Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma
And you would STILL BE WRONG.
You need rear wheel TQ, not engine TQ which is the number people always talk about. RWTQ is engine TQ modified by gearing. So its useless to factor in engine TQ without knowing that other factor.
Now HP already factors this in.
Now stop and think for a second, which car is faster one with 100ft/lbs or torque and a 6000rpm redline or one with 200ft/lbs and a 3000rpm redline. Now lets the higher reving engine always makes the same hp at 2x the rpm of the other motor. So we have a high torque motor and a low torque motor. Which is faster?
Now what if you just change the final drive by 2x on the higher RPM motor?
I simply cannot believe how dense some people are on this subject. Its really sad.
|
The adverse language is not really reflecting well on you. What exactly is your problem there?
READ post #175. I am talking about Tq at the wheel. Who said anything about Tq at the shaft?
You still need to convert the hp number to tq so that you can calculate the force so that you can calculate the instantaneous acceleration. What part of that are you opposing?
Read my previous about max tq vs. tq. You are using the terms loosely. What does it mean to have a 100ft/lbs or torque and a 6000rpm car? That means the car has 100ft/lbs MAX tq and a 6000 rpm redline. Yes, the MAX hp number will account for that, and therefore be a correlate for AVERAGE acceleration. Do you understand the difference between that and instantaneous acceleration? Did you even read my post?