scheides
03-10-2010, 09:54 AM
Basic and over-simplified, but gets the brain working pretty good :)
http://www.jacobmcdonald.com/weblinks/hptq2.html
That article is good, but it is *way* over-simplified. We all know that engines don't produce their peak horsepower through the entire powerband. His logic in the end really would only stand if the theoretical cars were equipped with CVT's and held at peak horsepower.
Still, the logic is fairly sound. More horsepower = more acceleration. But I can tell you, having tons of torque down low just means you have more horsepower through your powerband. My BBK makes over 300whp at 4000rpm, but a SC61-powered car making similar peak power won't make it until 5500. Which car is faster? In the correct situation, mine; I don't have to shift as much to keep on accelerating!
Torque wins races really means having a wide powerband wins races, right? As long as peak output is similar, the car with more torque down low is going to be faster.
http://www.jacobmcdonald.com/weblinks/hptq2.html
That article is good, but it is *way* over-simplified. We all know that engines don't produce their peak horsepower through the entire powerband. His logic in the end really would only stand if the theoretical cars were equipped with CVT's and held at peak horsepower.
Still, the logic is fairly sound. More horsepower = more acceleration. But I can tell you, having tons of torque down low just means you have more horsepower through your powerband. My BBK makes over 300whp at 4000rpm, but a SC61-powered car making similar peak power won't make it until 5500. Which car is faster? In the correct situation, mine; I don't have to shift as much to keep on accelerating!
Torque wins races really means having a wide powerband wins races, right? As long as peak output is similar, the car with more torque down low is going to be faster.