Official 'Let's discuss Torque vs HP thread...
- Thread starter ratio411
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
2nd Mustang
Founding Member
ratio411 said:
I have an old Edelbrock Streetmaster intake which is a single plane. It's in really nice shape, so kept it intact. I won't be cutting off the air horn anytime soon on the new Holley as it has a 90 day warranty, maybe when a rebuild is needed.
I agree, removing the check ball on the vacuum secondary really spun the tires, but that gets old at every stop light.
Streetmaster eh...
That is the most mild single plane I have ever seen.
It ought to have tons of torque.
Alot of the really old timers swear by them. They have tiny ports and plenums.
I like the original Torkers myself. They have slightly larger ports and plenums, but don't give up throttle response like more radical single planes.
Admittedly though, I have never ran a Streetmaster.
Does it seem to run out of breath at higher rpms?
Dave
That is the most mild single plane I have ever seen.
It ought to have tons of torque.
Alot of the really old timers swear by them. They have tiny ports and plenums.
I like the original Torkers myself. They have slightly larger ports and plenums, but don't give up throttle response like more radical single planes.
Admittedly though, I have never ran a Streetmaster.
Does it seem to run out of breath at higher rpms?
Dave
2nd Mustang
Founding Member
ratio411 said:
I don't really get on it hard in the lower gears, but yes it does seem to lack top end power, and I also have a Crane hydraulic roller cam with roller rockers. I really can't see the stock tach too well while driving, but I don't get it past 5000 + rpms very much.
Edbert said:Torque shows up most in the 0-60, HP takes over from there...
That is an awsome torque curve. Peak at 4-5k? That is is my next motor right there. And from the same company. But I'm going to spray the piss out of that one!
The problem I generally see with the calculators is they don't take into account for torque. Like 7dMach1 said. His car runs way different than the calculators say. I should only be running somewhere in the high 12's, maybe even 13's. But the calcs. for the rwhp by trapspeed seems to be rather accurate.
Attachments
torque is the ability of the engine to a given job
horsepower is how fast it is able to that given job
someone said something about rice being more hp than torque, that is correct but there was something left out of that statement it should read
if an engine has more "SIGNIFICANTLY MORE" HP than TQ "THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE RPM RANGE" that is rice.
horsepower is how fast it is able to that given job
someone said something about rice being more hp than torque, that is correct but there was something left out of that statement it should read
if an engine has more "SIGNIFICANTLY MORE" HP than TQ "THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE RPM RANGE" that is rice.
geneos5546
New Member
jerry S
New Member
Holy resurrected threads Batman!
There is a blast from the past.
The most succinct explanation I have heard to date is that HP wins on the dyno whle torque wins at the track.
There is a blast from the past.
The most succinct explanation I have heard to date is that HP wins on the dyno whle torque wins at the track.
Hack
15 Year Member
In any NA performance engine, horsepower will be greater than torque. That's because an engine with a given displacement will make the most hp when it's spinning as fast as the induction/exhaust components / internal parts and valvetrain will allow. Well I should say that there's a "sweet spot" near the limit of what the induction/exhaust will flow. For example, deliberately putting in an intake/heads/exhaust with smaller ports only helps you if the larger ports flow to a much higher rpm than the rest of the engine can handle or than you're going to run.
Higher tech overhead cam engines have a natural advantage in that the valvetrain weighs less so they can spin faster. Most people associate Hondas, etc with OHC engines, but the new Ford mod motors are the same way. That's how Ford can get 300 hp out of an engine smaller than a 289 - spinning it faster with a lighter valvetrain. You can do that in a pushrod engine, but it's less likely to last 100,000+ miles or be inexpensive.
Given that you have a certain displacement engine, if your goal is high performance you want to build for the maximum area under the horsepower curve (as previously stated) in the rpm range you will be running. I wouldn't even look at torque. To me built for torque is just code for low performance and reliable. Not bad, just also not high performance. Torque is for trucks!
Higher tech overhead cam engines have a natural advantage in that the valvetrain weighs less so they can spin faster. Most people associate Hondas, etc with OHC engines, but the new Ford mod motors are the same way. That's how Ford can get 300 hp out of an engine smaller than a 289 - spinning it faster with a lighter valvetrain. You can do that in a pushrod engine, but it's less likely to last 100,000+ miles or be inexpensive.
Given that you have a certain displacement engine, if your goal is high performance you want to build for the maximum area under the horsepower curve (as previously stated) in the rpm range you will be running. I wouldn't even look at torque. To me built for torque is just code for low performance and reliable. Not bad, just also not high performance. Torque is for trucks!
jerry S
New Member
Hack said:
And yet with my NA performance engine, I have more torque than HP (300 rwhp behind a C6 auto compared to 400 ft lbs of torque at the rear wheels). My engine does not fit your statement.
Hack said:
My own "built for torque" engine is pretty HIPO, IMO.
Hack
15 Year Member
jerry S said:
You didn't say what your engine is or what rpm it makes its max hp and torque, but I know for a fact even without you saying anything that it could make a lot more power if you built it to spin faster. It would make more power and it wouldn't weigh more. Your car would be quicker.
You have built a reliable engine, rather than building for the most performance. I'm guessing you have a LOT of cubes, so while you have high torque you also have high weight. A high performance lighter weight engine could be built to eat you for lunch in a race, get better gas mileage, as well as out turn your car.
It does sound like a great package though, especially for a street driven car. I bet it will last a long time. That is the way I would generally prefer to build an engine. It isn't the way to the best performance, however.
jerry S
New Member
Hack said:
Hack, you say Torque like it is a bad thing.
Re my engine, it is a 351W bored .040 over. I have posted the dyno below this message. Basically, my torque peaks at 3600 rpm while my engine makes power to about 5600 before it flat lines. My timing is still way off. I am at 28 degrees total advance whereas I should be at 32-34 considering my 10.5 CR. I should pick up some power when I get the timing right. Crower tells me this cam's power band is 2200-6000 so spinning it faster won't get me any gains.
Nope, just a 358W so not so much weight.Hack said:
Hack said:
I was trying to get the most out of it. I think I am limited by my heads (RPM Performers). I will either port them or just get new AFRs. with a peak hp of 300 rwhp behind a C6 with a crappy torque converter and a trac-loc in desperate need of a rebuild, I am guessing that my drivetrain loss is 25% giving me 400 hp at the fly (with the timing being so retarded. I should pick up 10-15 rwhp when I advance to 32-34+).
<img src="http://forums.mightymustangs.net/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=7611"width="800" height="900">
Not to be a nitt-picking *******, but 400 NM is only 295ft-lbs.
http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/torque
Still better than I'm putting out. I'll post my 'stock' dyno if I can find it.
EDIT: Found it. My baseline for the grande project. 130hp, 210ft-lbs. I ran high 16's, but it could do a pretty decent burnout.
http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/torque
Still better than I'm putting out. I'll post my 'stock' dyno if I can find it.
EDIT: Found it. My baseline for the grande project. 130hp, 210ft-lbs. I ran high 16's, but it could do a pretty decent burnout.
jerry S
New Member
72grande said:
I know. I asked them about that not less than 3 times because it seemed strange to me to make so much torque compared to HP. The shop assured me that although the graph says newton meters, it is actually torque. They say that at the bottom of the graph where the results are displayed, it says torque and not NM. Still, I must confess to having some doubts. Outside of a V8 turbo diesel in a Dodge Ram 3500, I cannot find another engine that makes so much torque relative to hp. Even if it is 295 ft lbs at the rears, that is almost 400 at the fly. I would not lose any sleep over it as the numbers are good no matter how you slice it. I would have to brush my teeth and rinse with Listerine after eating Crow, however, if Hack is right.
But after looking at your own chart, you are making 80 ft lbs more peak torque than peak hp so it could very well be possible that I am making 100 more ft lbs torque than peak hp in my build. I would not bet the farm on it, but it is not outside the realm of extreme possibility.
jerry S said:
Those kind of anomolies dont happen by accident. It took a 351C with a 2 barrel carb and a single 2 inch exhaust pipe to do that.
Your dyno doesnt apear to bein english. At least I dont know what koppel means. Torque is just a type of force. So 400 touque, as it says at the bottom, is meaningless without a unit of measurment. I think there was either a miscomunication between yourself and the dyno-operator or he just didnt know how to use the dyno software.
EDIT: HP=(TQ*rpm)/5252 iirc, so we can just check the calcs on your graph and find out for sure. One minute please...\
I have aprently forgotton how to do math. SOmeone else can figure it out. The answer is there..... goodnight.
Similar threads
