HP Vs. TQ
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
This is a more complicated topic than it seems. I could talk for a long, long time about it and end up not really answering the question.
Torque, measured in ft-lbs, is the twisting force transmitted from the crankshaft to the wheels. The amount of work this twist does at a certain engine speed is the Horsepower. Torque can be directly measured on a dyno, and HP is calculated from the torque, using the equation (HP) = (Torque * RPM) / 5252. This is the reason torque and HP lines always cross on dyno's at 5,252 RPM.
The net power, the sum-total of power an engine develops is NOT fully described by any peak HP number, but by the Area of the HP line of the dyno. This is much easier to describe graphically, and I'm not going to go into Paint and draw anything right now. Ordinarilly now I'd talk about how that crank power hits drivetrain loss coming into the transaxle and then is multiplied by the axle ratio (gear ratio * final drive) before it gets to the ground. Your tire height comes into that too, there is too much brain fog to remember the extact math, its been a while. Basically, our SVT's, stock, put down in excess of 1000ft-lbs to the pavement beneath the front contact patch at the peak of 1st gear. Thinking about Honda tranny's with 25% tighter gearing makes it easy to understand how they get like 1.9s 60' times while we struggle to make 2.2 with way more power.
ALSO, in general, an engine will feel more powerful the lower in the RPM band peak torque and HP occur, for the same reason an aggressivly cammed car feels gutless below 4k, just the other way around.
So, that's all clear now, right? [
]
Torque, measured in ft-lbs, is the twisting force transmitted from the crankshaft to the wheels. The amount of work this twist does at a certain engine speed is the Horsepower. Torque can be directly measured on a dyno, and HP is calculated from the torque, using the equation (HP) = (Torque * RPM) / 5252. This is the reason torque and HP lines always cross on dyno's at 5,252 RPM.
The net power, the sum-total of power an engine develops is NOT fully described by any peak HP number, but by the Area of the HP line of the dyno. This is much easier to describe graphically, and I'm not going to go into Paint and draw anything right now. Ordinarilly now I'd talk about how that crank power hits drivetrain loss coming into the transaxle and then is multiplied by the axle ratio (gear ratio * final drive) before it gets to the ground. Your tire height comes into that too, there is too much brain fog to remember the extact math, its been a while. Basically, our SVT's, stock, put down in excess of 1000ft-lbs to the pavement beneath the front contact patch at the peak of 1st gear. Thinking about Honda tranny's with 25% tighter gearing makes it easy to understand how they get like 1.9s 60' times while we struggle to make 2.2 with way more power.
ALSO, in general, an engine will feel more powerful the lower in the RPM band peak torque and HP occur, for the same reason an aggressivly cammed car feels gutless below 4k, just the other way around.
So, that's all clear now, right? [
]
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
That's a FAIRLY good rule of thumb, but the reality is more complex. Example, VW TDI, very high torque at a low RPM, very low HP. The high peak torque makes the car FEEL quick at low speeds, but when you wring the car out on the strip, because it's no good past 4k RPM, the area under the curve is small and it still ends up being an 18 second car. On the highway, they can get past 100mph but not by much, which is the ~75whp coming thru, and in that your rule is a good one. A car with a theoretical, say, 400hp @ 9000rpm and 200ft-lbs @ 4000rpm would have a high top speed if geared properly, because of the high HP when the engine's in its powerband.xp0s3d said:
Counterpoint 1: I've never driven a TDI, tho I'd like to, so I cant test the statements.
Counterpoint 2: The VW TDI diesel happens to be amazingly tunable, a chip and an intercooler net you like 250ft-lbs of torque and make it a 14s car for stupidly cheap. So perhaps this is a somewhat flawed example.
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Indeed, but even knowing that and understanding (somewhat) the numbers, its still real hard to wrap my brain around, cause you'd think it'd be simple. It just doesn't seem to be.
Thinking about it, torque is useful to tell some things about an engine, but I'm betting the engine's behavior can be pretty fully described with just the HP graph.
I'll think about this and post back if I have some revelation [thumb]
Thinking about it, torque is useful to tell some things about an engine, but I'm betting the engine's behavior can be pretty fully described with just the HP graph.
I'll think about this and post back if I have some revelation [thumb]
Joined
·
31,747 Posts
The 200/200 vs the 220/180 is to close and would realy depend on where in the RPM range it all happened
I build/tune for TQ and let the HP take care of it self this is why most of my Dynos have more TQ than HP and why my Foci ar some of the fastest around
Tom
I build/tune for TQ and let the HP take care of it self this is why most of my Dynos have more TQ than HP and why my Foci ar some of the fastest around
Tom
Joined
·
11,906 Posts
To quote Tom......
Torque gets you there, Horsepower keeps you there
Torque gets you there, Horsepower keeps you there
Joined
·
1,974 Posts
or, horsepower is how hard you hit the wall, torque is how far you take it with you.
Joined
·
3,130 Posts
^ even with a turbo i have seen gsr engines put out 500whp and only around 230wtq... the horsepower/torque thing i think can be more easily explained as to the reason why rsx-s can have 200whp and hardly mid 14s...because it takes more rpms..i think street racing, the more hp you have the better, and actually drag racing the more torque you have the better..i can take on some rsx-s gsr and b16 swaps through second, and then.....
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Join the discussion
