Theoretical question
04-17-2007, 11:33 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nowhere, USA
Posts: 810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoretical question
Theoretical question; if you have 2 turbo Integras, same driver, same weight, same tuning, same WHP....EVERYTHING is the same, except one has a t3/t4 57 trim 60/63 with 40 less tq units and the other has a t3/t4 57 trim 60/48 with 40 more Tq units relative to the other car's Tq. Ok, with this senerio everything being equal and cars get traction. If they raced from 0-150 which car will get to 150 first. The car with more HP, or the car with more tq? Ex.280whp 200tq -Vs- 280whp 240tq
04-17-2007, 11:42 AM
#2
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Theoretical question (Whiteintegra)
Need more information (gear ratios, ect) to really get a semi-accurate answer.. but typically the car with more torque will be faster.
04-17-2007, 12:07 PM
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nowhere, USA
Posts: 810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Theoretical question (Snafubmx234)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Snafubmx234 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Need more information (gear ratios, ect) to really get a semi-accurate answer.. but typically the car with more torque will be faster.</TD></TR></TABLE> Gearing is the same....everything is the same except the turbo and tq. But even if the turbos were the same would the car with more tq be faster?
If the car with more tq is faster, why are so many "low" power(sub 300whp) boosted Hondas using 60/63 turbos as opposed to 60/48 turbos which usually give more tq? If my car is making 280whp and 250 tq and your car is making 300whp and 210tq are you saying that i will be faster?
If the car with more tq is faster, why are so many "low" power(sub 300whp) boosted Hondas using 60/63 turbos as opposed to 60/48 turbos which usually give more tq? If my car is making 280whp and 250 tq and your car is making 300whp and 210tq are you saying that i will be faster?
04-17-2007, 12:18 PM
#6
Re: Theoretical question (Whiteintegra)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Whiteintegra »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Gearing is the same....everything is the same except the turbo and tq. But even if the turbos were the same would the car with more tq be faster?
If the car with more tq is faster, why are so many "low" power(sub 300whp) boosted Hondas using 60/63 turbos as opposed to 60/48 turbos which usually give more tq? If my car is making 280whp and 250 tq and your car is making 300whp and 210tq are you saying that i will be faster?</TD></TR></TABLE>
because of a couple reasons I would imagine... small displacement motors generally are not known for good torque producing powerplants (some more than others though). we generally rev to higher rpms and turbos that make good torque usually fall off on the top end (unless you get a higher end turbo, which is uncommon since most people with small setups are on a budget). we generally have traction problems enough as is... more torque means less traction. most our motors generally perform their best in the top end (higher rpms)... most people cater to that with more horsepower.
these are just some very general quick things that I would think factor into it...
If the car with more tq is faster, why are so many "low" power(sub 300whp) boosted Hondas using 60/63 turbos as opposed to 60/48 turbos which usually give more tq? If my car is making 280whp and 250 tq and your car is making 300whp and 210tq are you saying that i will be faster?</TD></TR></TABLE>
because of a couple reasons I would imagine... small displacement motors generally are not known for good torque producing powerplants (some more than others though). we generally rev to higher rpms and turbos that make good torque usually fall off on the top end (unless you get a higher end turbo, which is uncommon since most people with small setups are on a budget). we generally have traction problems enough as is... more torque means less traction. most our motors generally perform their best in the top end (higher rpms)... most people cater to that with more horsepower.
these are just some very general quick things that I would think factor into it...
04-17-2007, 12:48 PM
#7
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville, TN, U.S.A
Posts: 2,992
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you are saying also doesn't make sense. You can't have more torque without producing more Horsepower somewhere.
Like someone said the one with the greatest area under the horsepower curve will win. Horsepower is created by torque and multiplied by RPM (with a division of 5252).
Like someone said the one with the greatest area under the horsepower curve will win. Horsepower is created by torque and multiplied by RPM (with a division of 5252).
Trending Topics
04-17-2007, 01:22 PM
#8
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, 40222
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (adseguy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by adseguy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Horsepower is created by torque and multiplied by RPM (with a division of 5252).</TD></TR></TABLE>
+1, somewhere the HP will be different between the mototrs since HP is derived from TQ.
+1, somewhere the HP will be different between the mototrs since HP is derived from TQ.
04-17-2007, 02:31 PM
#9
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nowhere, USA
Posts: 810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly, so why are all the honda tech guys getting big turbos that reach full boost later in the RPM rather than a smaller turbo that has more area under the TQ curve.?!?!?!
04-17-2007, 02:48 PM
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dont Steal My Car, Ct, USA
Posts: 2,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Whiteintegra)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Whiteintegra »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">exactly, so why are all the honda tech guys getting big turbos that reach full boost later in the RPM rather than a smaller turbo that has more area under the TQ curve.?!?!?!</TD></TR></TABLE>
yeah, why is that?
yeah, why is that?
04-17-2007, 03:35 PM
#11
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville, TN, U.S.A
Posts: 2,992
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Whiteintegra)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Whiteintegra »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">exactly, so why are all the honda tech guys getting big turbos that reach full boost later in the RPM rather than a smaller turbo that has more area under the TQ curve.?!?!?!</TD></TR></TABLE>
People can be stupid (what a concept). You want to get a turbo that flows enough for your needs. My needs are 400whp so I went with a t3/t04e 57 trim with a .63 turbine. People wanting only 300whp would like a T3 super 60 or a small t3/t4 like the 50 trim with a .48 hot side. Of course go too small then your boost will fall off up top.
People also think that they can't run more then XX PSI of boost and so they get a large turbo to brag on how they made xxxwhp on xxPSI.
People can be stupid (what a concept). You want to get a turbo that flows enough for your needs. My needs are 400whp so I went with a t3/t04e 57 trim with a .63 turbine. People wanting only 300whp would like a T3 super 60 or a small t3/t4 like the 50 trim with a .48 hot side. Of course go too small then your boost will fall off up top.
People also think that they can't run more then XX PSI of boost and so they get a large turbo to brag on how they made xxxwhp on xxPSI.
04-17-2007, 04:12 PM
#12
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: fl, usa
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (adseguy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by adseguy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What you are saying also doesn't make sense. You can't have more torque without producing more Horsepower somewhere.
Like someone said the one with the greatest area under the horsepower curve will win. Horsepower is created by torque and multiplied by RPM (with a division of 5252).</TD></TR></TABLE>
then how do you explain why my diesel makes 300hp BUT 650 ft/lbs of torque ?
i understand what you are saying and it is true 90% of the time but not all of the time
Like someone said the one with the greatest area under the horsepower curve will win. Horsepower is created by torque and multiplied by RPM (with a division of 5252).</TD></TR></TABLE>
then how do you explain why my diesel makes 300hp BUT 650 ft/lbs of torque ?
i understand what you are saying and it is true 90% of the time but not all of the time
04-17-2007, 04:39 PM
#13
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville, TN, U.S.A
Posts: 2,992
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (tony413)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
then how do you explain why my diesel makes 300hp BUT 650 ft/lbs of torque ?
i understand what you are saying and it is true 90% of the time but not all of the time </TD></TR></TABLE>
Oh no it's true 100% of the time
.
Horsepower= (Torque*RPM)/5252
When you go on a dyno it measures torque and calculates HP using that equation. Your Diesel isn't reving high enough.
then how do you explain why my diesel makes 300hp BUT 650 ft/lbs of torque ?
i understand what you are saying and it is true 90% of the time but not all of the time </TD></TR></TABLE>
Oh no it's true 100% of the time
.Horsepower= (Torque*RPM)/5252
When you go on a dyno it measures torque and calculates HP using that equation. Your Diesel isn't reving high enough.
04-17-2007, 05:02 PM
#15
Unceasing Measure
Re: (tony413)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">lol gotta remind myself 5500rpm is redline lol :-D full boost and max torque 2800rpms i love diesel 
</TD></TR></TABLE>
5500RPM? What high-revving diesel are you driving, lol. Most of the ones I've driven redline at 4000
</TD></TR></TABLE>5500RPM? What high-revving diesel are you driving, lol. Most of the ones I've driven redline at 4000
04-17-2007, 05:21 PM
#17
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dont Steal My Car, Ct, USA
Posts: 2,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (adseguy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by adseguy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
People also think that they can't run more then XX PSI of boost and so they get a large turbo to brag on how they made xxxwhp on xxPSI.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I think its room to grow more than bragging rights.
People also think that they can't run more then XX PSI of boost and so they get a large turbo to brag on how they made xxxwhp on xxPSI.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I think its room to grow more than bragging rights.
04-17-2007, 05:59 PM
#18
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Liessel, Noord Braband, Netherlands
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is... what's where it's all about. HP?? WHP?? TQ??
Where it's all about, is the torque on your wheels, that's what makes your car go forward. That means eng tq multiplied by gear ratio/differential ratio. (something complete different from what you call 'normal' wtq)
So lets compare.. For example. My Honda makes 100 tq and 100 hp@ 8000 rpm. Another diesel makes 200 tq and 100 hp@ 4000 rpm. Will the diesel be quicker? In fact: NO.
Lets say, the ratio between crank and wheel is 1:10 (for example, these values are not true, but I do like to keep it simple). It will make 100*10=1000 tq at the wheels. When the diesel engine had the same ratio, it woud make 2000 tq offcourse.
But, the point is. The Honda engine, is making 8000 rpm, the diesel just the half. So when the Honda goes 100 mph, the diesel goes just 50 mph. The diesel engine perhaps needs longer gears. When the diesel engine wants to drive that much mph as the Honda does, the gear ration shouldn't be 1:10, but 1:5. And when the ratio is 1:5, the actual torqu at the weels, will be 200*5=1000 tq. That means when both cars drive 100 mph, both engines/gearboxes will make the wheels have 1000 tq on the road. One @4000 rpm, the other one @8000 rpm.
So in fact, when both cars have the same hp, it shouldn't matter what the torque is. The one with less torque, will be able to make that torque at higher engine speed, so it can use better gear ratio's.
Only one thing important yet. Especially when we compare a turbo diesel engine, with an normal n/a engine, both with same hp, the diesel might be quicker. That can be explained by the fact, that till now, we have only talked about max hp. In this case, the turbo diesel engine, will have a much better curve.. So the average hp over the rpm's will be better.
Where it's all about, is the torque on your wheels, that's what makes your car go forward. That means eng tq multiplied by gear ratio/differential ratio. (something complete different from what you call 'normal' wtq)
So lets compare.. For example. My Honda makes 100 tq and 100 hp@ 8000 rpm. Another diesel makes 200 tq and 100 hp@ 4000 rpm. Will the diesel be quicker? In fact: NO.
Lets say, the ratio between crank and wheel is 1:10 (for example, these values are not true, but I do like to keep it simple). It will make 100*10=1000 tq at the wheels. When the diesel engine had the same ratio, it woud make 2000 tq offcourse.
But, the point is. The Honda engine, is making 8000 rpm, the diesel just the half. So when the Honda goes 100 mph, the diesel goes just 50 mph. The diesel engine perhaps needs longer gears. When the diesel engine wants to drive that much mph as the Honda does, the gear ration shouldn't be 1:10, but 1:5. And when the ratio is 1:5, the actual torqu at the weels, will be 200*5=1000 tq. That means when both cars drive 100 mph, both engines/gearboxes will make the wheels have 1000 tq on the road. One @4000 rpm, the other one @8000 rpm.
So in fact, when both cars have the same hp, it shouldn't matter what the torque is. The one with less torque, will be able to make that torque at higher engine speed, so it can use better gear ratio's.
Only one thing important yet. Especially when we compare a turbo diesel engine, with an normal n/a engine, both with same hp, the diesel might be quicker. That can be explained by the fact, that till now, we have only talked about max hp. In this case, the turbo diesel engine, will have a much better curve.. So the average hp over the rpm's will be better.
04-17-2007, 06:21 PM
#19
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (adseguy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by adseguy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Like someone said the one with the greatest area under the horsepower curve will win. Horsepower is created by torque and multiplied by RPM (with a division of 5252).</TD></TR></TABLE>
Why is it not the one with the greatest area under the torque curve, rather than the horsepower curve, since F=ma proves acceleration is proportional to torque?
Why is it not the one with the greatest area under the torque curve, rather than the horsepower curve, since F=ma proves acceleration is proportional to torque?
04-17-2007, 06:31 PM
#20
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lower Right Hand Corner, PA
Posts: 5,643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Theoretical question (Whiteintegra)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Whiteintegra »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Theoretical question; if you have 2 turbo Integras, same driver, same weight, same tuning, same WHP....EVERYTHING is the same, except one has a t3/t4 57 trim 60/63 with 40 less tq units and the other has a t3/t4 57 trim 60/48 with 40 more Tq units relative to the other car's Tq. Ok, with this senerio everything being equal and cars get traction. If they raced from 0-150 which car will get to 150 first. The car with more HP, or the car with more tq? Ex.280whp 200tq -Vs- 280whp 240tq</TD></TR></TABLE>
What a stupid useless post.
What point are you trying to prove with this, besides that you love wasting space.
What a stupid useless post.
What point are you trying to prove with this, besides that you love wasting space.
04-17-2007, 06:42 PM
#21
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: fl, usa
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Theoretical question (SovXietday)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SovXietday »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
What a stupid useless post.
What point are you trying to prove with this, besides that you love wasting space. </TD></TR></TABLE>
he's asking a question thats better than most the dumb **** on here like how much boost can i get with this turbo or how much HP can i get with this motor
What a stupid useless post.
What point are you trying to prove with this, besides that you love wasting space.
</TD></TR></TABLE>he's asking a question thats better than most the dumb **** on here like how much boost can i get with this turbo or how much HP can i get with this motor
04-17-2007, 07:49 PM
#22
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville, TN, U.S.A
Posts: 2,992
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (LeGeND4LiFe)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by LeGeND4LiFe »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Why is it not the one with the greatest area under the torque curve, rather than the horsepower curve, since F=ma proves acceleration is proportional to torque?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You are correct, but you forgot the element of time (RPM).
Think of it like a boxing punch. How hard you hit is torque and rpm is the amount of times you hit a second. One hard punch is nice to move a punching bag, but hit with 1/8 of that force 400 times a second and that punching bag will be moving a lot more.
This is why torque can go way down in the higher rpms, but you want to keep reving because your Horsepower is still gowing up and leveling. As soon as HP starts going down becasue the torque drop is too great.....guess what........you stop reving and that is your shift point
Why is it not the one with the greatest area under the torque curve, rather than the horsepower curve, since F=ma proves acceleration is proportional to torque?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You are correct, but you forgot the element of time (RPM).
Think of it like a boxing punch. How hard you hit is torque and rpm is the amount of times you hit a second. One hard punch is nice to move a punching bag, but hit with 1/8 of that force 400 times a second and that punching bag will be moving a lot more.
This is why torque can go way down in the higher rpms, but you want to keep reving because your Horsepower is still gowing up and leveling. As soon as HP starts going down becasue the torque drop is too great.....guess what........you stop reving and that is your shift point
04-17-2007, 09:38 PM
#23
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (adseguy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by adseguy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You are correct, but you forgot the element of time (RPM).
Think of it like a boxing punch. How hard you hit is torque and rpm is the amount of times you hit a second. One hard punch is nice to move a punching bag, but hit with 1/8 of that force 400 times a second and that punching bag will be moving a lot more.
This is why torque can go way down in the higher rpms, but you want to keep reving because your Horsepower is still gowing up and leveling. As soon as HP starts going down becasue the torque drop is too great.....guess what........you stop reving and that is your shift point </TD></TR></TABLE>
I understand your example: torque over a period of time, is a measurement of how much/how fast work is done, which is horsepower. But by Newton's second law, acceleration is directly proportional to force. Time or how fast work is done is not related to the formula for acceleration.
My understanding is that the reason you rev the engine well past peak torque is because generally the final wheel torque output (engine torque x gearing multiplication) even with torque falling off, is still higher in a lower gear than at peak in the next gear. And that acceleration of a vehicle is equal to it's final wheel torque output at any given time.
You are correct, but you forgot the element of time (RPM).
Think of it like a boxing punch. How hard you hit is torque and rpm is the amount of times you hit a second. One hard punch is nice to move a punching bag, but hit with 1/8 of that force 400 times a second and that punching bag will be moving a lot more.
This is why torque can go way down in the higher rpms, but you want to keep reving because your Horsepower is still gowing up and leveling. As soon as HP starts going down becasue the torque drop is too great.....guess what........you stop reving and that is your shift point
</TD></TR></TABLE>I understand your example: torque over a period of time, is a measurement of how much/how fast work is done, which is horsepower. But by Newton's second law, acceleration is directly proportional to force. Time or how fast work is done is not related to the formula for acceleration.
My understanding is that the reason you rev the engine well past peak torque is because generally the final wheel torque output (engine torque x gearing multiplication) even with torque falling off, is still higher in a lower gear than at peak in the next gear. And that acceleration of a vehicle is equal to it's final wheel torque output at any given time.
04-17-2007, 10:54 PM
#24
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (LeGeND4LiFe)
In order to relate F=ma to torque, you must convert tangential acceleration to angular acceleration. And this involves a radius.
What kind of acceleration and torque are you relating?
Newton's 2nd law in this case would apply to the drive shaft, crank, wheel, etc.
And it would describe the elemental relationship of the part itself.
There's not connection with N2L, unless you're hitting the back of your honda with a big sledge hammer to get it to 150mph.
What kind of acceleration and torque are you relating?
Newton's 2nd law in this case would apply to the drive shaft, crank, wheel, etc.
And it would describe the elemental relationship of the part itself.
There's not connection with N2L, unless you're hitting the back of your honda with a big sledge hammer to get it to 150mph.
04-18-2007, 09:08 AM
#25
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (remmargorp)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by remmargorp »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">In order to relate F=ma to torque, you must convert tangential acceleration to angular acceleration. And this involves a radius.
What kind of acceleration and torque are you relating?
Newton's 2nd law in this case would apply to the drive shaft, crank, wheel, etc.
And it would describe the elemental relationship of the part itself.
There's not connection with N2L, unless you're hitting the back of your honda with a big sledge hammer to get it to 150mph.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
If it applies to the driveshaft, crank, wheel, etc isn't the acceleration of these proportionate to the acceleration of the vehicle? How can one determine when the vehicle will accelerate at the fastest rate?
What kind of acceleration and torque are you relating?
Newton's 2nd law in this case would apply to the drive shaft, crank, wheel, etc.
And it would describe the elemental relationship of the part itself.
There's not connection with N2L, unless you're hitting the back of your honda with a big sledge hammer to get it to 150mph.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
If it applies to the driveshaft, crank, wheel, etc isn't the acceleration of these proportionate to the acceleration of the vehicle? How can one determine when the vehicle will accelerate at the fastest rate?