the HP curve and peak.
Then later on you go babbling again about I’m stating peak only and other BS. Ok enough just go back to your room and play more playstation where you should be right now.
02-22-07, 02:13 PM
#152
1. You still haven't answered my questions.
Seriously, do you still think both engines will perform the same?
Please answer this with your thoughts, otherwise you haven't really shown your understanding of what we've talked about for the last couple of pages. The bolded text references your earlier comments:
I can only assume, from the bolded text and the quotes in general, that because you think TQ doesn't matter squat, and that, because they have similar HP, that you think the engines will perform the same.
2. You responded right after my post with what seems pertinent to the material I posted. Thus I assumed you were replying to me. Am I mistaken for that?
3. Must you proceed to throw insults? We're having an intelligent discussion, not flamin each other. It's not appreciated.
4. I assume that you are stating peak only when you reference Paul Yaw's article and repeatedly point out that the percentage difference in acceleration is the difference in horsepower. He goes on to say that at every point on the chart, it's a 2.5 times difference. That's only the difference in peak hp between the truck and the F1 car. Paul never shows his calculations, so I'm assuming, when you use his article, you're referencing his points on peak hp. What else am I supposed to believe given what you've quoted?
Please be clear when making your points, otherwise I will most certainly misunderstand because I have to guess what you're trying to say. If you're not talking about peak hp, don't reference an article that uses acceleration chart that highlights the difference in peak horsepower. Or if you do, state clearly that you're not talking about peak hp. Paul's intent may have been to cover horsepower along the curve, but his examples focus on peak hp, which requires me to assume that you are referencing his examples, and thereby using his examples that focus on peak hp. I see his formula's at the end say hp, but his examples on acceleration state 2.5 times difference (peak hp difference). I know I have to be clearer as well, because what I think in my head might not be showing up on the screen and it's not being properly read by you.
That probably is an overkill of the word peak, but that's emphasis that I got when being shown Paul's articles repeatedly. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but that's where I thought it was not clear what type of hp you were talking about.
5.
Anyone on this?
Originally Posted by Roen
Originally Posted by Roen
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.
Originally Posted by iceblue
No, I can manipulate TQ all over the place I can give you 500000ftlbs of tq on your rx7. You wont be any faster then the guy with 200 at all. First gear might be a little quick but you won’t be going any where in a hurry. HP is the determination of speed plain and simple TQ is worthless. Tq alows you to have the force to move something but the something does not move without HP. TQ does absolutly and compleatly nothing by itself at all reguardless of how much you have.
Yes on
Horsepower = (Torque X RPM) / 5252
Torque = (Horsepower X 5252) / RPM
RPM = (Horsepower X 5252) / Torque
TQ is always grater below 5252rpm and HP is always grater above 5252
Learn more from paul yaw here
http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html
Yes on
Horsepower = (Torque X RPM) / 5252
Torque = (Horsepower X 5252) / RPM
RPM = (Horsepower X 5252) / Torque
TQ is always grater below 5252rpm and HP is always grater above 5252
Learn more from paul yaw here
http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html
Originally Posted by iceblue
That doesn’t matter either because TQ doesn’t matter didaly unless you’re trying to pull a tanker truck up a hill. In a sports car we are trying to race around from point A to point B as fast as we possibly can. For this TQ don’t matter at all. We are interested in the HP curve and peak.
Originally Posted by iceblue
It would not be faster the car would only be capable of pulling a higher load.
2. You responded right after my post with what seems pertinent to the material I posted. Thus I assumed you were replying to me. Am I mistaken for that?
3. Must you proceed to throw insults? We're having an intelligent discussion, not flamin each other. It's not appreciated.
4. I assume that you are stating peak only when you reference Paul Yaw's article and repeatedly point out that the percentage difference in acceleration is the difference in horsepower. He goes on to say that at every point on the chart, it's a 2.5 times difference. That's only the difference in peak hp between the truck and the F1 car. Paul never shows his calculations, so I'm assuming, when you use his article, you're referencing his points on peak hp. What else am I supposed to believe given what you've quoted?
Please be clear when making your points, otherwise I will most certainly misunderstand because I have to guess what you're trying to say. If you're not talking about peak hp, don't reference an article that uses acceleration chart that highlights the difference in peak horsepower. Or if you do, state clearly that you're not talking about peak hp. Paul's intent may have been to cover horsepower along the curve, but his examples focus on peak hp, which requires me to assume that you are referencing his examples, and thereby using his examples that focus on peak hp. I see his formula's at the end say hp, but his examples on acceleration state 2.5 times difference (peak hp difference). I know I have to be clearer as well, because what I think in my head might not be showing up on the screen and it's not being properly read by you.
That probably is an overkill of the word peak, but that's emphasis that I got when being shown Paul's articles repeatedly. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but that's where I thought it was not clear what type of hp you were talking about.
5.
Originally Posted by Roen
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?
Last edited by Roen; 02-22-07 at 02:35 PM.
02-22-07, 02:56 PM
#155
Passing life by
Look if I have 10hp of moving ability and I want to pull a big trailer with my truck it is still hp doing the work. See if I have a 1ft lever on it I may not have enough leverage or force or tq to drag that trailer. if I add more force by leverage or more tq with a longer lever or steeper gear it will allow my 10hp of work to tug along that trailer. It is still not the TQ doing it.
02-23-07, 12:10 AM
#157
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by My5ABaby
Can somebody break this down into English for us non-mechanical engineering type people?
Originally Posted by rotarygod
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.
You ALWAYS have more horsepower than torque at the same corresponding rpms above 5252 rpm.
Torque and horsepower are ALWAYS equal at 5252 rpm.
There is absolutely no point in this meaningless info being repeated. If has no useful relevance in this discussion. The number means nothing. Since you haven't actually specified a unit of torque it's technically not even correct.
You ALWAYS have less power measured in hp than torque measured in ft-lb at the same corresponding rpm below 5252rpm.
You ALWAYS have less power measured in kW than torque measured in Nm at the same corresponding rpm below 9549rpm.
You ALWAYS have more power measured in hp than torque measured in ft-lb at the same corresponding rpm above 5252rpm.
You ALWAYS have more power measured in kW than torque measured in Nm at the same corresponding rpm above 9549rpm.
Torque measured in ft-lb and power measured in hp are ALWAYS equal at 5252rpm.
Torque measured in Nm and power measured in kW are ALWAYS equal at 9549rpm.
Both statements in each case are correct despite contradicting each other, proving how worthless they are. The truth is power and torque are never "equal" because they're not the same thing. It makes no more sense than saying something weighs as much as it is long. Being numerically equal is just a meaningless coincidence.
02-23-07, 11:07 AM
#158
No one uses kW or Nm here. We only use hp and ft lbs so of course I'm not going to show those. I could care less who uses those. I won't and never will so whay should I show that too? A watt or kilowatt is a measure of electricity as far as I'm concerned and should have nothing to do with measuring the power of an engine. That's a silly term to use.
The whole point was to show a numerical value!!! You can't express something properly if you can't write it down somehow!
The statements are not worthless at all. You said I didn't insert a value. Go insert one then. Pick a spot. Since the point IS to represent it mathematically on paper (since there's no other way to do it in which the human brain can comprehend), pick any rpm and then pick a horsepower or torque number. ANY one you want. Mathematically those statements will be 100% correct.
Stop trying to confuse everyone. There's always a critic somewhere.
The whole point was to show a numerical value!!! You can't express something properly if you can't write it down somehow!
The statements are not worthless at all. You said I didn't insert a value. Go insert one then. Pick a spot. Since the point IS to represent it mathematically on paper (since there's no other way to do it in which the human brain can comprehend), pick any rpm and then pick a horsepower or torque number. ANY one you want. Mathematically those statements will be 100% correct.
Stop trying to confuse everyone. There's always a critic somewhere.
Last edited by rotarygod; 02-23-07 at 11:15 AM.
02-23-07, 05:20 PM
#159
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
No one uses kW or Nm here. We only use hp and ft lbs so of course I'm not going to show those. I could care less who uses those. I won't and never will so whay should I show that too? A watt or kilowatt is a measure of electricity as far as I'm concerned and should have nothing to do with measuring the power of an engine. That's a silly term to use.
The whole point was to show a numerical value!!! You can't express something properly if you can't write it down somehow!
The statements are not worthless at all.
You said I didn't insert a value.
Stop trying to confuse everyone.
02-23-07, 05:51 PM
#160
This entire thread has been discussed using the terms HORSEPOWER and TORQUE. We have not been using the terms kW or Nm not have we been discussing how they can be converted to such so they shouldn't have even been mentioned. Why should we discuss those units? Please do add an entire new bit of information as to what is and isn't so with those units. I'm not going to. It's not necessary. The point has been made and everyone understands.
I was being sarcastic in that last post btw!
I was being sarcastic in that last post btw!
02-23-07, 10:20 PM
#163
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Philly, Pa.
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm.. I think this all started because one guy was talking about inferring something about the shape of the engine output curve from the two commonly provided data points of Peak HP @ RPM and Peak Tq @ RPM, and then it seemed to violently swing into a strange arguement about great taste/less filling/more meat/less fat.
Laugh or cry?
Laugh or cry?
02-23-07, 11:29 PM
#164
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
We have not been using the terms kW or Nm not have we been discussing how they can be converted to such so they shouldn't have even been mentioned. Why should we discuss those units?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post