Want a laugh? "Expert" technical engine article...

reenmachine

Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,256
2
38
San Diego, CA
This was emailed to me recently -- I guess it's going around as a technical "resource" in certain circles.

Enjoy:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Now this is some great stuff for any Engineer! :)

Interesting article. Unfortunately, it starts with the bad physics - "Engines don't make horsepower; they convert fuel into torque." This is simply not true.

The correct statement is "Engines make power. They convert fuel into
power."

I am taking the time to make this correction because if you want a fast
car, you need to work with the correct physics. Power makes cars quick and
fast. And airflow makes power.

Power, not torque, is what moves a car. For example, if you were modifying
an engine and doubled the peak torque while holding the peak power the
same, the acceleration would basically be the same. However, if you doubled the peak power while holding the peak torque the same, the acceleration would double.

The physics are simple and quite clear.

Force = mass x acceleration (1)

Hence

Acceleration = force / mass (2)

And

Power = force x velocity (3)

Hence

Force = power / velocity (4)

Combining (2) and (4)

Acceleration = power / (velocity x mass) (5)

Acceleration is directly proportional to power, not torque.

You could start with (2) and work in torque for force, but you would have
to know tire radius and gearing to get force from torque and it would work
its way around to being torque x rpm, which is power so you would get the same result.

Torque is force without motion. No motion, no acceleration. Torque in
motion is power.

Power comes from converting the chemical energy in the fuel/air mixture to
heat energy and then converting the heat energy to mechanical energy.
Power is the rate of energy conversion. Since fuel/air mixture is essentially
constant, power is directly related to airflow. A piston engine is
essentially an air pump. The more air it pumps, the more power it makes.

Airflow is the product of cubic inches (air pumped per revolution),
revolutions per minute, and volumetric efficiency).

Airflow = cubic inches / 2 x rpm x volumetric efficiency

The " / 2" is because a 4-stroke only draws air every other revolution.

This is the classic approach to power. Make it bigger. Turn it faster.
Improve the volumetric efficiency by helping it breath with fewer losses -
bigger carb, bigger cam, bigger manifold, bigger heads, bigger valves -
improving the design and/or size of everything that restricts flow.
 
  • Sponsors (?)


he sounds like a high school kid who just took his first physics class....I'd like him to come talk to some of the boys down here at Ohio State and see if he still thinks torque doesn't matter. What about some of these diesel trucks around. They're making like 400'ish hp and 750ish ft/lbs (#'s totally pulled out of my butt) and are putting up respectible et's. Are you attributing this to the hp or torque? I don't. And this doubling you're hp to double your accelerationg. Is he saying that if I double my stock 225 hp to 450 hp that I will improve any acceleration by half? I mean will I go from a 15 sec et to 7.5? LOL, quite comical kids.
 
He's right

The information posted is correct.

I do agree that it might seem more complicated than necessary, though. It's pretty obvious to any layman that power is more important than torque. Just compare the ET of a 428 powered Mustang to the new 4.6 liter cars. The newer cars are heavier and produce much less torque, but are a lot quicker than the dinosaur FE-powered car.

I still like the classics the best, though. There's something to be said about style.
:nice:
 
Hack said:
The information posted is correct.

I do agree that it might seem more complicated than necessary, though. It's pretty obvious to any layman that power is more important than torque. Just compare the ET of a 428 powered Mustang to the new 4.6 liter cars. The newer cars are heavier and produce much less torque, but are a lot quicker than the dinosaur FE-powered car.
:nice:
Not true either, really. My 06 Stang runs the 1/4 mile in the high 13's. About the same as the original FE Stangs, both 390 and 428's. About the same curb weight too. Mine weighs in at 3500 lbs. The real difference between the old and new are the creature comforts, handling and fuel efficiency. Mine handles like a Boss 302, is as quick as the FE Stangs were, but gets, at last check, 23+ mpg. And that's on 87 octane gas.
 
I could swear I've seen at least two different magazine articles comparing the two and the new Mustangs were faster as well as heavier. Maybe the mags were wrong.

edit: also, by the information I have the '71 Boss 351 was the fastest "classic". It was also heavier and made less torque than an earlier 428 powered Mustang.

I'm not saying that the 428 isn't a great engine with a lot of potential, just trying to make the point that power is what makes a car accelerate.
 
The Boss 351 had a pretty steep gear, 3:91, if I remember correctly. This would certainly give it an advantage over models without that steep of a gear. And the late models have an advantage thanks to the much improved grip of the new tires. You're not comparing like to like.
 
RapidRoy said:
The Boss 351 had a pretty steep gear, 3:91, if I remember correctly. This would certainly give it an advantage over models without that steep of a gear. And the late models have an advantage thanks to the much improved grip of the new tires. You're not comparing like to like.
Well you can exclude the stock tires that come on the new GT's. As for traction, they suck. On my only two drag strip trips, they were absolutely horrible. Didn't match the track at all. Wheel hopped thru 1st & 2nd with the traction control off. Just thru 1st with it on. As for rear gearing, the Boss's 3.91 was an advantage over the 05-06's 3.55's, but also I recall that the 428SCJ's also got 3.90 gears. The again the 05-06's lower first is somewhat of an equalizer here too.
 
Are we comparing engine sizes, or the power produced by them? Modern engine design with tigher tolerances, variable valve timing, electronic ignition and especially fuel injection get a LOT more out of the available displacement than the old days. Also don't forget that the ratings were different pre-insurance and fuel crisis, so even comparing torque and HP numbers isn't always apples to apples.
Unless memory fails, HP is a function of torque and RPM so you can't completely isolate the two. You just build an engine to make power where it can best be used by the application...think crotch rocket motorcycle vs. diesel truck engine. The truck engine makes much more power any way you measure it but the bike revs to 14 grand and will outrun it by a nose or so. Our cars are a bit more subtle but the principles remain the same.
 
I was wondering why the OP thought the article he quoted is BS. It makes sense to me. Horsepower wins at the drags. The quicker you go, the more that torque is the enemy. That's why there are two and three stage nitrous systems, and air clutches on the top fuelers.

There are other formulations, too. One is that it's recovery time between shifts that's most important. Larry "The Old One" Widmer espouses that one. Browse the site: http://www.theoldone.com/

At least one mag I've read says it's cylinder pressure that's most important. That's a recognition of the relationship between torque and horsepower.

As far as the inadequacies of the old school tires, the Factory Appearing Stock Tire folks are running high 10's on reproduction bias ply tires, with no traction bars allowed. Check their web site: http://www.fastraces.org/
 
Capt Dan said:
It all has to do with throttle body spacers, stickers, wings and fart cans....right?
Nope, it's the LEDs, CAIs, and spinnahs...dummy!

Regarding the 05 GTs tires...I was amazed how well they grip considering how tall and skinny they are and with a tread patter that looks like it came from a Focus. They sure aint drag tires, and not really even hi-po tires at all, but they grip better than they look like they should, and they are much better than the polyglass F70-15s that came on my FE-67-GT.
 
They are related. Torque is measured and HP is calculated. We have dynos here at work that measure torque and RPM and then calculates HP from those #'s.
HP = torque x rpm/ 5252
Meaning every dyno chart you see will have the HP and torque curves crossing at 5252 rpm or something is wrong.
 
to put it simply and truthfully, tourque area under the curve. whichever engine has the most using the same rpm range will be faster.

for a little clarifycation take a dyno torque graph and calculate the amount of area below the torque line between the useable rpm(lets say 2k to 7k) that is the work accomplished.