• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter reenmachine
  • Start date Start date May 20, 2006
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

reenmachine

20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 27, 2004
1,258
2
38
Montrose, CA
May 20, 2006
#1
  • May 20, 2006
  • #1
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.
 

rbohm

Founding Member
Apr 12, 2002
6,698
550
204
tucson,az
May 20, 2006
#2
  • May 20, 2006
  • #2
there is some good in that drivel, mostly the spelling of words
 

'69Mach1

New Member
Sep 17, 2005
45
0
0
Northern N.J.
May 20, 2006
#3
  • May 20, 2006
  • #3
Yea you know..Intake ,Compression....mmmTorque,Exhaust
 
8

86bluecobra

Advanced Member
Dec 20, 2004
4,265
12
69
B.C. Canada
May 20, 2006
#4
  • May 20, 2006
  • #4
hmmmmm seems like engineers try to make everything complicated. i think heads make cars go faster so do cam's gears etc etc etc. lol
 
M

mustangdave

My rearend needs a stud and two nuts.
Founding Member
Feb 26, 2002
2,976
1
56
North Carolina
May 20, 2006
#5
  • May 20, 2006
  • #5
Peak my butt; the wider the power band, the faster the car. We don't need no stinkin' formula's.
 

WantaGT

Member
Jul 13, 2003
336
0
16
ohio
May 21, 2006
#6
  • May 21, 2006
  • #6
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.
 

Hack

15 Year Member
Mar 23, 2004
1,945
13
69
Minneapolis
May 21, 2006
#7
  • May 21, 2006
  • #7
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.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
May 21, 2006
#8
  • May 21, 2006
  • #8
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Hack

15 Year Member
Mar 23, 2004
1,945
13
69
Minneapolis
May 21, 2006
#9
  • May 21, 2006
  • #9
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.
 
R

RapidRoy

New Member
Nov 25, 2004
13
0
0
May 22, 2006
#10
  • May 22, 2006
  • #10
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.
 

68keyblr

20+ Year Stangneter
Mar 17, 2003
946
20
49
Arizona
May 22, 2006
#11
  • May 22, 2006
  • #11
When comparing the old 390s and 428s to the modern 4.6 cars, don't forget to take into account that the 4.6 is giving up 100-140 cubes and *still* running at least even...
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
May 22, 2006
#12
  • May 22, 2006
  • #12
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
6

67CoupeDriva

Member
Mar 15, 2004
165
0
16
South Carolina
May 23, 2006
#13
  • May 23, 2006
  • #13
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.
 

Capt Dan

New Member
Mar 31, 2005
237
0
0
College Station, Texas
May 23, 2006
#14
  • May 23, 2006
  • #14
It all has to do with throttle body spacers, stickers, wings and fart cans....right?















 
1

180 Out

Member
Jul 23, 2005
375
0
16
May 23, 2006
#15
  • May 23, 2006
  • #15
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/
 
6

66nightMARE

New Member
Nov 26, 2004
97
0
0
Katy, Texas
May 24, 2006
#16
  • May 24, 2006
  • #16
Money = Fast

There. No need for all that complicated stuff.
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
May 24, 2006
#17
  • May 24, 2006
  • #17
Capt Dan said:
It all has to do with throttle body spacers, stickers, wings and fart cans....right?
Click to expand...
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.
 

68rustang

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
Cleveland, OH
May 24, 2006
#18
  • May 24, 2006
  • #18
I could swear I remember something somewhere about Horsepower and Torque being related...
 

Vinyl66

Member
Mar 21, 2004
398
0
16
May 24, 2006
#19
  • May 24, 2006
  • #19
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.
 

ashford

Member
Dec 19, 2003
485
0
16
fargo ND
May 25, 2006
#20
  • May 25, 2006
  • #20
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.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
SOLD For Sale: 1993 Ford Mustang Cobra Modified
  • anjteal93
  • Sep 5, 2025
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Oct 26, 2025
Mindseye007
R
What's it Worth? 1997 Cobra, a ton of mods and restoration
  • riored97snake
  • Jun 18, 2026
  • What is it Worth?!?!?
Replies
2
Views
271
What is it Worth?!?!? Jun 21, 2026
riored97snake
R
SN95 The Unicorn
  • HANO Motorsports
  • May 18, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
21
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Aug 15, 2025
HANO Motorsports
SOLD SOLD!!!! 1993 Notchback Roadracer For Sale. She's a beast!
  • Boydster
  • Apr 25, 2025
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
0
Views
1K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Apr 25, 2025
Boydster
Which one of these 3 intakes make the most sense for my 331 combo
  • from6to8
  • Jul 25, 2024
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
7
Views
2K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jul 26, 2024
AeroCoupe
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?