|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 339
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 339 |
IIRC torque helps handling, and since i have a honda i dont have that much torque and i dont like it,so i went with torque.
91' civic sedan.iceman CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,701
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,701 |
You guys are too technical 
Nick
2000 Malibu LS
Mods: K&N, Jet-PCM
Lowered with Eibach's and on 18's,Clear Sidemarkers,Tinted all around, badgeless
Retired Vehicles: 98 Contour
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 308
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 308 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
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.. What brand would that be...the zetec seems to be excellent in that respect. I drove a 96 Jetta w/4 and it was terrible had no power (or more correctly torque, I guess) until it was time to shift.
1996 Contour GL Sport, Zetec, MTX
1995 Contour GL, Zetec, MTX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,066
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,066 |
Originally posted by Saturn_k1: You guys are too technical haha, quality.
STD's are like Pokemon...
Gotta catch em' all!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,461
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,461 |
I realize this is hypothetical, but is that a tradeoff that happens in the real world? Does tuning an engine for high-rpm horsepower actually take away low-end torque (or take away enough low-end torque to matter?). I don't think it does, unless the engine is REALLY small and doesn't deliver much torque to begin with; if that's the case, I'll pass on both of them! Brian Originally posted by svtcarboy:
I think same displacement was assumed in the question. Basically it was "if all other things are equal, which would you take?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3 |
The 2.3L Saab Viggen engine is a small displacement with nearlt 260 lf./ft. of torque & 230 h.p. Not a bad split.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 515
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 515 |
Large diesels have lots of torque. A typical Mack engine is 237 HP, 1200 FT./LBs of Torque @ 2100 RPM (673 CID)
Put a 60000 lb. weight on a 3L CSVT and on a Mack Truck. Guess who is moving first.
When I was driving, a gas engine tractor (about 300 HP, 400 TQ (428 CID) with no trailer (Bobtail) will out accelerate a Diesel Engine tractor (237 HP, 1200 Tq). Higher top speed too. Hitch up and load up and the gas engine is left far behind (Especially on grades).
So, say, a Contour with 200HP, 300Tq. would be beat by a 300HP , 200TQ Contour with only a driver.
Load the trunk with Audio, put 4 adults (in the seats, not the trunk)in and suddenly the 200HP, 300 Tq Contour feels a lot nicer.
Pick your poison...
Most days, I want the Tq.
Got a load, need torque.
"My Name is Richard. I am a Contouraholic."
1999 SE Sport Duratec ATX Spruce Green; Drop--In K&N Filter; VentShades;
Fog Lamp Fix Mod & PIAA510s with Bumper Braces & Stock Type aiming screw mod;
PIAA 9006 Super White Headlamps
AIWA CDC-MP3 HU; WeatherTech Mats
Viper 600ESP w/Remote entry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 705
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 705 |
Torque and a couple extra gears.
Ryan
Toreador Red
1998 SVT #2843
"Performance in the hands of few"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,636
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,636 |
I didn't see it posted here, but here it is: HP = torque * RPM/5252 So a big engine that has lots of torque, can make horsepower without a lot of revs. So if you have a nice flat torque curve, you will have more and more horsepower as the RPMs climb. This has probably been posted before, but it does some of the math on this whole torque/horsepower game. http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html Around town, I like my 87 LeSabre, because it can get off the line easily, but falls flat at speed. The SVT pulls so darn hard to the redline, but is so easy to bog starting out. Provides enough displacement for respectible low end torque (for 2.5L) but is really fun from 3.5K to 7K  TB
Tony Boner Personal: 98cdw27@charter.net Work: tony.boner@sun.com Saving the computer world from WinBloze as Unix/Solaris/Java Guru http://www.sun.com 1998 Contour SVT Pre-E1 618/6535 Born On Date: 4/30/1997 Now with Aussie Bar induced mild oversteer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329 |
I want my power curves; just moved up 150 each respectively... Is that too much to ask... So I guess I prefer steady curves vs a high peak of either...
|
|
|
|
|
