torque vs hp for 360 replacement

I should not have assumed that you would realize I was not talking about acceleration over a distance approaching 0.

How about this? And to make it more real, assume the car is going from 0-60 mph.

"It is a BFD if you can get it through your head that this is the absolute HIGHEST rate of acceleration possible,(which I'm not yet sure you understand), and is precisely the point I am trying to make! This same engine could make a max tq of anything from 10 lbs ft to 1000 lbs ft and it would not change that max acceleration rate AT ANY GIVEN SPEED one iota. Do you really understand that, what the tq measures out at doesn't matter?!"

I think know that you actually do understand it, by the way.

The simple points I am trying to make:

Basically any cars accelerative potential is determined by max hp, not max tq.

Two engines of the same hp max can basically do the same amount of work regardless of what their max tq is. You have to do work to accelerate a car.

Tq is just a component of hp.

People put too much emphasis on tq without realizing
that hp alone does the work of accelerating a car.

You can apply torque to a car wheel without doing any work.

You cannot apply hp to a car wheel without doing work.

etc.

 

Such a statement seems to imply that "tq" is not involved in accelerating a car. However, we all know that the acceleration of the car is directly caused by rear wheel torque, by the formula F=ma... no F, no a! Rear wheel torque is directly caused by engine torque, multiplied by the gearing. Engine horsepower is simply a measure of an engine's ability to sustain a torque for a distance... and the distance relates to the RPMs and thus the gearing. But its the engine's torque that "does the work of accelerating a car"; the engine's horsepower is a measure of the engine's ability to do the work required to sustain that torque for the required distance.

Your insistence on excluding torque from the formulation is just wrong.


P.S. I'm still waiting on that PM!

 

Simple is your brain, simple is not the intricacies of this physics problem.

Consider
car A: 3000 lbs with 10,000 HP
car B: 3000 lbs with 1,000,000 HP

Which car accelerates faster?

<think before you answer>

<I said think>

Answer: neither both cars are traction limited for any reasonable tire technology and any speds achievable on a drag strip. Therefore, the HP of these cars does not in any way relate to the maximum accelerative potential of these cars. Therefore, your premiss is wrong. In addition, I have shown 6 cases where you premiss does not lead to the correct answere for acrual cars. Therefore; your premiss is nothing more than a shot in the dark.

Only with a CVT, with a regular transmission, the shape of the TQ curve is required. Once you have to shift gears and run through the power band, the shape of the curve become the determinant of which car accelerates faster.

 

Thank you for additional defense of TQ, however I recommend that you give it up, your attempt at educating him will fail just as PSK and I have failed. TEAK360 has some inate need to remain uneducated in this matter. Neither reason nor rationality can penetrate this kind of inate need.

 

Do you know what the word theoretical means, Mitch?

Again you add variables, which are infinite in number, to my simple original premise.

Because TQ, as is RPM, is a constituent part of HP.

Here is another quote from Bob Palmer, the guys who's article I posted earlier that everyone seemed to agree with but STILL didn't think it supported my views:
"In fact, torque is simply a component of horsepower"

Your assessment of the point of this thread is a stretch, and again a statement fairly lacking in relevance.

Of course, that's very simple Mitch.

Of course you can't. Again you throw into doubt the claims you are a physicist. You cannot apply hp to a car wheel without doing work, you are either going to accelerate something or heat something up. Please give me one example of how you would apply hp without doing work. You can't. A man of your claimed credentials should choose his statements more carefully.

But then again, you are the physicist that says:
"Tq does the work,HP gets the credit".
How can you even show your face on this board without apologizing for saying something that stupid.

 

Of couse it is involved. It's basically the F part of F=MA.

Semantics again, but TORQUE does not do work. Horsepower does work. And the more horsepower the more torque available at the rear wheels, regardless of the engine torque.

Yes, that is why horsepower is so important.

I don't insist on excluding it.

Sorry, I'm on the way to the mechanics shop. I want to check up on the progress he is making with the CVT installation!

The best ET for a Modena, or any other car would imply the installation of a CVT, along with slicks, etc. I WAS remiss in not making this more clear. But it does allow me the all important loophole. I admit it, you can now start shooting "The Passion of the Teak360". Just the violent parts, of course.

This does not change these basic premises I have stated:

It is required that work be done to accelerate a car.
Tq doesn't do work.
Horsepower does.
You can determine a cars max accelerative potential knowing only max hp and weight.
You cannot knowing only max tq.
Etc.

 

So you'll be delivering me a 360 with a CVT? Very cool. More details please.

Are you trying to be confusingly argumentative? You just admitted to being unclear, then you restate your premises with the same unclear statements.

Is it so hard to say "You can determine a CVT-equipped car's theoretical max acceleration knowing only its max HP and its weight."??? Its easy... much easier than responding to the ensuing arguments caused by being unclear.

Further, must you be so stubborn with your definitions, when there are very common definitions contrary to yours...

True.

Most people's definition of work is "a force applied over a distance".
Horsepower doesn't "do work"... a car has horsepower whether it moves or not... horsepower is a measure of the "potential to do work". To do work, you have to use that potential by applying a force over a distance.

I don't really object to "Horsepower does work" as most anyone knows what is meant; objecting is fairly anal, IMO. But I do object to "Torque doesn't do work"... it most certainly does if it causes motion, by definition. Your objection to "torque does work" is not only pointlessly anal (since anybody knows what's meant), its also just plain wrong, by the definition of work.

The latter is true. The former is false except in the case of a CVT, as you've said previously... why not say that here... why re-start the same arguments??

 

Because you just won't quit. I have a bet to see how long I could keep you, Mitch or Pete going. 300 posts seemed out of the question, but we almost made it. I'll settle for over 3,000 views.

Actually I will admit have learned some things from you Brian, thank you. Although you are being a bit anal in your definitions, you know cars don't "have" horsepower, they "develop" it.

 

Now that's not nice! That would be the definition of trolling!
And worse, its trolling via intentional misinformation! So, evil trolling!!
Not nice at all! But I guess if you're giving away Modenas, even evil trolling will be forgiven.

 

I actually enjoyed the discussion, even if it got heated at times. I never intentionally posted any misinformation, but I will admit I did make mistakes. I think everyone on this thread did. I still stand by my basic statements re: hp and tq.

 

I'm sure you don't want to have to do an engine rebuild every 5000kms...