Show us your Cars

[Blumlein 88]

Would you mind schooling a 'young' buck about your thoughts here, expanding a littler more than the technical reason or your philosophy on this?

Power is what gets work done. Frank used the example earlier in the thread. One engine is 50 ft-lbs of torque at 4000 rpm, and another is 100 ft-lbs at 2000 rpm. Both make the same power. With appropriate gearing both will do the same job.

Excess power is how you accelerate and power determines top speed in a given car. A torqy, lower powered engine won't equal the results.

Now various combinations of gearing, weight and engine size might make it seem otherwise, but in the end power does work, and work done at a faster rate (higher power) is what you are after in performance. Power is the central metric to rate of work done.

 

[HemiRick]

Nothing like a large cubic inch V8 for goobs of tire roasting torque. The fun part is trying to get a car like this to hook and then they GO !

 

[Blumlein 88]

Nothing like a large cubic inch V8 for goobs of tire roasting torque. The fun part is trying to get a car like this to hook and then they GO !

Yeah, true. But again, if you had a super-revving 4 cylinder with little torque yet enough to equal the horsepower of the slower turning big motor, gear it right and the tire roasting will be the same. The torque on the tire will be the same in fact. Rear wheel horsepower would be the same.

 

[HemiRick]

Yeah, true. But again, if you had a super-revving 4 cylinder

expensive and unreliable power, by comparison.

 

[BDWoody]

expensive and unreliable power, by comparison.

How much was that crate Hemi?

My little BMW V8:
Power420 ps (414 bhp / 309 kw) @ 8300 rpm
Torque400 Nm (295 lb-ft) @ 3900 rpm

It doesn't suffer from the relative lack of torque in my estimation, just gotta get it into the band where the HP can do it's job.

 

[Juhazi]

We need different engines for trucks and cars.

 

[digicidal]

Nothing like a large cubic inch V8 for goobs of tire roasting torque. The fun part is trying to get a car like this to hook and then they GO !

Well there is something like it... forced induction.

Natrually if you add a turbo or supercharger to a 6.4L HEMI - then you're going to destroy these numbers... but this is with a 3.0L inline six on 91 octane and nothing but a tune and downpipe (stock turbo). Step up to E85 and it gets really stupid (over 600/525)... but even at this level you can roast all the tires you want.

 

[Balle Clorin]

Me and our MG A about 1962

 

[beefkabob]

Torquey cars are easier to drive on the road and track. Torquey cars are faster on the road since they don't always require a downshift to move. They're also generally more efficient because power comes up high and rpm = more fuel usage. On the track, power under the curve = going faster a lot of the time since you don't have to do work as hard to get the job done. Also depending on gearing and the track, it can help to power out of a corner and not have to up shift because you can power through on a higher gear.

Peaky cars are more fun to drive. Torquey cars are easy to drive fast.

I didn't like the S2000 I test drove. Too skittish. Too loud with the convertible top.

 

[Trouble Maker]

Well there is something like it... forced induction.

It's pretty bonkers what OEMs are doing stock... and then where the aftermarket is taking it.
I want a GolfR for my daily.

But I would settle for an RS6.

 

[Count Arthur]

I reckon I could put out about 0.33bhp on a good day.

This guy; a bit more:

 

[Frank Dernie]

Torquey cars are easy to drive fast.

Fixed that for you

 

[beefkabob]

Fixed that for you

Oooh. Fighting words!
Ever driven a model 3 performance? Immense torque but not especially enjoyable to drive.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Oooh. Fighting words!
Ever driven a model 3 performance? Immense torque but not especially enjoyable to drive.

No. I am an engineer not a particularly competitive driver. I know a few of them though
A torquey engine is just easier to drive and requires fewer gearshifts.
The problem is when you decide to press on you find the engine doesn't have much more to give, you had been more or less flat out already.

The engineer who got me into motor racing back in 1971 (for chassis not engine) was quite funny. If he was interviewing an engineer his first question was "what is most important power or torque?" anybody who said torque didn't get as far as the second question.
The shape of the power band is the main determining factor in how fast the car can be and how easy it will be to get the best out of it.

Edit, I like torquey engines, including electric btw they are much more relaxing but if I want to go fast I have a powerful sports car.

 

[Trouble Maker]

So, I think what you are saying is that it's application specific?
....and in motorsports (specific) power is all that matters.
So you spin and/or boost the engines to high heaven to get every last ounce out of that 1 thing.

I think you mentioned owning a PHEV earlier, and you mentioned an electric car again here. Before we came here the wifes car for about the last 3 years was a Chevy Volt, and she will likely get a Bolt when we return. I think the TQ/Power curves of electric machines a really interesting, actually not exactly suited for a car. And this is coming from someone who believes EVs, FCVs or something else like that are the future of cars. I was also struck by the lack of top end power, passing on the highway was dismal. And my immediate thought was, why not use a multi-gear box? But that wouldn't change the top end acceleration but just the low end. In that particular car highway speeds are near enough to Vmax due to the motor RPMmax that gearing won't help. But they also have enough TQ at very low RPM in order to not need the extra gearing down low to meet the customers wants.

 

[Trouble Maker]

I reckon I could put out about 0.33bhp on a good day.

View attachment 60816

I like that. I've been dreaming of building up something in the realm of a big tire gravel, monster cross, touring bike for a while. We purposefully didn't bring our bicycles over here because we wanted to get bikes here. She got a mamachari and of course I ended up with a mountain bike, but something more similar to yours than different.

http://www.japan.bianchi.com/category_archive.cgi?mode=category_detail&bik_Code_prm=18-SHIKA

 

[digicidal]

I think the safest generalization regarding torque and horsepower would simply be the following:
As much torque as possible, and as soon as possible. As much HP as possible and as late as possible.

Everything else is subjective IMO. I love the sound of a V8 or V12 NA... but I prefer the "feels" of a lighter turbo six (preferably two turbos, so the above is more achievable).

Naturally physics gets in the way along with budgets in nearing those generalized values... off the track at least.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think the safest generalization regarding torque and horsepower would simply be the following:
As much torque as possible, and as soon as possible. As much HP as possible and as late as possible.

Everything else is subjective IMO. I love the sound of a V8 or V12 NA... but I prefer the "feels" of a lighter turbo six (preferably two turbos, so the above is more achievable).

Naturally physics gets in the way along with budgets in nearing those generalized values... off the track at least.

Love the sound of straight 8 engines. Also like triples (which at high rpm are similar to 12 cylinder engines).

Interesting that Mazda with its latest version of the Miata was close to using a high revving 3 cylinder diesel.

 

[Trouble Maker]

Interesting that Mazda with its latest version of the Miata was close to using a high revving 3 cylinder diesel.

That isn't that surprising when you look at their engine strategy of optimizing diesel engines from one side, petrol from the other and meeting at some 'ideal' engine somewhere in the middle. We are already seeing a blurring with for example petrol engines running DI, higher compression and leaner burns, and that starts to bring with it PM.... which sounds a lot like a diesel engine.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/08/skyactiv-20110804.html

 

[RayDunzl]

Now I have a new Camry 2.5L four cylinder, with an 8 speed automatic and rather extreme fuel economy engineering...

We are already seeing a blurring with for example petrol engines running DI, higher compression and leaner burns

That's me...

Fifteen months later, 8469mi

Added a little air to the tires twice.

Washed twice.

Vacuumed twice.

Oil changed at 7,180mi - never added any, barely under the full mark.. 0W-16 oil. 5 quarts takes it just over the full mark, as it was when new.

16 gallon tank, biggest refill 15.490 gallons, and negative 2 miles to empty reported. It starts desiring fuel at 1/8 tank reporting about 50 miles to empty

Highest single tank miles 600.5 with 13.843 gallon refill. Cruising back-highways Palestine TX to Moss Point Mississippi, 43.7 mpg. reporting 57mi to empty. Estimated total range 694mi on that leg.

2.2 mi per day since last fill - Covid-19 reduced my reduced travel a little, I guess.

Silly spreadsheet: