Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

BHP V's Torque

Options
13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 690 ✭✭✭VH


    peasant wrote: »
    example: Saab's 2.3 turbo petrols. They have a relatively modest bhp of just over 200 ...yet they out-accelerate a 911 from 80 km/h to 120 km/h.
    in what gear - this isnt one of those "out accelerate in top gear" arguments i hope?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    VH wrote: »
    Ok - basically the diesel owners say diesel/torque is the best and the petrol owners say petrol/power is the best - except Biro

    I have both! An elderly petrol coupe which I cane and a modern diesel which brings me to work and back with no fuss!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,703 ✭✭✭Mr.David


    maidhc wrote: »
    I have both!

    Everyone has both, you cannot have one without the other :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    VH wrote: »
    in what gear -

    ask Jeremy :D



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 690 ✭✭✭VH


    reverse


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    peasant wrote: »
    Well ...but torque does matter.

    example: Saab's 2.3 turbo petrols. They have a relatively modest bhp of just over 200 ...yet they out-accelerate a 911 from 80 km/h to 120 km/h.

    Yes, the 911 has the higher top speed and possibly (don't know) a better 0- 100 time too. But the mid range acceleration is what counts in real life, on actual roads with tractors and speed limits.

    So don't dismiss torque completely.

    At 80km/h the 911 is probably going from 2nd to 3rd gear. Tractors don't do 80km/h, so I reckon for overtaking a tractor a 911 in 2nd gear is still quicker than a Saab 2.3 turbo. From 100km/h to 140km/h my money would be on the 911 too!
    On the other hand you could just get a 911 turbo and shut the Saab driver up for good.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,261 ✭✭✭robbie99


    peasant wrote: »
    Well ...but torque does matter.

    example: Saab's 2.3 turbo petrols. They have a relatively modest bhp of just over 200 ...yet they out-accelerate a 911 from 80 km/h to 120 km/h.

    Yes, the 911 has the higher top speed and possibly (don't know) a better 0- 100 time too. But the mid range acceleration is what counts in real life, on actual roads with tractors and speed limits.

    So don't dismiss torque completely.

    I wouldn't dismiss over what rev range good torque is available or how flat a torque curve is because this what makes an engine more flexible and driveable. But the actual torque at the crankshaft, on it's own, is meaningless. Engine torque ends up going through a gearbox and depending on the gearing, the torque is reduced before going to the wheels. Even at the wheel, the size of the tyre affects how the torque ends up being converted to the force that drives the car on. Then it's f=ma and all that. Torque at the crankshaft on its own is meaningless. Engine torque combined with gearing ratio and tyre size is relevant as you need all three to figure out what force there is to accelarate the car. Nobody says "well my car has bigger wheels than yours so I must have better midrange acceleration". Funnily enough Massey Fergusons have torquey engines and big wheels I guess they've great real life performance :D. Actually I've just realised that size of wheel would have an inversely proprtional effect on acceleration but still the point is still there that you need to combine all three before you can feel its effect on a car. Same point really as that BHP already encompasses torque because engine power is a function of both torque and engine speed.

    Anyway, the Saab v Porche... Watched the video... JC claims the Saab out accelerates a porche 911 turbo 40mph - 70mph. No mention of what inappropriate gear they were stuck in or claims about the virtues of torquey engines. It can't be the torque that's giving the Saab the alleged better performance cause it actually has less! You're not trolling by any chance peasant? :)

    From Parkers....

    http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=34406

    Porche 911 turbo
    Engine Size 3600 cc
    Cylinders6
    0-60 mph3.8 s
    Power Output473 bhp
    Valves24
    Torque680 Nm 502 lb-ft
    Top Speed193 mph


    http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=40117

    Saab 9-5 2.3 turbo
    Engine Size2290 cc
    Cylinders4
    0-60 mph6.5 s
    Power Output256 bhp
    Valves16
    Torque350 Nm 258 lb-ft
    Top Speed155 mph


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    robbie99 wrote: »
    I wouldn't dismiss over what rev range good torque is available or how flat a torque curve is because this what makes an engine more flexible and driveable. But the actual torque at the crankshaft, on it's own, is meaningless. Engine torque ends up going through a gearbox and depending on the gearing, the torque is reduced before going to the wheels. Even at the wheel, the size of the tyre affects how the torque ends up being converted to the force that drives the car on. Then it's f=ma and all that. Torque at the crankshaft on its own is meaningless. Engine torque combined with gearing ratio and tyre size is relevant as you need all three to figure out what force there is to accelarate the car. Nobody says "well my car has bigger wheels than yours so I must have better midrange acceleration". Funnily enough Massey Fergusons have torquey engines and big wheels I guess they've great real life performance :D. Actually I've just realised that size of wheel would have an inversely proprtional effect on acceleration but still the point is still there that you need to combine all three before you can feel its effect on a car. Same point really as that BHP already encompasses torque because engine power is a function of both torque and engine speed.

    Anyway, the Saab v Porche... Watched the video... JC claims the Saab out accelerates a porche 911 turbo 40mph - 70mph. No mention of what inappropriate gear they were stuck in or claims about the virtues of torquey engines. It can't be the torque that's giving the Saab the alleged better performance cause it actually has less! You're not trolling by any chance peasant? :)

    From Parkers....

    http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=34406

    Porche 911 turbo
    Engine Size 3600 cc
    Cylinders6
    0-60 mph3.8 s
    Power Output473 bhp
    Valves24
    Torque680 Nm 502 lb-ft
    Top Speed193 mph


    http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=40117

    Saab 9-5 2.3 turbo
    Engine Size2290 cc
    Cylinders4
    0-60 mph6.5 s
    Power Output256 bhp
    Valves16
    Torque350 Nm 258 lb-ft
    Top Speed155 mph

    Good post, but I doubt he was talking about the 911 turbo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    peasant wrote: »
    At the end of the day it is largely a question of driving style. It can be fun to wring your (petrol) cars' neck and scream around at the redline and it can be equally fun to just put the foot down from low revs and enjoy the punch in the back (brief as it is in a diesel)
    Or you could drive a turbo petrol (or, as unkel suggested, a very large NA petrol) and have both.:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,261 ✭✭✭robbie99


    I don't want to turn this into a diesel v petrol topic but but let me tell you that I drive a diesel myself - a 320d. I know a lot people (with real life experiences unlike nerdy me) feel that they get better 'mid range' acceleration with their diesel engines than they were experiencing with petrol engines and they put this down to the torque that the engine produces. Well the thing is that most drivers do not like to drive with their engines at high revs because of the screeching noise or fuel economy or whatever. It would be usual for a normal driver not to rev much more than 4k in a petrol car even during hard acceleration. When such driver switches to diesel and drives the diesel the same way as they were driving the petrol i.e. up to 4k during acceleration they are now using the FULL rev range of the diesel and getting the full performance potential out of it. It's just that drivers feel more comfortable using the full revs of a diesel than a petrol and that's why diesel feels faster even though hard figures like 0-60 and top speed prove otherwise.

    OP needs to take a test drive to check which feels best for him.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    All I'm saying is not to dismiss torque outright as meaningless. Given the choice between two cars with equal-ish bhp, I personally would prefer the one with the higher torque figure as it is more likely to give you power where you can comfortably use it on the road.

    that's all ...not interested in pissing contests


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    Sorry, guys but torque really does matter in everyday driving. A big flat torque curve means the car responds at all speeds in all gears. A peaky curve means more work for the driver to keep it on the boil. And, no, in real life you can't drive a type-r around in first gear all the time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 690 ✭✭✭VH


    Zube wrote: »
    A big flat torque curve
    isnt a curve - its a plateau
    maidhc wrote:
    I have both! An elderly petrol coupe which I cane and a modern diesel which brings me to work and back with no fuss!
    sounds like your prefer the diesel tho


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭kuro_man




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 690 ✭✭✭VH


    best explanation is:
    more power = more fun
    more torque = more torque


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,261 ✭✭✭robbie99


    peasant wrote: »
    All I'm saying is not to dismiss torque outright as meaningless. Given the choice between two cars with equal-ish bhp, I personally would prefer the one with the higher torque figure as it is more likely to give you power where you can comfortably use it on the road.

    that's all ...not interested in pissing contests

    This makes sense and I agree with what you're saying saying here :D. I note that you're choosing between cars of equal-ish bhp so in effect you're looking at the BHP first before going on to consider the torque. Where you have equally powerful engines, the one that produces the most torque will tend have that torque lower down in the rev range thus making the car more comfortable to drive - like a diesel!
    Zube wrote: »
    Sorry, guys but torque really does matter in everyday driving. A big flat torque curve means the car responds at all speeds in all gears. A peaky curve means more work for the driver to keep it on the boil. And, no, in real life you can't drive a type-r around in first gear all the time.

    I agree with what you're saying here about the big flat torque curve, how it helps the car respond, keeping a peeky one on the boil, driving around everywhere in first gear, etc, but when I've being saying that torque is meaningless I mean the actual figure for the maximum torque as in the OP is meaningless on its own. The torque curve IS meaningful for assessing what the drivabillity of the engine could be like, for all the reasons you mention.

    :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭maidhc


    VH wrote: »

    sounds like your prefer the diesel tho

    I probably do. Even though the petrol has more power (98 bhp standard, but modded to over 130) than the 115bhp diesel, it is just easier and less demanding to drive the diesel. I don't claim either car is exceptionally quick, but even though the Capri is quicker to do a sprint at the lights, overtaking is more involved, and it loses momentum waaaay quicker on a hill and you have to go digging in the gearbox to get going.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭JimmyCrackCorn!


    Bit of reading for those people who cant sleep.:rolleyes:

    Torque Vs Horspower
    http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭HashSlinging


    Rumor has it subaru are talking about bringing out a 300hp version of their horizontally-opposed diesel engine, to slot into the WRX. I think that would end all arguments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,718 ✭✭✭Matt Simis


    Rumor has it subaru are talking about bringing out a 300hp version of their horizontally-opposed diesel engine, to slot into the WRX. I think that would end all arguments.


    Why? It would be far from the most powerful diesel engine on the market, whats it going to bring?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,686 ✭✭✭JHMEG


    Matt Simis wrote: »
    Why? It would be far from the most powerful diesel engine on the market, whats it going to bring?
    A 300bhp diesel WRX! How about sounding like a huge bag of spanners, creating huge clouds of heavy particulates, making huge amounts of school children asthmatic, and all the while getting 40 miles per gallon? ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,590 ✭✭✭tossy


    Rumor has it subaru are talking about bringing out a 300hp version of their horizontally-opposed diesel engine, to slot into the WRX. I think that would end all arguments.

    The audi le mans winning TDI car didnt end any arguments,it only started more,the scooby turf burner wil do the same :D

    You can say what you like but BHP is figure that matters,if you drive a petrol engine like it should be driven not changing gears at 4000rpm then it will feel(read actually be faster) than any diesel of equivelant mass,colour,shape,lenght,height..... the red line,rev limiter is there for a reason its a target :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭HashSlinging


    Matt Simis wrote: »
    Why? It would be far from the most powerful diesel engine on the market, whats it going to bring?

    LOL yeah the "most powerful" diesel engine has been reserved for the VW V10 which is supposed to weigh a ton and be fairly crap at the same time. A WRX impreza will be all those things but weigh half that R50 your talking about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,718 ✭✭✭Matt Simis


    LOL yeah the "most powerful" diesel engine has been reserved for the VW V10 which is supposed to weigh a ton and be fairly crap at the same time. A WRX impreza will be all those things but weigh half that R50 your talking about.


    Your like the assumption king arent you?

    a) I was referring to the V12 TDI
    b) I have a V10 TDI in a car, not SUV. "Supposed to be crap" hmm? The engine is gushed over on most forums, it pulls my 2.6 ton car with compariable performance to the W12 petrol engine I could have chose with about 80% better MPG and fuel that costs EUR1.10 a litre and isnt smoging up the road either.
    c) I never even mentioned the Touareg R50 and you dont need the R50 version to get a Touareg with a V10 engine, the standard V10 has been out it since 2003.


    "A WRX impreza will be all those things but weigh half that R50 your talking about"
    So in your own words its a half ton engine in a 1200kg car (in petrol form) thats all crap? Way to make coherent points..?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭HashSlinging


    WOW The V12 TDi then LOL Probably going into the R8??!! I'm talking about a rally bred hatchback, not a diesel supercar..

    Nice use of lettering points. I bet your a real MS word king in the office.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 690 ✭✭✭VH


    i've seen a v10 tdi phaeton in action and boy can they move - smokey but very fast


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,718 ✭✭✭Matt Simis


    WOW The V12 TDi then LOL Probably going into the R8??!! I'm talking about a rally bred hatchback, not a diesel supercar..
    No, you were talking about engines.
    Nice use of lettering points. I bet your a real MS word king in the office.

    Lol, oh touché sir, with a dry cool wit like that you could be an action hero.
    Maybe try considering where you are going with a point before hammering away on that chew proof keyboard.

    mykeyboard.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 65,448 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    Nice use of lettering points. I bet your a real MS word king in the office.

    Play the ball - not the man, HashSlinging


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭Sandwich


    The competitive nature of evolution leaves the human male with an inate psychological trait - the desire to see who is the alpha male.

    He does this by waving his around and claiming his is the biggest.
    How has this been measured?
    By length.
    Longest is best. Longest wins. Longest performs the best and is what they want from a man.
    Which was fine. Everybody understands length. Yes, cripes, would you look at the length of his - kudos to him. Still mines long enough. Havent heard many complaints. And I know its a lot longer than plenty of other guys'.
    And so it went along fine for many years. Fair play to the guy with the long one.

    But then some clever guy (engineer or something) came up with another idea - its all about girth.
    Girth? WTF is that, most of the males asked.
    Well its complicated, but girth is what really matters. And by the way, would you look at the girth of mine!
    Looks rather short to me, cant see what you're on about.
    Would you forget you're obsession with length, just feel the girth. (Outch! Easy!)

    A long discussion ensued.
    Eventually, after much to and fro about units of measurement, could you convert length to girth, is his long one better than his big girth, most of the men had a rough understanding of the concept of girth.

    So the discussion moved on : how do we determines who's got the better one now that the time honoured measurement has a rival - by length or girth?
    Length, length, length, claimed some. Its always been length and that what really matters.
    Aha, said one of the girth supporters : They dont really care about length at all. We've been wrong since the dawn of time. What they really want is girth.
    Yeh, claimed another, thats right. Infact, you give a lot more satisfaction, for a lot less effort if you have great girth.
    Ah, said the length group, but how do you measure performance? Form a standing start, or when you are already moving along nicely?
    And so on.
    And so on.
    And so on.

    Guys : It doesnt really matter - as long as you have a reasonable amount ot both : It gets the job done.....................;)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭HashSlinging


    classic.


Advertisement