> torque is more important than horsepower
torque doesn't even imply a rpm so you can't get any measure of performance from it alone
stupid cucks
No torque = no fun
>torque doesn't even imply a rpm
Wut?
>>14948215
you are just as bad desu
>>14948225
well, it implies motion, but it doesn't tell you how fast whatever is rotating.
horsepower at least gives you a measure of how fast you can accelerate
>>14948218
> what is gearing
>muh tork fags would rather drive a fwd turbo diesel euroshit car than an gasoline Inline six turbo rear wheel drive god machine
top kek
>make tons of torque at any RPM
>car is fun as shit to drive
it "feels" fast just barely giving it throttle. it IS fast when you do
>>14948239
> 1JZ VVTI
> full boost and lot o' torks at 2400 rpm
best of both worlds
>>14948232
>horsepower at least gives you a measure of how fast you can accelerate
No. Not really. I've seen slow 350hp vehicles and I've seen quick 90hp vehicles.
>>14948274
comparing different horsepower figures given the same weight, obviously.
comparing just torque for the same car means nothing without more information.
>>14948297
>comparing different horsepower figures given the same weight, obviously.
horsepower and torque are both important.
or torque and RPM. vice versa
>315 hp 345 ft-lb here
naturally aspirated
>>14948215
t. miatacuck
>>14948297
same thing with horse power. It won't tell you anything about acceleration.
>>14948311
> tfw no miata
>>14948312
how so?
if you know how much horsepower you make, you know how much torque you're applying to the wheels per second. That can give you a rough estimate of possible acceleration. Torque cannot do the same, unless you also know the RPM, in which case you just have horsepower again.
ever drive a semi with no trailer?
if you know which gears to skip you'll outrun most things on the road without going over 2250 rpm
>>14948232
>horsepower at least gives you a measure
horsepower is literally torque * RPM
>>14948215
if you're talking peak figures for either torque or horsepower both are fairly meaningless
>>14948327
> what is the difference between 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional units
>>14948324
Not really. In your mind (in most peoples mind) higher hosrsepower brings the expectation/assumption of a fast accelerating car. But it can also mean a car that takes 7.8 seconds to reach 60mph. It COULD mean a car that reaches 60mph at 3.2 seconds. You'll never know until you know.
>>14948332
One can be accurately used to describe engine power, one is dependent on another variable.
An electric motor is making its full torque at 0, if you use a CVT to keep it spinning at 1rpm it will have no horsepower and yet will move.
>>14948336
>One can be accurately used to describe engine power, one is dependent on another variable.
Horsepower is a unit of POWER, and torque is a unit of force times distance, so no, horsepower.
Horsepower is LITERALLY how much torque you apply per unit time. I'm only saying that since already incorporates torque, it is a more useful measurement (if only marginally so).
>>14948342
> tfw typos
dammit
>>14948335
Jesus christ dude. Obviously there are other variables. 'm just saying that if you only know torque, there is one less variable taken into account of, versus horsepower, when considering possible acceleration.
>>14948336
>An electric motor is making its full torque at 0, if you use a CVT to keep it spinning at 1rpm it will have no horsepower and yet will move.
>>14948336
> 1rpm
> 0 horsepower
that's literally impossible you know
>>14948336
Are you fucking retarded? The engine would still produce horsepower, otherwise it would have zero fucking torque. And an electric motor that isn't rotating doesn't produce any work hence zero hp and the car doesn't move.
>>14948336
>An electric motor is making its full torque at 0
love this me.me
HP and Tq figures are for bench racers. Pic related is more important
>>14948379
Retard, power is torque x rpm.
There is no power without torque, torque is the unit of work the horsepower of kilowatt or ps or whatever the fuck you want is all based off of.
Newton meter, foot pound, it's all work over a distance, but you don't need a rotational speed in order to measure this.
>>14948372
Nigger it doesn't matter, it'll be making so little power it rounds down to 0.
My point is there is literally ONLY torque
>>14948398
Except every car with real power is using a powerglide so you have 2 gears.
Real important, whoa
>>14948336
>using a cvt to hold an electric motor at 1rpm
why not just tell the control unit to hold it at 1rpm you dumb fuck?
not even gonna address the rest of that bullshit lol
>>14948385
It does if it's under load.
If it's just not on then yeaah obviously that's retarded.
>>14948423
Because then you don't gain speed, moron.
The point of this is that horsepower literally does not matter, an electric motor attached to a CVT can be outputting <.5hp letting it be rounded down while out accelerating an internal combustion with 500hp.
>>14948407
>but you don't need a rotational speed in order to measure this
In which case there is no fucking horsepower, no work is performed, and the car doesn't fucking move. No RPM, no time, no power. We are speaking of the work the car performs here.
>>14948432
>The point of this is that horsepower literally does not matter, an electric motor attached to a CVT can be outputting <.5hp letting it be rounded down while out accelerating an internal combustion with 500hp.
never go full retard.
>>14948425
well, you're factually incorrect. does all your learning come from 4chan, perchance?
>>14948432
If your car is accelerting that fast at 1RPM then the motor has absurd torque and would still produce more HP than the slower accelerating car. What you propose is idiotic and defies physics. Power=energy. The end.
>>14948432
are you feeling okay anon? have you bumped your head?
>>14948447
Thats false tho. If your car produces .5 hp of energy you cannot add more energy to accelerate a car than an engine with more horsepower. You simply don't understand the math you are claiming. Horsepower=energy to accelerate vehicle. You cannot accelerate faster by adding less energy. Ever.
>>14948407
> b-but you need torque to have horsepower
We're talking in two different directions. You can't calculate horsepower without torque yes, so in that sense, torque is more important, but you can't do much with only knowing torque. You need to understand how fast an engine is turning to determine how much work it can do over time.
This is why horsepower is a more useful number. It incorporates torque and rpm in one number, so it conveys more useful information.
>>14948462
it seems the conversation has moved on from what you can calculate and how
>>14948446
I have a physics degree.
>>14948432
>an electric motor attached to a CVT can be outputting <.5hp letting it be rounded down while out accelerating an internal combustion with 500hp.
Well that is the stupidest thing I've ever read on /o/.
>>14948477
Then you should be fucking ashamed that you don't understand the simple principles of power. I mean you literally are telling us that adding less power to a system means it will gain kinetic energy faster than by adding more power.
Newton wants to have a talk with you and your University want's its B.S. back.
>>14948484
>I mean you literally are telling us that adding less power to a system means it will gain kinetic energy faster than by adding more power.
I'm not saying anything like that at all.
> tfw no 10,000ft-lb at 0.1 RPM motor
>>14948501
A motor with .5hp will never accelerate a vehicle faster than an engine producing 500hp. You are hopelessly retarded.
>>14948512
maybe if the 500hp engine was moving an ocean tanker and the .5 was moving a person on a scooter. Maybe that's what he's comparing?
>>14948512
course it can if it has all that torque
you're just not a progressive thinker like him
>>14948512
Assuming, of course, the same gearing used between both input and output.
>>14948523
Which is irrelevant as you measure the power outputted at the wheels. You don't correct for gearing in the real world, only to make pretty dyno charts.
>>14948506
lol how big would this engine have to be
>>14948529
idk but it would make almost no hp.
the largest diesels in the world make around 100k hp, but turn at 100rpm.
>>14948523
doesn't make sense to bring gearing into it in this instance unless you want to talk about a 500hp engine so far out of it's powerband in which case you say so.. "an engine actually making <0.5hp but it can make 500hp I swear"
there's a reason why questions are phrased a certain way in physics exams
>>14948536
Stop getting so cucked up on horsepower. It is simply a unit of measure. The magnitude compared to the magnitude of torque is irrelevant and not comparable.
>yfw 1 foot = 12 inches
Same shit, doesn't matter
>>14948554
horsepower matters dude. it's twisting force in relation to time. we don't live in a single instant, we live relative to time. hp matters
>>14948554
?
that was my point in making the whole damn thread.
comparing torque and horsepower is retarded, but if you can only have one of them, take horsepower.
>>14948563
No, power matters. (Horse)power is simply one way to express it. How large or small that value is is quite irrelevant as you can't use the magnitude of one unit of measure and compare it to another like it matters.
>>14948564
Then you aren't the physics degreed retard. My bad.
> engine 1 makes 200ft-lbs at 2000rpm
> engine 2 makes 200ft-lbs at 3000rpm
according to >>14948432, these two engines will accelerate at the same rate.
bravo /o/
>>14948512
Literally all I'm saying is that an electric motor makes torque at 0 rpm. I have no idea where you're getting all this other shit from.
>>14948526
>>14948547
Granted, but that's now how anons statement was worded.
I'm not arguing the claim made by the OP of this train of fucking morons, simply the one post.
>>14948570
And at zero RPMs a vehicle does not accelerate. In addition, a gasoline engine also produces torque at zero RPMs otherwise it would never be able to speed up or start. If you aren't the .5hp retarded then my bad I got your response to the post above confused as the guy responded to two.
>>14948569
This. What an asshat.
>>14948584
> In addition, a gasoline engine also produces torque at zero RPMs
Actually, that's not true, which is why you use a electric starter motor or hand crank it. It can't start itself.
>>14948593
>It can't start itself.
but electric motors can?
torque at 0rpm means one thing - it won't roll down a hill with the handbrake off.
>>14948593
thats more of a consequence of design and fuel delivery systems. if you primed a cylinder with fuel at the correct crank position and ignited it would acclerate, but point well made.
>>14948608
so what you're saying is electric motors can make power without spinning?
>>14948611
They can provide torque without spinning, yes.
>>14948608
That isn't necessarily true for all electric motors. A rotor most certainly can get stuck between permanent magnets in an AC engine and draw massive current and fry itself. I'm not an electrical engineer mind you but an AC motors rotation direction is more or less random based on rotor position. There most certainly is a dead spot?
IDK, been a while since I was in school
>>14948619
how useful is that?
>>14948619
Which would mean they produce no power. At some level, even microscopic, there must be deformation allowing rotation to occur otherwise the engine would never be able to accelerate?
IDK, getting way to theoretical for me here
>>14948631
the idea is the same as pushing against something without it moving. as soon as it moves you're making power.
You can't separate any of these terms and concepts from one another and end up with anything meaningful. Jesus...I love you /o/ but, cum on!
Only thing that truly matters is a linear power band. Usually this implies equal-ish hp/torque
>>14948648
this. I feel like bmw is really good at this
>>14948648
It implies nothing of the sort
>>14948671
Gm as well
>>14948685
>>14948648
>>14948688
yeah gm ones are nice.
on the other hand we have the brz...
>>14948703
God I just don't understand how that car can be so shitty yet people still buy them.
>>14948625
That was not the question.
>>14948631
Power is a measure of torque.
>Even microscopic
No, an invisible level. Learn how electric engines work.
I feel like me arguing points other than the focus of your guys points is going over everyones heads.
>>14948703
>>14948721
you can get rid of the torque dip with a tune from what i've heard
>>14948723
>power is a measure of torque
>what is a follow up question
dude shut the fuck up
>>14948723
>Power is a measure of torque
No, it most certainly is not.
> Learn how electric engines work.
I know how they work asshole. The point is if the engine truly is at zero RPMs it will never be able to accelerate. At some level imperceptible to the human eye there is rotation due to deflection.
>>14948726
This comes from the same idiots who buy these cars tho. From what I can tell it is due to shitty exhaust
>>14948738
they're not shitty though. great for touge
>>14948215
If you have a high torque car, chances are it's larger displacement and doesn't rev to the moon. If you have a car with very high hp in relation to torque, chances are it's small displacement. Gear the large displacemen car taller and the small displacement car shorter.
End of the fucking argument.
