Torque

peasant

The torque figure on its own is totally meaningless.

If I stand on a meter long lever, I will produce 960 Nm of torque (a Bugatti Veyron has 640 Nm)

As has been previously mentioned, the rpm has to come into play to give you the bhp and then you have to throw both in together with the gearing to come to a meaningful result.

pajo1981

bbk wrote: »

At the risk of setting off a chain reaction of doom I was thinking about torque while I had my corn flakes this morning, then as I sipped my cuppa tea I remember reading at least twice something along the lines of this:
"It has a lot of torque, but that only means that you seem to be going faster then you are".

Im a bit confused at that statement. If acceleration has a large part to do with torque how can it be more of a subjective sensual thing rather then an objective contribution to faster acceleration times?

As I said I have read this a few times and Im curious to see if its a widespread opinion or even if it has some kind of truth to it.

There is NOTHING subjective about the torque-acceleration relationship. Your acceleration is EXACTLY proportional to the torque being applied to you car's wheels.

-A lot of people confuse wheel and engine torque.

Wheel torque is proportion to engine torque/gear ratio.

ask yourself how did the vtec overtake the tdi :eek: ?

pajo1981

voxpop wrote: »

Well if you are saying that in a car with 1 gear - torque wins races - then you might have a point, but for cars with more than 1 gear it seems that bhp is more important than torque.

Two Cars. One gear. Who wins?

A: By definition the car putting out the most BHP.

BHP is proportional to Torque * RPM

Think about it!

stealthyspeeder

pajo1981 wrote: »

ask yourself how did the vtec overtake the tdi :eek: ?

longer gears make make a hell of a difference in the real world, ok below 6k rpm, the V-tecs have about the same torque as hamster running in a wheel, but once it kicks in ([URL="http://img219.imageshack.us/i/vtec.jpg/][/URL]!) that exta power and length of gears makes them very quick in a straight line.

pajo1981

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

longer gears make make a hell of a difference in the real world, ok below 6k rpm, the V-tecs have about the same torque as hamster running in a wheel, but once it kicks in ([URL="http://img219.imageshack.us/i/vtec.jpg/][/URL]!) that exta power and length of gears makes them very quick in a straight line.

The vtec's gears are shorter than the tdi's. Remember the (engine-torque)/(gear-ratio) rule? The vtec has less torque, but MUCH shorter gear ratios! It therefore has greater wheel torque, and this, is why is why it overtakes the tdi.

-ed I think I see where I confused you. What I meant in my earlier post is that:

Wheel torque is proportional to engine torque DIVIDED by gear ratio.

GTE

pajo1981 wrote: »

There is NOTHING subjective about the torque-acceleration relationship. Your acceleration is EXACTLY proportional to the torque being applied to you car's wheels.

-A lot of people confuse wheel and engine torque.

Wheel torque is proportion to engine torque/gear ratio.

ask yourself how did the vtec overtake the tdi :eek: ?

No LISTEN TO ME IM CAPS LOCKING! I dont believe the statement myself.

Also peeps, Im a TDI driver, they are epic. Deal with it haha

pajo1981

bbk wrote: »

No LISTEN TO ME IM CAPS LOCKING! I dont believe the statement myself.

Also peeps, Im a TDI driver, they are epic. Deal with it haha

passats suck. 320d: a real car.

Even when you factor in a diesel's reduced rev range, a diesel will still initially produce more wheel torque in gear (when compared to a similarly powerful petrol). No-one is disputing this dumb-ass!

GTE

pajo1981 wrote: »

No-one is disputing this dumb-ass!

Calm down for Gods sake. You are putting words in my mouth for no reason.

-Chris-

pajo1981 wrote: »

passats suck. 320d: a real car.

Even when you factor in a diesel's reduced rev range, a diesel will still initially produce more wheel torque in gear (when compared to a similarly powerful petrol). No-one is disputing this dumb-ass!

Infraction given for personal abuse.

AndrewR32

-Chris- wrote: »

I honestly don't believe this.

There must have been an issue with the Skyline driver's car, or they weren't giving it socks, but all the stats say it should murder the 'teg in a straight-up drag race.

What were the conditions of this race??

Im not gonna read too much further into this thread, as i dont really have the time.

I own the 280bhp (sorry j, not 330bhp), and yes, i was beaten by the ITR.

Im not gonna sit here and make excuses, i was beaten, but it was close (2, maybe 3 car lengths)

Integra Type R's are popular for a reason, they are a crazy car, fun and fast (as with skylines)

So it is possible, and was proven that Integra Type R's can beat skylines (just maybe not my new one )

Matt Simis

I made an Excel formula for roughly working out Axle torque. I made it back in the Diesel bashing days (good times ). It shows how gear ratios completely drive the end result in torque, though in many cases Torque monsters like the VAG V10 TDI still have more effective torque (axle torque) in same and near gearing than high BHP, high RPM engines like the M3 V8:



I made one for my current car too (850CSi), showing the axle torque improvement via changing the final drive with a M3 Evo part:



As pointed out though, Torque is only a component in a fast car.

TM RACING

Torque is a difficult concept to both grasp and explain but I will give it a go.
Torque in an engine is the torsional force emitted on the drive train by the engine. A deisel engine genarly produces more torque for a number of reasons but the most relevant of them would be that deisel is a slow burning fuel when compared to petrol, as well as having a longer stroke. This means that deisel engines create a more sustaines torsional force on the crankshaft.
As an example, if you had a spanner on a seized nut would you (A) give it a series of short, fast impacts or (B) give it a slower longer more sustained impact. Yes (B) would be the better option, thus showing the torsional merits of a deisel engine.
Now to try to show torque in its physical form as another example.:
-If you were to gather a series of engines and connect each engine to a gearbox and drivetrain, then create a resistance along the drivetrain and increase it in unison with the rpm of the said engine being tested in a linear fashion, then disengage a clutch for the engine (and every engine) in an identical gear ratio. The engine that created the highest resistance on the drivetrain expressed as RPM over resistance would give you a number, and the engine that produced the highest 'number' would be the engine that created the most torque.
The best way of experincing torque (or lack of it) is to put you're veichel in top gear and accelerate from a low speed. The ability of the engine to overcome the resistance of the drivetrain (5th or 6th gear in this case) is both a measure and example of torque or torsional force. This is why a VAG 2.0 TDi will eaisly accelerate from 40mph in top gear while a 1.2 fiesta will struggle.
I know this is a bit long-winded but as Yeats once said,''I am sorry this is so long as I did not have the time to make it shorter''.;)

Armin_Tamzarian

AndrewR32 wrote: »

Im not gonna read too much further into this thread, as i dont really have the time.

I own the 280bhp (sorry j, not 330bhp), and yes, i was beaten by the ITR.

Im not gonna sit here and make excuses, i was beaten, but it was close (2, maybe 3 car lengths)

Integra Type R's are popular for a reason, they are a crazy car, fun and fast (as with skylines)

So it is possible, and was proven that Integra Type R's can beat skylines (just maybe not my new one )

So this is all your fault:mad:

/shakes fist

Sandwlch

From an old post :

Sandwich wrote: »

Sandwich wrote: »

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 wanted 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.....................;)

Sandwich wrote: »

Fishtits

Here we go again... the oldest chestnut there is.

Put simply:

The torque/power argument must be the longest running, most misunderstood, least agreed topic out there.

Torque = work, force*distance, in the case of an ICE engine it equals the instantaneous force exerted at a given radius, usually Newton Meters.

Power = the rate of doing work ie the torque produced during a time period.

Torque is measured, power is calculated.

To accelerate a car means doing work, the greater a car (engine) can do work = the greater its acceleration. More power = faster acceleration... SCIENTIFIC FACT.

the fact that turbo diesels have more "torque" low down, ie effortless for the driver masks the fact that they have more power at the same RPM vs a petrol engine.

So if you compare 1500 - 2500 in top gear acceleration of your TD with a similar "more powerful, lower torque" petrol model, the TD will be quicker. However, if you compare 1500 - 2500 of your TD with 4500 - 6500 of the petrol it would be a different story...

The bottom line is that all things being equal (gearing etc) the most powerful (bhp) will accelerate faster. Hence F1 engines.

Compare power curves to see what I mean.

PS. leave out the 5000 BHP TDI's... sigh.

GTE

Fishtits wrote: »

Here we go again... the oldest chestnut there is.

PS. leave out the 5000 BHP TDI's... sigh.

Awh be happy

Im sure the explanation you gave clears a lot up.

I wonder what Ill be thinking about tomorrow while have my corn flakes.
f*g li*h*s?
:rolleyes:

Tigger

i drive bikes
some are twins wider spread of torque less power in total
some are 4 cylinders, lower spread of torque (it starts at a much higher rev rate) but more power, need to rev to get it tho
some have exhaust valves, these spread the torque down to the bottom then open to allow the max power flow out

i drive petrol cars
6's have nice torque but rev high to give nice power good compromise
4's rev higher but are guttless down below
i also have a tdi it does great mpg

power is the abality to do work so high powered bike (150bhp) will do its work (make me go fast)
torque is the rate of change (in this case the increase in power , see the curves in this thread) of the delivery of the power. its maesured in newton meters a newton is the unit of weight the kilo being the unit of heavyness. so the number of newtons (us and the car) that can be accelerated (or powered ) along the road is measureed in torques (clarkson) but the violence of the delivery is to do with the power to weight ratio, the top speed is to do with the coefficient of drag + rolling efficiency - power ration and the awsomeness of the commonrail / turbo diesel is more about reasnobly perfortmance with high mpg than outright power

TM RACING

Tigger you are wrong.

Newtons is a vector and therefore a force, not weight.
And ''heavieness'' is not comparable to kilos.

pajo1981

TM RACING wrote: »

Tigger you are wrong.

Newtons is a vector and therefore a force, not weight.
And ''heavieness'' is not comparable to kilos.

A mass' weight is the gravitational force acting on it: a weight is a force.

An object's mass (which can be measured in kilos) is directly proportional to its wight- so, yes, 'heaviness' and kilos are comparable.