Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,053
M
MarkO Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,053
All other things being equal in a car, what would your preference be; more torque which is more useful on a day to day driving basis or more horsepower which is advantageous for spirited driving ???

Example : SVT with 200HP&300lb/ft or SVT with 300HP&200lb/ft


'98 Mystique LS V6 MTX

"Unprofessional driver, wide open course."
#9 - Hitting .400 for ever
"Wake up the damn Bambino; I'll drill him in the ass." -- Pedro Martinez
"The MTX75 was not designed to be a drag racing transmission" -- Terry Haines
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,244
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,244
Even split


'95 Contour GL, zetec mtx, drop in K&N, exhaust res removed, 4 10" Kenwoods powered by 1000W Visonik amp, 4 5"x7"/6"x8" Visoniks

"Buy American or apply for Japanese welfare."

www.geocities.com/fordcontour05/contour.html
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,961
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,961
Too complicated of a question to be a poll. Depends on how much of one I'm giving up for how much of the other, depends on how each is distributed amongst the powerband (I'd give up some peak for a level powerband), depends on the gearing and other parts of the car.

Can't answer that one, but if the swing was 100 each way, I'd look for an engineer that can split the difference 250/250, for example.


You can pillage an enemy once, but a customer is an endless resource.

James Oerichbauer - PFPC Global Fund Services

Ross: 1998 E0 SVT Contour, Toreador Red, Konis, Superchip, KKM w/heat shield, SHO-shop y-pipe and rear strut brace, no res, ScotchCal, Moda Sport 16x7.5 wheels with 205/55ZR16 Dayton Dayton tires... more
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,461
Q
qaz Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Q
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,461
Isn't that kinda like asking voltage or wattage, your preference?

(wattage (power) is voltage times current, as horse *power* is torque x rpm divded by 5250, IIRC)

Generally speaking, though, an engine that makes lots of torque (but not so much horsepower) is probably a larger displacement engine that can usually be modified rather easily for lots of horsepower (because it's volumetric efficiency at higher RPMs is poor, increase VE and you have more torque at higher RPMs, hence more horsepower)

An engine that makes lots of horsepower (compared to it's displacement) is obviously running a very good VE at higher RPMs and increasing that will typically require more drastic modifications (nitrous or forced induction).

volumetric efficiency=how much air the cylinders are filled with at wide-open-throttle at a given speed. Typically given as a percentage.

I'm sure if I'm wrong about any of this or unclear someone will offer corrections/clarifications smile

Brian

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,461
Q
qaz Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Q
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,461
I'd rather have more torque, since that would mean a larger-displacement engine and hence could be modified for more horsepower rather easily.

Brian

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,598
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,598
An engine's tq figures are largely irrelevant. They simply describe how large the motor is for the most part and how it should be geared. Power is the operator and tells you how much and how efficiently gas and air are being burned and converted into mechanical work per unit time.


\'94 Cobra #4963/5009, black on black, not quite stock
Formerly owned a black '00 SVT, #1972
Join the SVTOA!
RIP - Ray "Old Fart Emeritus" McNairy
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,248
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,248
I would like the best "area under the curve" in the relevent rev range, HP or tourque - no difference.

Another way to phrase your question is: do you prefer tourque that peaks early & falls off (yielding lower peak power but improved off the line & low RPM driveability) OR a flat tourque curve with a lower "plateau" (more than peak) but that is maintained higher into the rev range (yielding higher peak power)? The latter gives the feeling of "revabilty" which I like so that is my pick..Also, I think it is more appropriate to FWD cars which suffer from torque steer with too much torque (which corrupts steering feel) and difficulty getting big low RPM torque effectively to the pavement. RWD/AWD much better for big tourque. A minimum of low RPM tourque is nice for around town improved driveabilty/avoid excessive shifting in town - a problem with many small 4-bangers of a certain brand..


1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
Stock SVT Duratec V6 with:
Intake- K&N filter/75mm MAF meter
Exhaust- MSDS Y-pipe/Bassani catback
Durability-Ford "dual mode" damper, Mobil 1/K&N oil filter
179.2 FWHP at 6900 RPM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,961
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,961
Quote:
Originally posted by qaz:
I'd rather have more torque, since that would mean a larger-displacement engine and hence could be modified for more horsepower rather easily.

Brian
I think same displacement was assumed in the question. Basically it was "if all other things are equal, which would you take?"


You can pillage an enemy once, but a customer is an endless resource.

James Oerichbauer - PFPC Global Fund Services

Ross: 1998 E0 SVT Contour, Toreador Red, Konis, Superchip, KKM w/heat shield, SHO-shop y-pipe and rear strut brace, no res, ScotchCal, Moda Sport 16x7.5 wheels with 205/55ZR16 Dayton Dayton tires... more
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,053
M
MarkO Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Bassen:
An engine's tq figures are largely irrelevant. They simply describe how large the motor is for the most part and how it should be geared. Power is the operator and tells you how much and how efficiently gas and air are being burned and converted into mechanical work per unit time.
Steve, I disagree. I am not an engineer so feel free to correct me but isn't torque what gets you away from the lights, helps you overtake a slow truck on a hill after you've been stuck behind it, etc ?? A powerful but low torque engine is a lot less flexible to drive compared to a torquey engine that can "pull" at a wide range of revs.

Think of Vtec's, plenty of power but they need to be kept running high in the rev range to make the most of the engine. Something such as a Duratec generates a good deal of power itself but also a good deal of torque, therefore making them more flexible for day to day driving. On a twisty, undulating back road, a Vtec will need plenty of gear changes to keep it at it's peak power output compared to a Duratec.

I didn't intend this to be a big deal of a poll, it's just that diesel engines which are inherently torquey are becoming increasingly more refined and popular (even Alpina have made a diesel) and I just wanted to see what people's opinion's here in the US are regarding hp vs tq.

If none of the above makes sense, forgive me, I'm going on 27 hours awake.... frown


'98 Mystique LS V6 MTX

"Unprofessional driver, wide open course."
#9 - Hitting .400 for ever
"Wake up the damn Bambino; I'll drill him in the ass." -- Pedro Martinez
"The MTX75 was not designed to be a drag racing transmission" -- Terry Haines
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 101
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 101
I do mostly city driving and prefer that kick-in-the-butt feel that torque delivers off the line.

So...why do i own a CSVT? Good question!!! lol


Jim
98 EO CSVT #761
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  GTO Pete, Trapps_dup1 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5