High revs vs High torque

I would say both like the Enzo's V12...

 

Torque is really all the driver actually feels, and to me that's all that's important.

Here's a great primer on both torque and horsepower:
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Of course, HP and TQ are not at odds with each other:

HP = TQ * RPM / 5252.

Dynamometers, for example, don't actually measure horsepower. Instead, they extrapolate it based on measured torque and engine speed.

--Matt

 

Oh, I'm definitely sure I did!

Since you mention it, why not? Road car vs sports car comparisons in a real world scenerios always makes for interesting conversation! I'll never forget what happens to a 355 that downshifts at wide open throttle when confronted by 400lbs of torque above speed limits. It quickly goes from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock.

Sunny

 

They calculate it. They do not extrapolate it. As you stated, there is a clear arithmetical relationship between horsepower and torque. Projecting torque beyond where the dyno run terminated based on a curve fit would be an extrapolation of the measured data. Minor point but, nevertheless, true.

 

Finally high revs is catching up.

Remember, High torque is for those who are too lazy to downshift

 

Not so fast. When you talk of torque multiplication through gearing to provide a seat of the pants feel, lets keep in mind its the constant application of torque that provides the acceleration.

A comparison involving a low revving torquey engine vs a high revving one taking gearing into consideration gearing, a low revving one will provide a bigger initial thrust of torque and be geared lower to provide a longer lasting "wave."

Its also being elluded to that its not common for a high revving high torque engine to last as long as low revving high torque engine.

If you play near railroad tracks, remember, in most cases the train wins.

Sunny

 

Does that mean high revs are for those who like to sound like they are going fast?

Sunny

 

Only because the threads get ugly

See: torque vs hp for 360 replacement

And one we prepared even earlier :Tell me about driving around at high RPM

It is one of those concepts that many people just cannot get. I believe that is is this simple:

What gearboxes enable is a high power engine to produce more rear wheel torque through torque multiplication through the gears. Note it is the torque that is multiplied not the power.

These facts are valid: High power engines do not produce high torque low down in the rev range. High torque engines that produce torque in the useful for a road car rev range do not produce big power at high rpm. Engineers are making hugh gains with spreading the torque curve, but you will never see a full race engine producing massive torque at say 2000 rpm.

Without gearboxes a high torque engine would be the only way to get a car moving and have a decent cruising speed ... you would have to slip the clutch for ages to get going (BTW: Slipping the clutch is a method of torque multiplication, ie. you are adding a gear ratio) if you did not have enough torque at low rpm.

For those that do not think torque is the accelerating force, look no further than trucks. Trucks weighing something like 60 tonnes can accelerate nearly as fast as a little economy car. Thanks to NO power engines (ie. the torque curve is very short) they have to change gears often, but a high power low torque engine would not even move the truck without another 100 gears. I have actually shared a race track with a racing truck and I can tell you that those suckers DO accelerate when unleased from their trailors and tweaked ... but they still have less power than a 360 Ferrari, but something like 4 times the torque (guessed).

Cheers
Pete ... but this thread is going to get ugly if it keeps tunnelling in this direction. The torque versus Hp debate is like saying you are hopeless in bed ... deep set views that are cast in stone for many.

 

why choose???? the big break thru w/ Porsche turbos was "square" engines. with equal HP/T, ie, the 996 GT2: 462 HP. 452 ftlbs T. this is a exciting combo. in the P world we have this discussion between GT2's and 3's.

having owned a lot of square engined cars [428 cobra, 8 P turbo's 79-03], they add extra performance largely
--in steep mtn driving as the T gets you out of the hairpins so much faster than a hi rev engine and
-- repeated redline acceleration 2,3,4,5,6 gear on tracks like Nring, or open road running across Panamint/Death Valley, CA/NV/AZ empty 2 lane kind a thing where a GT2 provides a thrill that will have you cackling with GLEE.

but the throttle response of a high [8200] rev NA engine is a great joy, and a blast on the track and in general. it's takes lots of mountain uphill or open road hammering to really use the power of a GT2, and turbos weigh more... the 350-375 lb difference between the Stradale and my GT2's is very noticeable in the heavy bumps of my mountain roads, and part of why i'll take the CS's handling any day for my daily routes... [not that a gt2 isnt an AMAZING handler on a smoother road or track, with grip that will scare you silly]

but maybe i just need a change from my torque addiction..... both riffs are FUN

 

Omar,

We need to get you a drive in my car and ask you again, I think you'll find the answer is "downshifts, we don't need no stinkin downshifts"....but it's a feerari so it a long way to an up shift too

 

Cheers Brian.

 

Wow. I took a look at that thread; it had the gruesome appeal (and the unstoppable momentum) of a train wreck. Although it made me feel a little unclean and even embarrassed when it was all over.

The bluster and false bravado on Teak's part was pretty amazing. ("Prove me wrong and you can have my 360!") Isn't there something a little crass in wagering one's Ferrari over the internet? Particularly when he later claims sactuary in some loose loopholes of ambiguity?

Unfortunately, that's the way a lot of people act over the internet. Meanwhile, they wouldn't dare act that way in person. It's a haven for passive-agressive types. And (I hate to say) it seems like FerrariChat has more than its fair share of quei tipi, ones that reveal a little too much of themselves when their strong personal opinions bubble over.

But, then again, that's what makes it fun!

--Matt

 

Brilliant description

Pete

 

I think Michael Schumacher can answer this question best for us. Naturally aspirated 3.0 with 950hp at 20,000 rpms. Who needs torque?

 

If I could only have one, I suppose I would be forced to take torque, but there are too many cars out there can that provide both in abundance, so why sacrifice?

If you have ever driven a C4 Vette, it pulls hard from just above idle but really falls flat above 5000 rpm, very uninspiring and truck-like. I would much rather drive a BMW M3, which has less power in general, but pulls hard to its redline and has more than enough torque. The same can be said for any Ferrari V-12 and the more recent V-8s.

 

Owning an NSX, a 360 CS, and an S2000 (all high revvers, lower torque), plus also a 996 Turbo (more torque, powerband in the middle), I think the answer is yes to both, depending on what you're doing.

On the street, cruising around town, I like the 996 turbo. It has the torque, the powerband is closeby, and the AWD is nice, safe (especially if raining or you hit some gravel). Likewise, having driven a Viper quite a bit, I can think of no other car more suited for street racing (not that I support any such horrible evil illegal activity, heh) because you are ALWAYS in your powerband due to all the torque, etc. For instance, just today a guy in a supercharged NSX approached me on the freeway from the rear while I was in the 360 CS, crusing in 6th gear. I punched it, forgetting like a moron that I wasn't in my powerband so I didn't double click down into 4th, and he passed me (barely). That said, I've also been at, say, Buttonwillow in my 996 turbo and had guys in S2000s (some might have been supercharged, dunno) obtain a better exit velocity out of a corner onto a straight and pass me (going back to the old adage: the driver matters far more than the specs of the car -- these guys clearly were far better drivers than me).

That said, on the track, where you can hold yourself in the powerband and really rev the car and such, I think the high rev lower torque cars are the way to go, especially when exiting turns after the apex... you don't want a ton of torque screwing you up as you accelerate out of a turn. (That's not to say you can't drive a Viper or 996 Turbo/GT2 on the track and fast -- I think it takes more skill, though).

So I think there are positives to both. Personally, my Zanardi NSX is more 'fun' even on the road than the 996 turbo, despite the HP and torque shortcomings, because the ride is so much more visceral. That said, I love the 996 for the AWD, PSM, etc. and for the fact that I can park it without drawing a crowd.

So, bottom line, they're both great, depending on the situation and what you want out of a car. The only cars I would 'mock' per se are the ones with more torque than HP (e.g. the old muscle cars, or a newer salen mustang or some such) that just peel rubber and look 'cool' but don't actually go anywhere -- to me, that has poseur written all over it.

 

when i'm in my 360CS people come up on me all the time on the freeway...i tend to drive with my mirrors and i love "double clicking" down while nailing the go pedal. hard not to smile most of the time when people come up on me quick they just want to get a closer look and give a thumbs up. it's always fun to see how many people out there love ferraris!

 

Agree completely!!
To me, it's just more fun to drive a car that delivers high power at very high revs!! It gives me such a thrill! Especially on the track but also on the street!
I drove also some high torque cars but they drive to easily! You're going 150 mph without you notice it! On the freeway it may be comfortable but on some back roads i choose a high reving engine EVERY time!! You can feel the speed!
Besides ever saw an F1 car with high torque at low rpm???