20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
#2
10-21-2004, 05:57 AM
#3
10-21-2004, 07:00 AM
#4
10-21-2004, 09:53 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arlington Tx.
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#5
10-21-2004, 10:10 AM
Re: 20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
No I don't. The cats are very restrictive, by design. Whatever you do, don't buy the RT Cats. People seem to be having good luck with the Crawfords, so maybe you'd want to consider that avenue if you upgrade the cats. I'm not so sure that the Y-Pipe is worth the money... and I have one.
#6
10-21-2004, 10:11 AM
Re: 20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
Kind of a silly question.
Let's see...
horsepower = torque*(RPM/5252). If I add 10 ft-lbs of torque I would have to rev my car to 10,504 RPM to get an additional 20 horsepower. Does your G redline above 10K RPM? Mine sure doesn't. Neither does my S2K.
So I'll take the 20 horsepower.
Let's see...
horsepower = torque*(RPM/5252). If I add 10 ft-lbs of torque I would have to rev my car to 10,504 RPM to get an additional 20 horsepower. Does your G redline above 10K RPM? Mine sure doesn't. Neither does my S2K.
So I'll take the 20 horsepower.
#7
10-21-2004, 12:04 PM
Re: 20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
Actually it's not a silly question.....look at the 2005 specs.
Horsepower IS a function of torque, but there are many ways to achieve increases of either one without the other. Think intake, exhaust, cams, etc. Your calculations are based on an erroneous data point. Look at it this way: a car with 220 ft/lbs at the wheels @ 6000 rpm increasing to 230 ft/lbs @ 6000 rpm increases the HP from 251.33 hp@6000 to 262.75 hp @6000.
Let me get this straight...you have a car with 153-161 ft/lbs (depending on year) and 240hp and you don't want MORE TORQUE?
It was my observation on the s2000 boards that everyone was BEGGING for more torque. They got it, but EVEN HIGHER up the power band.
I'll take the torque.
'04 G35X Graphite/graphite, NAV, wood, premium
"May you lead an interesting life..." -- Old Gypsy Curse
Horsepower IS a function of torque, but there are many ways to achieve increases of either one without the other. Think intake, exhaust, cams, etc. Your calculations are based on an erroneous data point. Look at it this way: a car with 220 ft/lbs at the wheels @ 6000 rpm increasing to 230 ft/lbs @ 6000 rpm increases the HP from 251.33 hp@6000 to 262.75 hp @6000.
Let me get this straight...you have a car with 153-161 ft/lbs (depending on year) and 240hp and you don't want MORE TORQUE?
It was my observation on the s2000 boards that everyone was BEGGING for more torque. They got it, but EVEN HIGHER up the power band.
I'll take the torque.
'04 G35X Graphite/graphite, NAV, wood, premium
"May you lead an interesting life..." -- Old Gypsy Curse
Trending Topics
#8
10-21-2004, 01:09 PM
Re: 20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
ChicagoX wrote:
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
Your calculations are based on an erroneous data point. Look at it this way: a car with 220 ft/lbs at the wheels @ 6000 rpm increasing to 230 ft/lbs @ 6000 rpm increases the HP from 251.33 hp@6000 to 262.75 hp @6000.
<hr></blockquote>
Forgive me, Chicago, but didn't you just prove my point? Increasing the torque by 10 ft-lbs @ 6000 RPM only increased the horsepower by 11.
So wouldn't you take 20 HP over 10 ft-lbs??? That was the original question.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by AlanP on 10/21/04 10:12 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
Your calculations are based on an erroneous data point. Look at it this way: a car with 220 ft/lbs at the wheels @ 6000 rpm increasing to 230 ft/lbs @ 6000 rpm increases the HP from 251.33 hp@6000 to 262.75 hp @6000.
<hr></blockquote>
Forgive me, Chicago, but didn't you just prove my point? Increasing the torque by 10 ft-lbs @ 6000 RPM only increased the horsepower by 11.
So wouldn't you take 20 HP over 10 ft-lbs??? That was the original question.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by AlanP on 10/21/04 10:12 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
#9
10-21-2004, 01:15 PM
Re: 20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
I'd rather have an extra 10 lb-ft of torque at 1500 rpm's rather than an extra 20 hp at redline.
What? You think that John Kerry is not consistent?
What? You think that John Kerry is not consistent?
#10
10-21-2004, 01:18 PM
Re: 20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
I'd rather have an extra 10 lb-ft of torque at 1500 rpm's rather than an extra 20 hp at redline.
<hr></blockquote>
10 ft-lb @ 1500 RPM is 2.9 HP. You would rather have 2.9 HP @ 1500 RPM as opposed to 20 HP @ redline?
Really?
I'd rather have an extra 10 lb-ft of torque at 1500 rpm's rather than an extra 20 hp at redline.
<hr></blockquote>
10 ft-lb @ 1500 RPM is 2.9 HP. You would rather have 2.9 HP @ 1500 RPM as opposed to 20 HP @ redline?
Really?
#11
10-21-2004, 01:41 PM
Re: 20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
If your point was that you don't understand the relationship between HP and torque, then I definitely proved it.
And read the whole post, I said I'd take the torque.
'04 G35X Graphite/graphite, NAV, wood, premium
"May you lead an interesting life..." -- Old Gypsy Curse
And read the whole post, I said I'd take the torque.
'04 G35X Graphite/graphite, NAV, wood, premium
"May you lead an interesting life..." -- Old Gypsy Curse
#12
10-21-2004, 01:56 PM
Re: 20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
It all depends on where the power increase (torque or hp) is going to occur... ideally, I'd like to have the increase over the whole rev range, but since you can't have your cake and eat it too, I'll take the HP - as stated above, our car already has more torque than many comparable cars (including M3s for instance), so I'll take the extra punch up top...
2003.5 BS coupe 5AT
Clear Corners, Alum. Pedals, Pro-1 Intake, Resonated Test Pipes, UR Pulley, CF Engine Cover, GReddy EVO II, Kinetix Plenum, Hotchkis Sways, Pro-1 Headers
2003.5 BS coupe 5AT
Clear Corners, Alum. Pedals, Pro-1 Intake, Resonated Test Pipes, UR Pulley, CF Engine Cover, GReddy EVO II, Kinetix Plenum, Hotchkis Sways, Pro-1 Headers
#13
10-21-2004, 02:03 PM
#14
10-21-2004, 02:06 PM
#15
10-21-2004, 02:30 PM
Re: 20 more hp or 10 more lb/ft torque?
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
But it depends on the sharpness of the peaks.
10 lb/ft for 4 seconds accelerating in say 4th gear is obviously more beneficial than a narrow 20 HP peak gain that only lasts for 0.4 second say from 6300-6700 rpm
<hr></blockquote>
Why would a performance-oriented driver stay in a low HP regime for 4 seconds when he could simply downshift?
If the horsepower has a sharp peak, then the torque must also have a sharp peak. You multiply the torque curve by RPM to get horsepower. So if the HP has a peak then torque has a peak in exactly the same RPM range.
I don't see any scenario -- except for formula cars with extremely high redline -- where you would prefer 10 ft-lb over 20 HP.
But it depends on the sharpness of the peaks.
10 lb/ft for 4 seconds accelerating in say 4th gear is obviously more beneficial than a narrow 20 HP peak gain that only lasts for 0.4 second say from 6300-6700 rpm
<hr></blockquote>
Why would a performance-oriented driver stay in a low HP regime for 4 seconds when he could simply downshift?
If the horsepower has a sharp peak, then the torque must also have a sharp peak. You multiply the torque curve by RPM to get horsepower. So if the HP has a peak then torque has a peak in exactly the same RPM range.
I don't see any scenario -- except for formula cars with extremely high redline -- where you would prefer 10 ft-lb over 20 HP.