Official 'Let's discuss Torque vs HP thread...

Edbert · Dec 20, 2004

Torque shows up most in the 0-60, HP takes over from there...

2nd Mustang · Dec 20, 2004

ratio411 said:
I assume you have a dual plane intake?

Dave

Btw: I wouldn't get too radical with removing check balls from your carb. That kinda defeats the purpose of softening the secondary side IMO.

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.

ratio411 · Dec 21, 2004

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

2nd Mustang · Dec 21, 2004

ratio411 said:
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

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.

10secgoal · Dec 21, 2004

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.

bnickel · Dec 21, 2004

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.

geneos5546 · Feb 11, 2006

well to the hp or torq i think torq gets ya going hp keeps you there

10secgoal · Feb 12, 2006

geneos5546 said:
well to the hp or torq i think torq gets ya going hp keeps you there

What the DUECE ?!?!?!

72grande · Feb 12, 2006

TQ is fun, HP is fast.

jerry S · Feb 12, 2006

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.

Hack · Feb 12, 2006

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!

jerry S · Feb 12, 2006

Hack said:
In any NA performance engine, horsepower will be greater than torque.

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:
To me built for torque is just code for low performance and reliable. Not bad, just also not high performance.

My own "built for torque" engine is pretty HIPO, IMO.

10secgoal · Feb 12, 2006

jerry S 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.

Most cars don't. Mine doesn't. You start getting more HP than torque usually when you start to spin things really fast.

jerry s said:
My own "built for torque" engine is pretty HIPO, IMO.

jerry s said:
The most succinct explanation I have heard to date is that HP wins on the dyno whle torque wins at the track.

Read the sig baby !

DarkoStoj · Feb 12, 2006

ratio nice to see you posting again, why havent you been around lately?

10secgoal · Feb 12, 2006

DarkoStoj said:
ratio nice to see you posting again, why havent you been around lately?

He isn't. Somebody posted on a thread that is over 1 year old.

Hack · Feb 13, 2006

jerry S 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.

My own "built for torque" engine is pretty HIPO, IMO.

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 · Feb 14, 2006

Hack 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.

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.

Hack said:
I'm guessing you have a LOT of cubes, so while you have high torque you also have high weight.

Nope, just a 358W so not so much weight.

Hack said:
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.

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">

72grande · Feb 14, 2006

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.

jerry S · Feb 14, 2006

72grande said:
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.

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.

72grande · Feb 14, 2006

jerry S said:
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.

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.

Official 'Let's discuss Torque vs HP thread...

Edbert

Attachments

2nd Mustang

ratio411

2nd Mustang

10secgoal

Active Member

Attachments

bnickel

geneos5546

New Member

10secgoal

Active Member

72grande

jerry S

New Member

Hack

jerry S

New Member

10secgoal

Active Member

DarkoStoj

10secgoal

Active Member

Hack

jerry S

New Member

72grande

jerry S

New Member

72grande

Similar threads

Official 'Let's discuss Torque vs HP thread...

Attachments

Active Member

Attachments

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency