Torque vs. Horsepower: The True Answer Explained

[danielrm26]

For anyone interested I've written an article on what matters more for acceleration, torque or horsepower. Any comments would be welcomed:

http://dmiessler.com/study/horsepower

[Josh49]

This guy is citing a bunch of information from a bunch of different sources. He is just interpreting what he has found in google, and doesn't have any true knowledge of the material. It is obvious.

[hen]

Originally Posted by Josh49

This guy is citing a bunch of information from a bunch of different sources. He is just interpreting what he has found in google, and doesn't have any true knowledge of the material. It is obvious.

haha 'this guy' is daniel

[Insider]

So if a car, like the 335i, makes 300 ft/tq at 2,000 rpm and 5,000 rpm, does the car accelerate just as fast at 2,000rpm as 5,000 rpm?

Where would the car accelerate most quickly? Peak torque or peak HP?

[2007/335i/coupe]

Originally Posted by Josh49

This guy is citing a bunch of information from a bunch of different sources. He is just interpreting what he has found in google, and doesn't have any true knowledge of the material. It is obvious.

And that statement is also obvious Seriously though, anyone who understands how to quickly search for information realizes Google can be their best friend.

Back to his interpretation... I'm not going to argue one way or the other since I view acceleration needs both. Maybe it's cause I'm smoking a doob now and having a glass of fine wine causing my slight delirium; reading your article, you mentioned that HP is an extrapolation of torque and RPMs. If the question is, "What matters more for acceleration, horsepower or torque?" and your answer is horsepower... isn't torque part of the equation to achieve horsepower and therefore equal? Damn... I'm kinda buzzed now :rocks:

[Josh49]

Yes. It's a very good start, just not complete. I guess the point of my post was so that people wouldn't come into this reading it like the bible, there is misinformation, and information that needs to be filled in.

[2007/335i/coupe]

Originally Posted by Josh49

Yes. It's a very good start, just not complete. I guess the point of my post was so that people wouldn't come into this reading it like the bible, there is misinformation, and information that needs to be filled in.

And to further support your point, even when searching for information on the web, they should not take it as 100% factual. This isn't just a forum to talk about BMWs, it is also a forum for all facets of knowledge!

[Josh49]

Correct.

[BK]

I won't comment on substance because I have the attention span of a gnat and the article looked a little too ponderous for me to actually read.

But I will comment on form. You might consider tweaking your color scheme. The "light brown" of some of the headings on the "lighter brown" of the background makes them difficult to read.

Not exactly the critique you're looking for, I know.

[Josh49]

Say there's a car that produces 200 hp (peak at max hp rpm) and 170 ft-lbs of torque (peak at max torque rpm). Now there's another car whose engine has a turbo on it and produces 200 hp and 230 ftlbs at the respective max rpm. The second car will accelerate much faster and put you into the seat much harder than the first car. At lower rpms, where torque is at it's peak, the amount of torque to crank your wheels off the line and accelerate you is much higher. You will accelerate faster. Morever, most turbo cars have high, flat torque curves, so you will have a large values of torque over the lower to mid rpm range. This equals acceleration, as well as put you into the back of your seat, driving bliss..

I would choose the second car..

[KL2DC]

Originally Posted by hen

haha 'this guy' is daniel

That was an awful pun

It was meant as a pun, right?

[smokin]

Originally Posted by Josh49

This guy is citing a bunch of information from a bunch of different sources. He is just interpreting what he has found in google, and doesn't have any true knowledge of the material. It is obvious.

you rude arrogant .....

so what if its his interpretation ? unbeleiveable someone can be so rude when someone has set out to assist other people.

[Josh49]

I did not mean to be rude or arrogant. I am the exact opposite. Most of this information gathered is not accurate, and was trying to inform other members of the innacurarcy of this information. I do not want a lot of other members reading this and being mislead.

[danielrm26]

Hello, Josh. Since you felt it necessary to insult me by accusing me of plagiarism and then claiming that I have no knowledge of the subject I think you at least owe me the decency of showing where I am wrong. In fact, at the very bottom of my page I specifically ask for input that will "help me understand the subject better."

For the record, however, I *did* read the multitude of articles online in order to help learn the difference between torque and horsepower; it seemed a very logical way to start, don't you agree? In fact I read probably 20 hits for "horsepower vs. torque" in Google -- all of them -- every last word.

Then I read about combustion engines for a couple days all over the Internet, as well as a couple of other related topics. Then I called up my Calculus professor from University and had a very long discussion about the physics involved (he's dual majored) and went over the math with him.

Only after all of this did I sit down to write my own piece, and I did so using my own approach to the explanation and my own understanding of the subject matter. I sincerely hope that one day you be able to see the difference between this and plagiarism. Once that day comes you'll be able to refrain from making an ass of yourself in public by making false accusations.

[danielrm26]

Originally Posted by Josh49

Yes. It's a very good start, just not complete. I guess the point of my post was so that people wouldn't come into this reading it like the bible, there is misinformation, and information that needs to be filled in.

The Bible doesn't have a bit at the end like my article does that says, "I'm game for anything that'll help me better understand this interesting subject."

You were disrespectful, dude, and if you were half as cool as you probably claim to be you'd man up and apologize.

[NaTuReB0Y]

cliffnotes please......

[ChineseGuy]

Originally Posted by danielrm26

The Bible doesn't have a bit at the end like my article does that says, "I'm game for anything that'll help me better understand this interesting subject."

You were disrespectful, dude, and if you were half as cool as you probably claim to be you'd man up and apologize.

i wouldn't really say he's disrespectful to you....just not as friendly in trying to tell us that the information is put together by lots of sources and that it is not completed....because there MIGHT be other information that you might have left out.....WHICH is why he said it's not TRUE KNOWLEDGE.....

so....i don't think he's rude or whatever

let us all be nice to everyone.....it's CHRISTMAS!!~

[2007/335i/coupe]

danielrm26, so I'm still curious about your answer? If HP is extracted partially from torque, isn't torque important?

[danielrm26]

Yes, torque is very important, but torque is on the OTHER SIDE of the equation from horsepower. The question at hand is, "What's more important for acceleration?"

Horsepower is what you look for when talking about acceleration. Torque plays a part in that (combined with RPMs), but horsepower is your ability to generate force quickly.

Generating lots of force (torque) means nothing when discussing acceleration. 18-wheel trucks and tractors have a TON of torque, but you wouldn't want to race one.

[bavarian19]

I teach that exact physics to my 8th graders. Nothing complicated about it.

Your conclusion is somewhat far fetched though...


Just one example from your conclusion:

"So that means we've moved the same distance, but in less time. That's acceleration, folks."


No. Its not. You did work (W=Fd), but in less time. You take the Force of the object your lifting (your weight, which is = the mass of the object x 9.8 m/s/s) and you multiply that by the distance lifted.

Use the metric system (as any true Scientist would tell you), so you multiply the Force you calculated, by the converted distance in meters (1,915.058 4 meters)

So you have now calculated the amount of work done. But if you do that amount of work in less time, its more POWER (P= W/t) and not acceleration. Acceleration is any change in velocity (Whether it be a change in magnitude or direction). If you pull at a constant rate, which you claim to do, there is no acceleration.




No offense, but you seem to be out of your league...

[shimshimhada]

Originally Posted by danielrm26

Yes, torque is very important, but torque is on the OTHER SIDE of the equation from horsepower. The question at hand is, "What's more important for acceleration?"

Horsepower is what you look for when talking about acceleration. Torque plays a part in that (combined with RPMs), but horsepower is your ability to generate force quickly.

Generating lots of force (torque) means nothing when discussing acceleration. 18-wheel trucks and tractors have a TON of torque, but you wouldn't want to race one.

That's because they weigh 10000000000000000000000000lbs.

[BK]

Originally Posted by shimshimhada

That's because they weigh 10000000000000000000000000lbs.

And the gearing is a little different, too.