Horsepower vs Torque
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,035
Likes: 1
Horsepower vs Torque
Okay, we all know the ITR is a "torque-less wonder" as said by some.
...but the ITR isn't "slow" by any means in comparison with cars that have more torque than it. Our cars get going nicely once we reach 5800 RPM...anything below that doesn't feel "fast". The 130 ft lbs of torque doesn't sound like much, but the horsepower at 195 makes the car feel quite good.
For instance, my old '90 Probe GT (2.2L turbo) only had 145 hp but it had 195 ft lbs of torque. It was a pretty quick car, but nothing like the ITR. It "felt" fast. The torque steer would pull you hard off the line. It felt great...but it wasn't as fast as the ITR. It just felt different. It kind of threw you in the seat, but then the power dropped off with the small turbo.
Basically it seems like torque "feels" fast like it's pulling you...and horsepower "is" fast. It actually moves your car.
I have some domestic guys giving me **** on a local board I go to. They are getting annoying. They keep talking about torque and how great it is. *blah, blah*
[Modified by Yellow Dragon, 9:02 PM 8/7/2002]
...but the ITR isn't "slow" by any means in comparison with cars that have more torque than it. Our cars get going nicely once we reach 5800 RPM...anything below that doesn't feel "fast". The 130 ft lbs of torque doesn't sound like much, but the horsepower at 195 makes the car feel quite good.
For instance, my old '90 Probe GT (2.2L turbo) only had 145 hp but it had 195 ft lbs of torque. It was a pretty quick car, but nothing like the ITR. It "felt" fast. The torque steer would pull you hard off the line. It felt great...but it wasn't as fast as the ITR. It just felt different. It kind of threw you in the seat, but then the power dropped off with the small turbo.
Basically it seems like torque "feels" fast like it's pulling you...and horsepower "is" fast. It actually moves your car.
I have some domestic guys giving me **** on a local board I go to. They are getting annoying. They keep talking about torque and how great it is. *blah, blah*
[Modified by Yellow Dragon, 9:02 PM 8/7/2002]
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (Yellow Dragon)
I get that sometimes too...they think torque is so great and they think a cavalier will keep up with an R off the line lmao, jeez,
buts its funny that i can beat most 89 5.0 lx's that have like 305 torque off the line...and pull pretty damn good in top end, makes me wonder about torque sometimes lol.....it also depends if your a good driver, torque makes it easier to launch
buts its funny that i can beat most 89 5.0 lx's that have like 305 torque off the line...and pull pretty damn good in top end, makes me wonder about torque sometimes lol.....it also depends if your a good driver, torque makes it easier to launch
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,406
Likes: 0
From: Brooklyn, NY
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (Yellow Dragon)
To quote a old post:
The horsepower vs. torque debate is actually quite simple.
History lesson: Back in the day, James Watt reached the epiphany that basic torque measurements of his nascent steam engine did not accurately portray its work potential as RPM fluctuated. Consequently, Watt invented the rate of torque delivery as HP.
What's all that mean? Keyword: rate, measuring anything (pay, velocity, torque) in increments of time. Just like pay and velocity rely as hours ("X" dollar/hour; "X" MPH) as incremental units, Watt decided to measure the rate of torque production in minutes. Consequently, Watt declared a total of 33,000 ft. lbs of total torque produced in one minute as one horsepower. Dividing that figure by 6.28 (2 x pi) yields 5252 - the constant from which HP is calculated as a function of torque.
This formula should make more sense now:HP = RPM X TQ/5252
Now apply Watt's dilemma to the internal combustion engine. For the sake of simplification, image a motor with a completely flat torque curve with an operation range between 1000 and 7000 RPM generating 100 lbs/ft of torque. Anywhere between those two figures, torque output is identical. However, torque is an instantaneous reading that does not even acknowledge the existence of time.
As time elapses, and RPM increase, instantaneous torque production does not change whatsover, but total torque produced proliferates dramatically. Per the HP formula, at 1K RPM, the above motor generates 100 lbs/ft of torque and 19 HP. Now, at 7K RPM, the motor still produces the same 100 lbs/ft of torque, but 133 HP. The instaneous rotational force/torque the motor produced did not change at all, but thanks to multiplication via RPM, the total torque output at 7000 RPM in one minute of time yields far greater power.
Recite this mantra 10 times: HP is nothing more than total torque produced in one minute of time. Keep the debate simple Watt must be rolling over in his grave.
The horsepower vs. torque debate is actually quite simple.
History lesson: Back in the day, James Watt reached the epiphany that basic torque measurements of his nascent steam engine did not accurately portray its work potential as RPM fluctuated. Consequently, Watt invented the rate of torque delivery as HP.
What's all that mean? Keyword: rate, measuring anything (pay, velocity, torque) in increments of time. Just like pay and velocity rely as hours ("X" dollar/hour; "X" MPH) as incremental units, Watt decided to measure the rate of torque production in minutes. Consequently, Watt declared a total of 33,000 ft. lbs of total torque produced in one minute as one horsepower. Dividing that figure by 6.28 (2 x pi) yields 5252 - the constant from which HP is calculated as a function of torque.
This formula should make more sense now:HP = RPM X TQ/5252
Now apply Watt's dilemma to the internal combustion engine. For the sake of simplification, image a motor with a completely flat torque curve with an operation range between 1000 and 7000 RPM generating 100 lbs/ft of torque. Anywhere between those two figures, torque output is identical. However, torque is an instantaneous reading that does not even acknowledge the existence of time.
As time elapses, and RPM increase, instantaneous torque production does not change whatsover, but total torque produced proliferates dramatically. Per the HP formula, at 1K RPM, the above motor generates 100 lbs/ft of torque and 19 HP. Now, at 7K RPM, the motor still produces the same 100 lbs/ft of torque, but 133 HP. The instaneous rotational force/torque the motor produced did not change at all, but thanks to multiplication via RPM, the total torque output at 7000 RPM in one minute of time yields far greater power.
Recite this mantra 10 times: HP is nothing more than total torque produced in one minute of time. Keep the debate simple Watt must be rolling over in his grave.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 12,092
Likes: 2
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (jond)
Keep the debate simple Watt must be rolling over in his grave.
He'd love these small high reving engines (or are they motors).
Yet another reason to love an ITR is that no company manufactures a stock issue motor that can rev to 9K repeatedly without self destructing (esp. in or for the price of a HONDA)!
[Modified by Zygspeed, 10:43 PM 8/7/2002]
shit post warrior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 9,141
Likes: 5
From: Socal, CA
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (Yellow Dragon)
Okay, we all know the ITR is a "torque-less wonder" as said by some.
...but the ITR isn't "slow" by any means in comparison with cars that have more torque than it. Our cars get going nicely once we reach 5800 RPM...anything below that doesn't feel "fast". The 130 ft lbs of torque doesn't sound like much, but the horsepower at 195 makes the car feel quite good.
For instance, my old '90 Probe GT (2.2L turbo) only had 145 hp but it had 195 ft lbs of torque. It was a pretty quick car, but nothing like the ITR. It "felt" fast. The torque steer would pull you hard off the line. It felt great...but it wasn't as fast as the ITR. It just felt different. It kind of threw you in the seat, but then the power dropped off with the small turbo.
Basically it seems like torque "feels" fast like it's pulling you...and horsepower "is" fast. It actually moves your car.
I have some domestic guys giving me **** on a local board I go to. They are getting annoying. They keep talking about torque and how great it is. *blah, blah*
[Modified by Yellow Dragon, 9:02 PM 8/7/2002]
...but the ITR isn't "slow" by any means in comparison with cars that have more torque than it. Our cars get going nicely once we reach 5800 RPM...anything below that doesn't feel "fast". The 130 ft lbs of torque doesn't sound like much, but the horsepower at 195 makes the car feel quite good.
For instance, my old '90 Probe GT (2.2L turbo) only had 145 hp but it had 195 ft lbs of torque. It was a pretty quick car, but nothing like the ITR. It "felt" fast. The torque steer would pull you hard off the line. It felt great...but it wasn't as fast as the ITR. It just felt different. It kind of threw you in the seat, but then the power dropped off with the small turbo.
Basically it seems like torque "feels" fast like it's pulling you...and horsepower "is" fast. It actually moves your car.
I have some domestic guys giving me **** on a local board I go to. They are getting annoying. They keep talking about torque and how great it is. *blah, blah*
[Modified by Yellow Dragon, 9:02 PM 8/7/2002]
Trending Topics
New User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
From: Yeah whatever
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (ITRbroham)
Remember that acceleration is a function of torque at the wheels. Torque at the wheels is torque at the crank, less drivetrain losses, times gearing. What the ITR loses in torque, it gains in gearing.
The ITR doesn't have a lot of torque, but it has two things: (a) a flat torque curve, and (b) a high redline. That's what VTEC gives you, when the second cam lobe kicks in - it keeps the torque from dropping off as revs rise. So, you can rev all the way up to the 8400 rpm redline, and torque hardly drops off at all until you're almost there. A conventional (non-VTEC) car's torque will be dropping like a rock after 5000 rpm, and will need to shift at 6000 rpm. Aha! The other car is now in a higher gear, whereas the ITR isn't - so the ITR is accelerating faster.
Because horsepower is a function of revs (it's torque times revs), it's a good proxy for torque at the wheels because it takes into account the gearing advantage and the fact that the ITR can keep accelerating at high revs.
There's a good in-depth article about the importance of horsepower and torque here.
The ITR doesn't have a lot of torque, but it has two things: (a) a flat torque curve, and (b) a high redline. That's what VTEC gives you, when the second cam lobe kicks in - it keeps the torque from dropping off as revs rise. So, you can rev all the way up to the 8400 rpm redline, and torque hardly drops off at all until you're almost there. A conventional (non-VTEC) car's torque will be dropping like a rock after 5000 rpm, and will need to shift at 6000 rpm. Aha! The other car is now in a higher gear, whereas the ITR isn't - so the ITR is accelerating faster.
Because horsepower is a function of revs (it's torque times revs), it's a good proxy for torque at the wheels because it takes into account the gearing advantage and the fact that the ITR can keep accelerating at high revs.
There's a good in-depth article about the importance of horsepower and torque here.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,278
Likes: 0
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (nsxtcjr)
All your engine produces is torque, horsepower is just a word for a particular function of torque. If we all used the metic sysytem we wouldn't have as much confusion about arbitary values like horsepower. I am looking forward to the day when watts, and newton meteres will replace foot pounds and horsepower.
Trial User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 1
From: Toronto, On, Canada
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (DJHan)
uh hp is calculated from torque...and what keeps you going is not hp. this is basic physics 101....
hp is a form of work
work is force x distance
torque is a force
the rpms are the analogous rotational distance component of work
what would be helpful is if people looked at thrust vs rpm like the motorcycle guys do....
hp is a form of work
work is force x distance
torque is a force
the rpms are the analogous rotational distance component of work
what would be helpful is if people looked at thrust vs rpm like the motorcycle guys do....
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (nsxtcjr)
Remember that acceleration is a function of torque at the wheels. Torque at the wheels is torque at the crank, less drivetrain losses, times gearing. What the ITR loses in torque, it gains in gearing.
The ITR doesn't have a lot of torque, but it has two things: (a) a flat torque curve, and (b) a high redline. That's what VTEC gives you, when the second cam lobe kicks in - it keeps the torque from dropping off as revs rise. So, you can rev all the way up to the 8400 rpm redline, and torque hardly drops off at all until you're almost there. A conventional (non-VTEC) car's torque will be dropping like a rock after 5000 rpm, and will need to shift at 6000 rpm. Aha! The other car is now in a higher gear, whereas the ITR isn't - so the ITR is accelerating faster.
Because horsepower is a function of revs (it's torque times revs), it's a good proxy for torque at the wheels because it takes into account the gearing advantage and the fact that the ITR can keep accelerating at high revs.
There's a good in-depth article about the importance of horsepower and torque here.
The ITR doesn't have a lot of torque, but it has two things: (a) a flat torque curve, and (b) a high redline. That's what VTEC gives you, when the second cam lobe kicks in - it keeps the torque from dropping off as revs rise. So, you can rev all the way up to the 8400 rpm redline, and torque hardly drops off at all until you're almost there. A conventional (non-VTEC) car's torque will be dropping like a rock after 5000 rpm, and will need to shift at 6000 rpm. Aha! The other car is now in a higher gear, whereas the ITR isn't - so the ITR is accelerating faster.
Because horsepower is a function of revs (it's torque times revs), it's a good proxy for torque at the wheels because it takes into account the gearing advantage and the fact that the ITR can keep accelerating at high revs.
There's a good in-depth article about the importance of horsepower and torque here.
I am iffy on that article though, because the guy's conclusion emphasizes torque too much. He is accurate however.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,278
Likes: 0
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (Michael Delaney)
torque is a force
power =work/time
NSXTCJR's response is very good, I don't mind the g-speed article emphisising torque
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,880
Likes: 0
From: up yours
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (Gansan)
HP is a function of TQ. the dyno actually measures the TQ and uses this equation to show HP:
(TQ)(RPM)/5252=HP
5252 is just a constant of different conversion factors together in one number. i dont remeber what those conversion factors are at the moment, but if anyone wants to know they can email me or im me.
(TQ)(RPM)/5252=HP
5252 is just a constant of different conversion factors together in one number. i dont remeber what those conversion factors are at the moment, but if anyone wants to know they can email me or im me.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,880
Likes: 0
From: up yours
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (jcnfh)
torque is a force
torque is not a force, it is the product of a force crossed with a distance (hence Nm)
power =work/time
NSXTCJR's response is very good, I don't mind the g-speed article emphisising torque
torque is not a force, it is the product of a force crossed with a distance (hence Nm)
power =work/time
NSXTCJR's response is very good, I don't mind the g-speed article emphisising torque
TQ= (force)(distance)
[Modified by up-youRs, 7:59 AM 8/8/2002]
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
From: BC, CANADA
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (nsxtcjr)
Remember that acceleration is a function of torque at the wheels. Torque at the wheels is torque at the crank, less drivetrain losses, times gearing. What the ITR loses in torque, it gains in gearing.
The ITR doesn't have a lot of torque, but it has two things: (a) a flat torque curve, and (b) a high redline. That's what VTEC gives you, when the second cam lobe kicks in - it keeps the torque from dropping off as revs rise. So, you can rev all the way up to the 8400 rpm redline, and torque hardly drops off at all until you're almost there. A conventional (non-VTEC) car's torque will be dropping like a rock after 5000 rpm, and will need to shift at 6000 rpm. Aha! The other car is now in a higher gear, whereas the ITR isn't - so the ITR is accelerating faster.
Because horsepower is a function of revs (it's torque times revs), it's a good proxy for torque at the wheels because it takes into account the gearing advantage and the fact that the ITR can keep accelerating at high revs.
There's a good in-depth article about the importance of horsepower and torque here.
The ITR doesn't have a lot of torque, but it has two things: (a) a flat torque curve, and (b) a high redline. That's what VTEC gives you, when the second cam lobe kicks in - it keeps the torque from dropping off as revs rise. So, you can rev all the way up to the 8400 rpm redline, and torque hardly drops off at all until you're almost there. A conventional (non-VTEC) car's torque will be dropping like a rock after 5000 rpm, and will need to shift at 6000 rpm. Aha! The other car is now in a higher gear, whereas the ITR isn't - so the ITR is accelerating faster.
Because horsepower is a function of revs (it's torque times revs), it's a good proxy for torque at the wheels because it takes into account the gearing advantage and the fact that the ITR can keep accelerating at high revs.
There's a good in-depth article about the importance of horsepower and torque here.
X 100
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,278
Likes: 0
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (up-youRs)
torque is a force
torque is not a force, it is the product of a force crossed with a distance (hence Nm)
power =work/time
NSXTCJR's response is very good, I don't mind the g-speed article emphisising torque
well actually TQ is a type of force. it is a force that basically turns or rotates things, in the most elementary definition.
TQ= (force)(distance)
[Modified by up-youRs, 7:59 AM 8/8/2002]
torque is not a force, it is the product of a force crossed with a distance (hence Nm)
power =work/time
NSXTCJR's response is very good, I don't mind the g-speed article emphisising torque
well actually TQ is a type of force. it is a force that basically turns or rotates things, in the most elementary definition.
TQ= (force)(distance)
[Modified by up-youRs, 7:59 AM 8/8/2002]
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,880
Likes: 0
From: up yours
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (jcnfh)
as i have said in my last post that,
TQ= (Force)(Distance)
that is the only relationsship to get, as in terms of "more usable."
but you said that TQ was not a force, but it is a force. no matter what, it is a force.
[Modified by up-youRs, 8:13 AM 8/8/2002]
TQ= (Force)(Distance)
that is the only relationsship to get, as in terms of "more usable."
but you said that TQ was not a force, but it is a force. no matter what, it is a force.
[Modified by up-youRs, 8:13 AM 8/8/2002]
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
From: Santas Neighbor, Canada
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (Yellow Dragon)
Some one once said to me...
You "feel" torque but you "see" hp.
EDIT: But what it really comes down to is power to weight ratio. There are two super fast VW beetles in my area, both with about 150 hp but can run 13's at the drag strip cause they only weigh 1400 lbs or less.
[Modified by Tommy_Gunns, 2:22 AM 8/8/2002]
You "feel" torque but you "see" hp.
EDIT: But what it really comes down to is power to weight ratio. There are two super fast VW beetles in my area, both with about 150 hp but can run 13's at the drag strip cause they only weigh 1400 lbs or less.
[Modified by Tommy_Gunns, 2:22 AM 8/8/2002]
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,308
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (Yellow Dragon)
will i used to think the same way " type R is not as fast as i thought!" , but after i getting more into it, " it's fast". The way ppl think it's fast is cuz they feel the "pull power" with is about torque, but speed is more about HP. If u try u feel it, u can't feel a lot "pull" but u can see the speed meter goes up fast!
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,468
Likes: 0
From: Weed Country, Holland, Netherlands
Re: Horsepower vs Torque (YelLowITR)
The area below the HP curve in the powerband (for us: 6000 - 8500 rpm) is the most important, not the max. torque nor the max. power. But these three things are related of course.... That area is the work that is done during the elapsed time. That's because we have only a 5 speed transmission. If we would have an CVT then the peak power will be the most important, because it will stay in 8000 rpm anyway during full throttle.
[Modified by DutchITR1689, 1:13 PM 8/8/2002]
[Modified by DutchITR1689, 1:13 PM 8/8/2002]