Im a quote of yours? ******* yay.

 

I Agree whole fartedly. I hate you nihilanthic

 

Shut up and get a haircut pre-lube.

 

THANK YOU!

I just said about 3 posts ago Nihilanthic that I no longer care about your stupid hypothetical situation, and yet you're actually posting graphs now, like I'm actually reading that far down.

And the silliest thing is, I think you're actually on the same side I am. We are both in agreement that "power vs. torque" is silly, because they are intrinsically related, right? RIGHT???

So all that other bullshit you posted isn't necessary.

 

Okay, here is your problem: YOU CANNOT READ. I didn't ask for any of that ****. In fact, you're the one who was talking about power curves on paper, if you actually go back and read my previous posts.

What did I want? NOTHING. I told you I no longer care about the argument. I most certainly did not ask you to post those stupid goddamn graphs (I don't even have the slightest clue as to why you did since I didn't read your whole post... BUT NOTE that I didn't pretend like I actually did, like you have been doing).

Besides, like jimlab said, all this theoretical bullshit you post is hilarious as you have no real-world experience. This is the essence of benchracing when you sit there and continue to babble about theoretical nonsense.

And yes, I know you provided "real world" examples but those were only to support your theoretical stance... or, at least that's what I think they were for, since like I said, I didn't actually read all that crap.

 

Gravity is a theory...

Wheres your real world experience on that? Like do you SEE space curve or gravitons fly back and forth? Gonna explain QLG or M-theory there buddy, or is it special relativity?

 

Well its about you not grasping the idea of what we are trying to tell you. Which is a large, flat torque curve being VE in a WIDE range of RPM's, is in fact LESS peaky! We all know your dyno comparisons, of a high torque engine, vs the lower torque engines. We know full well what power and torque is. So lets spell this one out-
Here is your damn dyno, edited and tuned by me to have the same VE nearly to its redline. Now tell me, why is this new version going to beat the **** out of its previous self? How is this new version worse in ANY FREAKING WAY?? Its not, because its more powerful due to having FLAT WIDE *** TORQUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The perfect engine has flat wide torque!! End of discussion.

 

GTO - yeah, but its not a powerband, its an acceleration band.

See, in racing, cars are limited by the max power they can produce, not by how hard they can accelerate, etc. If you are limited to any given amount of power, its best to make that power in as wide a range as you possibly can, is it not?

If you are NOT limited by peak power, then in your case, you are correct, it would be ideal, because it would make MORE power.

However, it would be even better if the peak power was made from midrange all the way to redline instead of just AT redline, which was the point I was trying to make all along. If you can make more power, why not make even more power... for half of your rpm range?

You want to optimize the engines output and VE curve, apparently, I want it to have a big easy to use powerband and midrange.

One concept is no better than the other, but it comes down to if you are limited by peak power or if you can push it as hard as you can or not in whatever application you are setting it up for.

Besides, I could push up the torque in the midrange even higher and go "look, its flat, but just as high" and then youd push up the torque right back up after that to make it flat and make more peak... bla bla bla.

You argue more peak, I argue that same peak but more of it.

 

Yeah, Mark is just white noise. He's the Spanish soap opera you click past because you don't know what the hell they're saying and don't really give a **** anyway.

Nihil is annoying because he thinks he's an expert on every subject he's done a little web research on. As if flatulent verbosity and a slightly eccentric vocabulary coupled with regurgitated data somehow constitutes proof of his self-proclaimed genius level IQ and automotive knowledge and makes up for a complete lack of experience. There's nothing worse than someone who thinks they can type themselves "smart"... except perhaps someone who thinks that hanging around people with actual projects long enough and talking the talk will make them part of the "in" crowd.

Seriously, how bright can he be when he still hasn't removed the "2.3T FC project" from his profile even though everyone knows that he doesn't own an RX-7 and was nothing more than a vicarious cheerleader for someone else's attempt (and failure) to implement his latest no-budget swap fixation? Jesus, he even posted all the details of the guy's swap as if it were his own before the poor bastard had a chance to make his own bid for some publicity. How lame is that?

You know his life has to absolutely pathetic when he's constantly babbling about how much potential some $500 junkyard motor has with X mods and yet he can't even afford a stock one, let alone a car to put it in...

 

Jimlab...

how many motors have you gone through?

how far is your car going along?

BTW, Its not self proclaimed, it was a weschler intelligence test proctored by a psychologist. Oh, and I never claimed I had a ton of automotive knowledge.

Regardless, who are you to judge anyone with all the time and money you have wasted on your money pit?

 

Yes, in a horsepower limited class, aka GT300 and GT500 you WOULD want a wide powerband, instead of a torque band, so that you are getting the max hp all the time. But if your not limited in horsepower, then a flat torque is better. Pick ANY N/A engine, piston or rotary, and they are only capable of so much torque. It not our choice, only so much overlap can be achieved, only so much compression, timming advance ect. and the peak torque is the simply the PEAK torque. After that, the ONLY other way to make it more powerful, is to use that peak torque for the longest possible amount of time aka rpms. That is all I am trying to tell you. This is why BMW, Honda, and almost every other car company is playing with varible compression, varible valve timing, varible lift, varible intake length ect. Its to produce PEAK torque EVERYWHERE, and make a fast engine, wherever your foot is. That is the true challenge. Sorry, we cant just make more magical n/a torque, even though I wish we could.

 

You can with a turbo, a supercharger, or with more displacement

I THOUGHT this thread was about peaky vs torquey with same power/weight, but I guess nobody knows what this thread is about, considering the O.P. seemed to be saying "torque doesnt matter its all power" (which is true more or less...) before the v8 airborne division dropped in and the typical big vs small flamewar ensued.

Obviously a torque band = more power, and thusly will be faster... but if you can pick between torquey and a given peak power vs... peaky power thats the same given max, the former is a good decision.

Its also good for street cars and many track cars as well, making it easier to drive. There is more to an engine than having a high VE, is all I am trying to say.

 

There you go again, babbling on about theoretical things that you can theoretically "pick between." In the real world, we choose an engine based on characteristics that we like, and then we mod the **** out of said engine to make more power. Period. None of your useless babble needed.

Of course, you wouldn't know this, not having any actual experience yourself.

Oh, well good to know you aren't full of yourself. Like a written test is a comprehensive indicator of a person's intelligence. I've known plenty of people who do well on tests that have no mechanical aptitude whatsoever.

No, you just imply it every time you spew information at a topic, in a know-it-all fashion, making asinine comments at people who don't "know" as much as you do.

Wow, you couldn't have gotten it any MORE ***-*******-backwards.

First of all, who are you to judge ANYONE'S project, considering you've never accomplished anything of your own? Calling jimlab's car a waste of time and money is big talk coming from a guy who spends all his build time in his head and on the internet.

Secondly, you are simply not a car enthusiast. Car enthusiasts do not work on cars to save money. If you're so concerned about money, then you should be worried about gas mileage and not power.

And another thing you STILL cannot grasp, is that money and time are not "wasted" on a project if the person is satisfied with their vehicle. You can judge all you want what is a waste and what isn't on other people's projects but chances are they are happy with it, and everyone else still thinks you're a tool for doing all this bench racing.

 

I quoted this because it deserves to be read again.

 

You quoted it because you cant come up with your own trolls, dipshit.

 

Its not a written test, dumbass. Why not go take an IQ test before you talk about it as if you have "personal experience".

 

Bragging about one's supposed superior intelligence while simultaneously misspelling the name of the test is somewhat ironic no?



You're hardly in a position to bitch about requiring "personal experience" as a prerequisite for posting.

Unfortunately, as someone who works in Academia I am all too familiar with your type. Whoever coined the phrase "diarrhea of the mouth/constipation of the brain" was an insightful genius.

 

^ Lmao

 

Nobody said I could spell well...


Oh so only HE can have it both ways? I guess I should apply for my "use both sides of the arguement" card?


I only get this way with ******** I enjoy pissing off Shouldn't you be talking down to someone who supposedly took calculus and still cant understand why more power for more of the rpm range is better instead of the person who tried to explain it to him?

Also, nice avatar.

 

Wingsfan scolded me one time for using calculus to explain American oil consumption with respect to time. It's not cool to use calculus in everyday communications because no one likes it. It's a shameful subject.

 

I guess things happening over time are just hard to grasp for some people, huh?

Oh well, this thread isn't just well done, its burnt.

 

Or maybe you should move out of your glass house.

Right.

I take it you consider everyone an ******* that you enjoy pissing off? Because your behavior is fairly consistant.

Nah, I gave up on this thread pages ago.

Thanks. Most people miss the subtle humor.

 

Selective memory there champ. I didn't get on you for using calculus to model oil consumption. I got on you for trying to force fit whatever esoteric nonsense you learned each week into all of your posts.

 

In light of the fact that I was learning differential equations that week and posting using differential calculus (information that was approximately three semesters vintage at the time), your assumption is not valid in this circumstance. How is plant pathology research treating you these days?

 

These threads are always good for a laugh.

Anyways, read the bottom of my sig.