Nobody cares about torque anymore!
10-08-03, 05:35 PM
#101
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by SPOautos
But, then there is the whole thing of being mashed against the seat eventhough your not really accelerating fast. I've got a Ford F-350 with 650lbs of tq that feels fast as hell and pushes you in the seat but it ran head to head with my brothers Miata.
But, then there is the whole thing of being mashed against the seat eventhough your not really accelerating fast. I've got a Ford F-350 with 650lbs of tq that feels fast as hell and pushes you in the seat but it ran head to head with my brothers Miata.
10-08-03, 05:52 PM
#103
Hey, where did my $$$ go?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bimingham, AL
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why? My car is much faster than a Z06 with roughly the same Tq. I was just saying how the feeling of tq can be missleading, it can make you feel like your accelerating much faster than you actually are. Especially when you feel it at low rpms.
However I must confess I do like the Z06, its the only american sports car I've liked since the early early 70's or older models.......except a Saleen S7 of course haha
STEPHEN
However I must confess I do like the Z06, its the only american sports car I've liked since the early early 70's or older models.......except a Saleen S7 of course haha
STEPHEN
Last edited by SPOautos; 10-08-03 at 06:07 PM.
10-08-03, 06:18 PM
#104
Senior Member
Originally posted by jimlab
I have a handy spreadsheet that I made to illustrate many things, and torque at the axles is one of them.
This chart was generated from an actual dyno sheet for a stock FD (RWTQ)........
The circles indicate optimum shift points for each gear for maximum acceleration.
I have a handy spreadsheet that I made to illustrate many things, and torque at the axles is one of them.
This chart was generated from an actual dyno sheet for a stock FD (RWTQ)........
The circles indicate optimum shift points for each gear for maximum acceleration.
But the shift points may not be right. Do you still have the raw data? You need to have road speed on the x-axis not RPM. That way you can see when there is more torque available in the next gear *FOR THAT GIVEN ROAD SPEED* that wil give you the ideal shift points. Once you do that, you get a "cascade graph" that you hear racers talking about. I'd love to see one for the stock FD, since I'm racing one next weekend.Either way it's refreshing to see someone post a dyno curve using ACTUAL rwtq not the ***** gear calculated crap
-pete
10-09-03, 09:23 AM
#105
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: coneland
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Nobody cares about torque anymore!
Originally posted by hardbodeez
There's no doubt these rotary motors are capable of producing wads of horspower coupled with the light weight equaling a fast car. However, everyone talks about horsepower so much that it overshadows torque. For the dragstrip, ok, put slicks on, dump the car over 4500 and keep it over 4500 to make the car pull down the track, great!
Practically, on the street it is ridiculous. My motor was built by KD Rotary and makes 340hp at the wheels. When 4500 hits, those n/seq-twins kick in like gangbusters and blow the car sideways on street tires. Not very practical for short little blasts in everyday driving.
I had a 1965 Mustang that I raced on the street all the time, torque was always a factor, not so much hp. And a car that runs 13.10 on street tires will smoke a 12 sec slicks car anytime on the street.
So why are most of you buying these big turbos making 450 hp only to run radial tires? Silly. Spend the money in traction and suspension, and the car would be much faster, and that's truely something to brag about. Because, let's get real, all rx7's feel like about a 6 cylinder car under 4000 rpm's...at best. I've been in hot rods with torque and our cars don't have them. Torque is a forgotten word around this site, and until we work on helping the low end, MOST of us our defeating our purpose.
Get some gearing and traction...who gives a **** about a 180mph top end, it's not practical, and if you're caught you won't be driving your car anytime soon anyway.
Ditch the big spooling turbos and make the car torquey to have fun. NO DRAG RADIAL will help hook these cars with a 4500 launch. Not if you are making any decent power.
There's no doubt these rotary motors are capable of producing wads of horspower coupled with the light weight equaling a fast car. However, everyone talks about horsepower so much that it overshadows torque. For the dragstrip, ok, put slicks on, dump the car over 4500 and keep it over 4500 to make the car pull down the track, great!
Practically, on the street it is ridiculous. My motor was built by KD Rotary and makes 340hp at the wheels. When 4500 hits, those n/seq-twins kick in like gangbusters and blow the car sideways on street tires. Not very practical for short little blasts in everyday driving.
I had a 1965 Mustang that I raced on the street all the time, torque was always a factor, not so much hp. And a car that runs 13.10 on street tires will smoke a 12 sec slicks car anytime on the street.
So why are most of you buying these big turbos making 450 hp only to run radial tires? Silly. Spend the money in traction and suspension, and the car would be much faster, and that's truely something to brag about. Because, let's get real, all rx7's feel like about a 6 cylinder car under 4000 rpm's...at best. I've been in hot rods with torque and our cars don't have them. Torque is a forgotten word around this site, and until we work on helping the low end, MOST of us our defeating our purpose.
Get some gearing and traction...who gives a **** about a 180mph top end, it's not practical, and if you're caught you won't be driving your car anytime soon anyway.
Ditch the big spooling turbos and make the car torquey to have fun. NO DRAG RADIAL will help hook these cars with a 4500 launch. Not if you are making any decent power.
07-24-04, 10:19 PM
#106
Full Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hardbodeez
There's no doubt these rotary motors are capable of producing wads of horspower coupled with the light weight equaling a fast car. However, everyone talks about horsepower so much that it overshadows torque. For the dragstrip, ok, put slicks on, dump the car over 4500 and keep it over 4500 to make the car pull down the track, great!
Practically, on the street it is ridiculous. My motor was built by KD Rotary and makes 340hp at the wheels. When 4500 hits, those n/seq-twins kick in like gangbusters and blow the car sideways on street tires. Not very practical for short little blasts in everyday driving.
I had a 1965 Mustang that I raced on the street all the time, torque was always a factor, not so much hp. And a car that runs 13.10 on street tires will smoke a 12 sec slicks car anytime on the street.
So why are most of you buying these big turbos making 450 hp only to run radial tires? Silly. Spend the money in traction and suspension, and the car would be much faster, and that's truely something to brag about. Because, let's get real, all rx7's feel like about a 6 cylinder car under 4000 rpm's...at best. I've been in hot rods with torque and our cars don't have them. Torque is a forgotten word around this site, and until we work on helping the low end, MOST of us our defeating our purpose.
Get some gearing and traction...who gives a **** about a 180mph top end, it's not practical, and if you're caught you won't be driving your car anytime soon anyway.
Ditch the big spooling turbos and make the car torquey to have fun. NO DRAG RADIAL will help hook these cars with a 4500 launch. Not if you are making any decent power.
Practically, on the street it is ridiculous. My motor was built by KD Rotary and makes 340hp at the wheels. When 4500 hits, those n/seq-twins kick in like gangbusters and blow the car sideways on street tires. Not very practical for short little blasts in everyday driving.
I had a 1965 Mustang that I raced on the street all the time, torque was always a factor, not so much hp. And a car that runs 13.10 on street tires will smoke a 12 sec slicks car anytime on the street.
So why are most of you buying these big turbos making 450 hp only to run radial tires? Silly. Spend the money in traction and suspension, and the car would be much faster, and that's truely something to brag about. Because, let's get real, all rx7's feel like about a 6 cylinder car under 4000 rpm's...at best. I've been in hot rods with torque and our cars don't have them. Torque is a forgotten word around this site, and until we work on helping the low end, MOST of us our defeating our purpose.
Get some gearing and traction...who gives a **** about a 180mph top end, it's not practical, and if you're caught you won't be driving your car anytime soon anyway.
Ditch the big spooling turbos and make the car torquey to have fun. NO DRAG RADIAL will help hook these cars with a 4500 launch. Not if you are making any decent power.
07-24-04, 10:49 PM
#107
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Somewhere else
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hardbodeez
You don't have to launch the snot out of a torquey car to go fast! And what wins street races..torque!
Pretty much most of the people you would talk with turbos, there is always "i should be making more hp but my car is doing this" or "ones i get this i should be a lot faster" or "i just blew up my motor"....
With big displacement you would'd be putting down respectable numbers to the ground while trying to work out some of the bugs out if you had to...
And to all the people that say that big v8 monsters don't get traction, it may be true in some cases but think about this...what is easier, figure out a way to get traction if you need it or figure out a way to make a lot of hp and tourque like you would need on rotary?
07-24-04, 10:56 PM
#108
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Somewhere else
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open up your eyes, open up your mind....tututututututuuddd...STOP THE IGNORANCE, AT LEAST ACCEPT THE TRUTH...LOOK AROUND...STOP LIVING IN YOUR SMALL LITTLE WORLD...THERE IS A LIGHT SOMEWHERE...BE AWERE OF IT...
07-25-04, 08:16 AM
#109
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
great thread, good talks...
2 cars at the track, same weight, same contact patch, suspension, tires, etc.
One with 400hp/350ftlbs, one with 400hp/250ft-lbs. Trans both geared the same.
Who will win?
2 cars at the track, same weight, same contact patch, suspension, tires, etc.
One with 400hp/350ftlbs, one with 400hp/250ft-lbs. Trans both geared the same.
Who will win?
07-25-04, 08:44 AM
#110
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by Turbo1
Who will win?
Rotary drag racers talk about dropping the clutch from 7,000 or more rpm as if that were something to be proud of. A V8 can launch at much lower rpm, save the drivetrain, and generate as good (or better) 60 foot times.
07-25-04, 01:29 PM
#111
Displacement > Boost
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take on all this is that high revving high hp cars need to be in their powerband to release their power, and it takes time to get into that powerband if it is up high.
V8 cars run 13's on low 90 trap speed, while my FC NA runs 14.7 on a 96 trap because it spends time after a weak (compared to a V8 car) launch winding up first gear, ascending toward the useable power band. Once up there the car can be kept in that power band but time is used up getting there after the launch.
V8 cars run 13's on low 90 trap speed, while my FC NA runs 14.7 on a 96 trap because it spends time after a weak (compared to a V8 car) launch winding up first gear, ascending toward the useable power band. Once up there the car can be kept in that power band but time is used up getting there after the launch.
07-29-04, 02:09 PM
#112
bzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok it could just be me but why would you complain when you have 400HP above 3500 and not much below you know what that means. try driving around town with 400HP BELOW 3500 hey like a v-8 unless it's a corvette motor which is in it's own class then you get about 8 mpg. i'm guessing everybody else with a 13B 400HP 3rd gen gets better than 8mpg just street driving not pushing it. am I wrong????
07-31-04, 10:25 AM
#114
Temple of Cornd0g
The battle of torque advantage vs. horsepower advantage played out at this year's F1 GP at Monaco. Running 1-2 in the closing laps, Trulli's torquey Renault, quick in the tight sections, broke away from Button's BAR, who would run up to the Renault's rear halfway through the freer, high speed sections, thanks to the BAR-Honda's bigger horsepower. This "abstract battle" of torque vs. horsepower was visually presented by the teams' abilities and strategies while making for the best race in a long time.
To simplify - torque gets you there, horsepower keeps you there as 88IntegraLS recenty noted.
That's the point to spending the resources for reshaping and optimizing the engine's and the car's abilities to get the best of both the torque and horsepower characteristics.
To simplify - torque gets you there, horsepower keeps you there as 88IntegraLS recenty noted.
That's the point to spending the resources for reshaping and optimizing the engine's and the car's abilities to get the best of both the torque and horsepower characteristics.
12-16-04, 07:29 AM
#115
DONT FEED THE NOOBS
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: land of slow hondas .... TULSA, OK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wee
i had a 1989 ford thunderbird supercoupe,, the first and only ford i will ever own. i loved the car. 220hp/330 ft lbs of trq. the car would move. 0-60 in 7 secs but its a 4200lb car. um torque rocks....but my rx7 says torque who? at 5.4 0-60 .... just in case you havent figured 0-60 means more to me than tops speed i wont get a ticket for doing 60. i still have yet to get a solid concept of torque....just know its nicer to have than hp
12-16-04, 10:21 AM
#116
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by gxlbiscuit
um torque rocks....but my rx7 says torque who? at 5.4 0-60 ....
12-16-04, 11:03 AM
#117
1) more torque will give you a better launch with less strain assuming that you've maid traction.
2) torque will get you out of tight corners faster (talk to an autocrosser about this)
3) the top of the last gear is rarely reached in any form of racing so top speed is not entirely significant.
4) people with RX-7's realize that they lack torque but will argue all day in defense of their car because they realize it is still fast as hell on any type of track and fully capable of smoking higher displacement stangs etc.
5) a 20b and gears are good ways to get more torque.
if all that you are concerned about is power, you shouldn't own an RX-7. You should own one if you like 50/50 weighting, incredible handling, best looking interior ever made, unique engine (though it's delicate), all comprising one of the purest sports cars ever made.
6) compare a 13b to a 787b 4-rotor; which would you rather have in your car, ceteris paribus?
7) Racers will always design their setup to utilize the powerband of the car wherever it may lay on the rev spectrum.
2) torque will get you out of tight corners faster (talk to an autocrosser about this)
3) the top of the last gear is rarely reached in any form of racing so top speed is not entirely significant.
4) people with RX-7's realize that they lack torque but will argue all day in defense of their car because they realize it is still fast as hell on any type of track and fully capable of smoking higher displacement stangs etc.
5) a 20b and gears are good ways to get more torque.
if all that you are concerned about is power, you shouldn't own an RX-7. You should own one if you like 50/50 weighting, incredible handling, best looking interior ever made, unique engine (though it's delicate), all comprising one of the purest sports cars ever made.
6) compare a 13b to a 787b 4-rotor; which would you rather have in your car, ceteris paribus?
7) Racers will always design their setup to utilize the powerband of the car wherever it may lay on the rev spectrum.
12-16-04, 12:01 PM
#118
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by jimlab
If it weighed as much as the Thunderbird, you'd find out quickly just how much torque matters. Maybe I should run that simulation, just for laughs.
After substantial slipping of the clutch to get the car rolling, Car Test 2000 says the T-bird would rocket (figuratively speaking) to a 10.36 second 0-60 mph time. Quarter mile would flash by in a leisurely 17.95 seconds @ 83.74 seconds (3.41 sec. 60-ft.), and the car would stall out at about 132 mph in 3rd gear... not having the torque to shift into 4th and maintain forward motion of all that weight against wind resistance. Impressive.
Summary - '94 Super Coupe (stock)
0-60 ft. - 2.43 sec.
0-60 mph - 7.23 sec.
0-1/4 mi. - 15.76 sec. @ 90.10 mph
Top speed - 177 mph, 5th gear (~177 sec., drag limited)
Summary - '94 Super Coupe w/13BT
0-60 ft. - 3.41 sec.
0-60 mph - 10.35 sec.
0-1/4 mi. - 17.95 sec. @ 83.74 mph
Top speed - 132 mph, 3rd gear (~170 sec., drag limited)
Put the Thunderbird's 3.8 liter supercharged V6 in the Turbo II, on the other hand, along with the Ford 5-speed, and you get...
A 0-60 limited to 6.51 seconds by wheel spin, wheel spin into 2nd gear, and a quarter mile time of 14.65 @ 97.31 with a 2.06 second 60-ft. time. Top speed is limited to 129 mph in 5th gear by the 5,600 rpm redline of the engine, the 0.75:1 5th gear, and the RX-7's 3.91:1 differential, however it will get there in less than half the time that it would take the Turbo II engine to reach nearly the same terminal velocity in the T-bird chassis. Interesting.
Summary - 1988 Turbo II (stock)
0-60 ft. - 2.26 sec.
0-60 mph - 6.64 sec.
0-1/4 mi. - 15.32 sec. @ 90.20 mph
Top speed - 150 mph, 5th gear (~150 sec., drag limited)
Summary - 1988 Turbo II w/3.8L supercharged V6
0-60 ft. - 2.06 sec.
0-60 mph - 6.51 sec.
0-1/4 mi. - 14.65 sec. @ 97.31 mph
Top speed - 129 mph, 5th gear (~80 sec., gearing limited)
12-16-04, 12:06 PM
#119
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by wanklin
4) people with RX-7's realize that they lack torque but will argue all day in defense of their car because they realize it is still fast as hell on any type of track and fully capable of smoking higher displacement stangs etc.
You should own one if you like 50/50 weighting
incredible handling
best looking interior ever made
unique engine
12-16-04, 01:47 PM
#121
Jim, slow down there buddy you missunderstood my post. I'm actually agreeing with you so need need to get into ballbust mode. There's always a nicer and faster car, and we all know this. I know you see something in the 7 or you wouldn't have put as much money as you have into yours. ;0)
Use whatever word floats your boat, it's all subjective and relative anyways, kinda like this entire post.
Merry Christmaquansika everyone
Use whatever word floats your boat, it's all subjective and relative anyways, kinda like this entire post.
Merry Christmaquansika everyone
12-16-04, 02:42 PM
#122
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by DamonB
jim, what do you use for your sims?
Originally Posted by wanklin
Jim, slow down there buddy you missunderstood my post. I'm actually agreeing with you so need need to get into ballbust mode.
12-16-04, 06:45 PM
#123
Rotary Enthusiast
HI some place on this forum I posted a reply some like what would be more fun in same car 500 hp with 300tq OR 300hp with500tq, have got 87 rx7 400whp 330tq also 91 Mustang turbo 500 whp but 690 tq both are enteresting to drive. thanks RON
12-17-04, 02:03 AM
#125
Rotary Freak
I dont get it. In a race if one guy with the same torque higher up where to dump the clutch higher in the rev range wouldnt he effectively be using the same torque? The only difference is he is making it at higher RPM's which means more HP hence going faster.
**** who cares rx7's dominate the NHRA anyways so obviously torque is not a problem. If it was a problem then rx7's would be getting beat by geo metro's (which they dont)
**** who cares rx7's dominate the NHRA anyways so obviously torque is not a problem. If it was a problem then rx7's would be getting beat by geo metro's (which they dont)