Torque pulls trailers, Horsepower wins races.

>>14511655
I don't care what the right way is. All I know is I want more torx than horsies.

>>14511710

Why?

horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you

>>14511655
Torque is how hard you accelerate
Horsepower is how long you can accelerate before changing gears

>>14511848
no, thats how tall your gears are. torque is more like the force needed to get you moving, while horsepower is the duration that force can continue under acceleration

>>14511958
Gearing is simple fucking mechanical advantage

Peak acceleration occurs at peak torque whether it be at the crank or the wheels, but your completely right about power being more or less the length of time that force can be applied.


Take a semi truck for example. They have obscene amounts of torque and can pull the foundation out from under your house, but they need 10+ gears because they have a relatively small amount of power and must shift very often in order to maintain that torque.

>>14511710

250HP 420FT lbs.

Come at me normie

>>14512329
your engine doesn't rev, and doesn't make power because of that low rev limit

your engine is suffocating, maybe if it could breathe better you'd make some actual power

>>14512346
I'm not sure that this is true but I don't know enough to dispute it. Are you suggesting that that engine with a larger intake of air would increase its horsepower? Would it also increase its torque? In what ways?

File: image.jpg (252KB, 1398x874px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1398x874px

>>14512298
Let's say you have an engine with a mostly flat torque curve. The engine makes the same torque at the crank at 3000rpm and 6000rpm.

If you maintain the car's speed and then shift from 3000 to 6000rpm, the gear ratio will be doubled and the torque applied at the wheels will also be doubled. Due to doubling the wheel torque, the car can now accelerate twice as hard as before.

You can see, the torque applied at the wheels (and therefore a car's ability to accelerate) depends on both the engine's torque and RPM. When you describe these two quantities together, you get power. The engine's torque number by itself is a meaningless performance metric. It's power that wins races, not torque.

Remember, the fastest way to accelerate a car is to use the gearbox to keep the engine as close to peak power as possible. Peak engine torque by itself is irrelevant.

>>14511837
Stupidest analogy out there.
>>14512346
It's also entirely possible that the torque curve dies off in high rpms. You can't just assume it's one thing or the other.

>>14512401
torque x rpm / 5252 = hp

increase torque, you get more horsepower.

increase rpm, you get more horsepower as well.

a badly flowing head will make peak torque down low, a high flow head will make peak torque closer to redline, making more overall horsepower.

>>14512419
I personally would say it's best to keep peak *work output* as high as possible, whether you're using less force but more distance (high rpm, short gearing ) or more force and less distance.

>>14512401
Your engine makes relatively low power for the torque it has. Which means it has a low rev limit. Often times this is because of inefficient head designs that cannot flow enough for higher RPM operations.

>>14511837
Kinetic energy is how fast you hit the wall, potential energy is how far you take the wall.

Torque is how quickly start, horsepower is where you end up.

>>14512298
>Peak acceleration occurs at peak torque
No. Peak accleration occurs at peak power.

>>14512438
>rate of work=power
one and the same senpai

>>14512455
this, get it through your thick skulls

nice dubs too

>>14512438
>work output
That is the definition of power.

Power is the rate at which work is done. Force*distance gives you work, so force*speed would be the rate of doing work, which is power.

>>14512436
The 5252 in that equation is only there because Americans cannot into SI units and uses units like ft-lb instead.

The actual relationship is just:

torque*engine speed=power

You use the SI units N-m for torque, rad/s for engine speed, and watts for power.

>>14512455
>>14512488
For a given gearing, peak acceleration is at peak torque. Maximum speed for a given gear is achieved at peak power.

Shifting at peak torque is not a good idea if the torque in the next gear will be lower than at higher revs in the current gear.

Stop spewing ignorance.

>>14512496
nice post :3

>>14512506
also nice post :3

>>14512506
>For a given gearing, peak acceleration is at peak torque
no. absolutely not. are you too stupid to undertand the math?
>stop spewing ignorance
oh the irony

>>14512506
>for a given gearing

Umm, cars don't just have one gear ratio. If you want to accelerate the fastest, you use the gearbox and shift to keep the rpm as close to peak power as possible,

>>14512506
that's just incorrect. peak acceleration comes at peak power

>>14512346

Care to guess what vehicle is making this torque?

>>14512436

This is not correct

P (watts) = Work (joules) / Time

hp is a certain quantity of watts, 735.5 to be exact. It is this quantity of power in watts multiplied by the number of units in that measure; this is, in the case of power, measured as work divided by time. Did no one on /o/ choose to take senior physics during their time in public school?

>>14512595
A diesel or some truck engine.

>>14512601
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

>>14512601
See >>14512496

>>14512601
m8 you're just converting units, we're talking about the same thing

>>14512450
>Potential energy is how far you take the wall
If you're moving, the energy is no longer potential you moron

>>14512450
a car with 200 hp and 400 tq and a 400 hp car with 200 tq weighing the same amount going the same speed hit an identical wall at 60 mph. the damage will be the same if all other variables are controlled

>>14512638
>he took that post 100% literally

>>14512695
Well I'm half german, so I have a problem with humour.

>>14512701
don't worry, this guy >>14512668
is also german

File: 2016-chevrolet-colorado-diesel-first-drive-review-car-and-driver-photo-662596-s-original[1].jpg (836KB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 1280x782px

Does the 2.8L Duramax variant Chevy Colorado feel better to drive than the 3.6L variant?

>>14512638
The velocity is kinetic, the mass is potential.

>>14512532
>>14512539
>>14512545
Stop spewing ignorance.

>>14512728
Mass is not a force, therefore it can be neither potential nor kinetic. Weight is a force though.

>>14512735
Actually mass and energy are interchangeable. If you can have potential energy, then you can have potential mass.

>>14512760
This is basic kinematics, I can assure you that particle physics has no bearing on the superficial reactions of a moving object

HP = Top speed
Torque = How fast you get to top speed

>>14512733
>i can't into high school physics
Was your mother a drunk?

>>14512780
No. Just no.

>>14512805

yes.

>>14512819
Are people like you trolling or are half the people on here legitimately retarded? this is basic kinematics and is not up for debate

>>14512760
Except nobody uses relativistic mass when dealing with special relativity.

>>14512903
You're correct, this is not up for debate. Peak acceleration for a given gearing occurs at peak torque. This is not debatable, is universally understood, and confirm-able with a simple google.

Jesus is Senpai

>>14512605

2005 Dodge Ram

https://youtu.be/MqNbNZxAAlM

>>14511655
Torque wins races.
Horsepower just goes 0-60.

>>14514948
torque = 1/4mile
hp = 0-60