[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

The question was how can torque of one car be higher than that car's hp and torque of a different car, entirely different make, model, etc, be lower than the other cars hp?
The answer is how the engine develops its power over the span of rpms it covers. This is the torque curve. Max torque can be achieved early on or later in the curve. Early shows a lower hp figure. Later a higher one. Simple, easy, straight forward. No comparing standards, conversions, etc.

It still depends on which unit of measurement you take.
If you set the torque unit of measurement in lbf-in or ozf-in (or Ncm, Nµm whatever) and the power unit of measurement in hp, the torque number will for sure be higher than the power number for both engines.
So the hight of those numbers is only relevant to the unit of measurement its set out to and not to the horsepower number. It is comparing apples to oranges, or in this case.... torque to power

So if you ask yourself the question why one car has a higher torque number than its hp and another car has a lower torque number than its hp number, the answer is: because of the way the units of measurements are chosen.
If you ask yourself the question why has one car more torque than another car (with the same units of measurement) with the same amount of power output, it has to do with the torque curve (or at what rpm what torque is given)

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

i am so fuckin confused but i love when people argue about what someone else was trying to ask. god i love bimmerpost

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

It still depends on which unit of measurement you take.
If you set the torque unit of measurement in lbf-in or ozf-in (or Ncm, Nµm whatever) and the power unit of measurement in hp, the torque number will for sure be higher than the power number for both engines.
So the hight of those numbers is only relevant to the unit of measurement its set out to and not to the horsepower number. It is comparing apples to oranges, or in this case.... torque to power

So if you ask yourself the question why one car has a higher torque number than its hp and another car has a lower torque number than its hp number, the answer is: because of the way the units of measurements are chosen.
If you ask yourself the question why has one car more torque than another car (with the same units of measurement) with the same amount of power output, it has to do with the torque curve (or at what rpm what torque is given)

No. Lol.
Car 1 1991 corvette with the L98 engine
Rated in SAE
Horsepower: 240 HP @ 4,300 RPM
Torque: 340 lb-ft @ 3,200 rpm
This was a torque beast and jumped off the line.

Car 2 2012 m3
Rated in SAE
Horsepower: 414 @ 8300 RPM
Torque: 295 @ 3900 RPM
High reving v8 that needed to get to the upper rpms to build power.

Now in Nm its pretty much all cars are higher tq than hp due to the formula used, but every car still will have hp based on tq and rpm and some 300 tq cars will have 175 hp, others 250hp. This based on the torque curve.

My final observation in research is that even in aussie periodicals and websites, they still use SAE numbers much of the time. I'm trying to understand why the whole Nm system isnt just dropped entirely.

[insanecoder]

Why dont you guys just stick to driving lol..

[antych]

I thought I can make world a better place by fighting scientific illiteracy, but I underestimated the task of explaining concepts like units of measurement to an adult
I'm actually sorry for this guy now.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

No. Lol.

Torque: 340 lb-ft @ 3,200 rpm

This is only 0.0000292 tnf-ml (really...it is)

I'm trying to understand why the whole Nm system isnt just dropped entirely.

Do you really want to understand? (like on an engineers/physicist level?)

Well, first of all, in this thread you've not once wrote the US unit of torque correctly.
Its not lb-ft but lbf-ft!
Well, one could think, what meaning could that letter f have that makes it so important?
The difference is in that lb is a unit of mass and lbf is a unit of force (pound force).
Torque is a rotational force.
By not writing it as force per distance but mass per distance, and engine would produce less torque (and thus less power) say on mars, or in space, or even on the equator than say in canada.
That is of course nonsense because engines (and forces) dont work that way. When the power output is the same at a certain rev, the torque should be too, wherever the engine is.
So torque is an (angular) force, not an angular mass; thus lbf-ft.
Now for the interesting bit:
Comparing lbf to Newton. (and some of the other SI units...)

the formula on how lbf (pound force) is set:

1 lbf = 1lb x 9,80665 m/s²
or
1 lbf = 1lb x 32,174049 ft/s²

Rather cumbersome numbers. Not very practical I think. It makes that 1 lbf = ~4,49 N

Now lets look at the Newton:

1N = 1 kg x 1 m/s²

thats it! Nothing more!

Pretty simple now isnt it?
If you know what a kilogram is, know what a meter is, know what a second is, you now know what a Newton is.
So now you dont have to remember the number 9,80665 or 32,174049.

Thats the beauty of the SI units. It all fits together without very clumsy conversions. And it doesnt work in multiples of 16 (oz->lbs) or 12 (in->ft) etc.
its based on 10- folds.

Be honest, why would you use a system that is based on average lenghts of a certain bodyparts or weights of a single seed with random numbers to mulitply them to make them fit?

[Vigilante375]

What about foot pounds of torque(ft lb, lb ft or foot pound)? Since it is torque (and HP) twisting the drive train to make the wheels move.

Anyways. Horsepower sells cars but torque wins races. Thats all that matters.

[FC4]

Originally Posted by Vigilante375

Anyways. Horsepower sells cars but torque wins races. Thats all that matters.

People who say this usually have no idea what they're talking about but want to sound like they do.

[davesz4mc]

I always considered HP as an engines efficiency past peak TQ, with the below extrapolations it reveals the BMW engine is way more efficient at maintaining TQ over a wider range of RPM’s. The engines would potentially equal efficiency at around 3,918 RPM with each making 220 HP and 295 TQ based on an SAE dyno of the L98.

2.5k to 4.3k power band = 1,800 RPM of over 290 TQ, 13.9 @ 101 1/4
3.9k to 8.3k power band = 4,400 RPM of over 295 TQ, 12.9 @ 108 1/4

The Vette has the early get it moving power advantage, the BMW has the longer power band advantage.

If the L98 were to rev match the M3 it would = 175 HP 111 TQ at 8300 RPM and explode

Compare S65 to the L98 power band at 2,500 – 4,500 RPM
143 HP 300 TQ to 248 HP 290 TQ = Gain of 105 HP and loss of 10 TQ
95 HP 200 TQ to 257 HP 300 TQ = Gain of 162 HP and gain of 100 TQ

Compare the L98 to S65 power band at 3,900 – 8,300 RPM
220 HP 296 TQ to 175 HP 111 TQ over 4,400 RPM = A loss of 45 HP and loss of 64 TQ (L98)
220 HP 296 TQ to 414 HP 261 TQ over 4,400 RPM = Gain of 194 HP and loss of 35 TQ (BMW).


Car 1 1991 corvette with the L98 engine
Rated in SAE
Horsepower: 240 HP @ 4,300 RPM *= 293 TQ
Torque: 340 lb-ft @ 3,200 rpm *= 207 HP
This was a torque beast and jumped off the line.


Car 2 2012 m3
Rated in SAE
Horsepower: 414 @ 8300 RPM *= 261 TQ
Torque: 295 @ 3900 RPM *= 219 HP
High reving v8 that needed to get to the upper rpms to build power.

[Chadmatic]

Originally Posted by mbanks21

I think the fact this guy says he has an S63 and a Mclaren and he's asking basic questions about HP and tq should tell you something

Umm... he has a lot of money and he didn't get it from automotive engineering?

[mbanks21]

Originally Posted by Chadmatic

Umm... he has a lot of money and he didn't get it from automotive engineering?

Ummm so you buy a million dollars worth of cars not knowing why it has more lbft vs hp? Must be nice to have that much money that you don't have to even think about stuff like that. I guess if I won the lottery I'd go buy a yacht and not care about barnacles on my dingy

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by mbanks21

Ummm so you buy a million dollars worth of cars not knowing why it has more lbft vs hp? Must be nice to have that much money that you don't have to even think about stuff like that. I guess if I won the lottery I'd go buy a yacht and not care about barnacles on my dingy

Uh, just look at our current Prez to see a good example of money and science not intersecting at all.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

This is only 0.0000292 tnf-ml (really...it is)




Do you really want to understand? (like on an engineers/physicist level?)

Well, first of all, in this thread you've not once wrote the US unit of torque correctly.
Its not lb-ft but lbf-ft!
Well, one could think, what meaning could that letter f have that makes it so important?
The difference is in that lb is a unit of mass and lbf is a unit of force (pound force).
Torque is a rotational force.
By not writing it as force per distance but mass per distance, and engine would produce less torque (and thus less power) say on mars, or in space, or even on the equator than say in canada.
That is of course nonsense because engines (and forces) dont work that way. When the power output is the same at a certain rev, the torque should be too, wherever the engine is.
So torque is an (angular) force, not an angular mass; thus lbf-ft.
Now for the interesting bit:
Comparing lbf to Newton. (and some of the other SI units...)

the formula on how lbf (pound force) is set:

1 lbf = 1lb x 9,80665 m/s²
or
1 lbf = 1lb x 32,174049 ft/s²

Rather cumbersome numbers. Not very practical I think. It makes that 1 lbf = ~4,49 N

Now lets look at the Newton:

1N = 1 kg x 1 m/s²

thats it! Nothing more!

Pretty simple now isnt it?
If you know what a kilogram is, know what a meter is, know what a second is, you now know what a Newton is.
So now you dont have to remember the number 9,80665 or 32,174049.

Thats the beauty of the SI units. It all fits together without very clumsy conversions. And it doesnt work in multiples of 16 (oz->lbs) or 12 (in->ft) etc.
its based on 10- folds.

Be honest, why would you use a system that is based on average lenghts of a certain bodyparts or weights of a single seed with random numbers to mulitply them to make them fit?

Aussie formula. Pretty useless unless you are 0.004% of the population that is aussie. In the USA and rest if the world its foot pounds not pound force. And I stated SAE which automatically means foot pounds.

[shay2nak]

Originally Posted by RACEM4TE

My question in the title, lets say a porsche 911 turbo it has 580 HP/ 780 Torque why cant it have 750HP/ and 580 torque?

didn't read all 4 pages...


Simply put it's the fact that the 911 turbo, is a turbo and turbo motors typically have equal to or greater torque number than hp.

If the opposite you're asking would be a NA motor (even supercharged) to get you "750hp & 580 ftlb" Like the Viper...

Depends how the motors are tuned. Some will design the motor for high torque like Bentley, Rolls and others tune for high power Ferrari, Lambo

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by shay2nak

didn't read all 4 pages...


Simply put it's the fact that the 911 turbo, is a turbo and turbo motors typically have equal to or greater torque number than hp.

If the opposite you're asking would be a NA motor (even supercharged) to get you "750hp & 580 ftlb" Like the Viper...

Depends how the motors are tuned. Some will design the motor for high torque like Bentley, Rolls and others tune for high power Ferrari, Lambo

Thank you.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Aussie formula. Pretty useless unless you are 0.004% of the population that is aussie. In the USA and rest if the world its foot pounds not pound force. And I stated SAE which automatically means foot pounds.

You really havent got the foggiest idea what my post was about dont you?
And do you think I'm an Aussie?
(I live in europe and there are still over twice as many europeans as americans...those kind of numbers seem to impress you...apparantly its now 2:1 in your logic. Not that that matters, even if only 1 person says something he can still be right.)

Here some more links that prove and clarify my posting and explain the physics a little bit more in detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-foot_(torque)

Do you have a technical education? (and if so, in what?)

And where is your source on how the SAE sets your particular ft·lb standard and not ft·lbf?
Because you seem to be pretty sure about SAE's standpoint on that.
Have you actually checked with SAE's Technical Standards Board? (which describes how their technical standards are set)

[rainfall]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

You really havent got the foggiest idea what my post was about dont you?
And do you think I'm an Aussie?

man, don't feed the mad dog's anger. He's biting everyone in the plaza at random

[TomHudson]

Love my Merc diesel, 224hp, 400 ft lb torque

[Chadmatic]

Originally Posted by mbanks21

Ummm so you buy a million dollars worth of cars not knowing why it has more lbft vs hp? Must be nice to have that much money that you don't have to even think about stuff like that. I guess if I won the lottery I'd go buy a yacht and not care about barnacles on my dingy

Lol! If you were wealthy you would likely have the best of everything without knowing exactly how it works. Forget HP vs Torque, I'd bet you 9 out of 10 car owners couldn't even explain the basics like how to pick the right motor oil for their car or what type / size motor their car has without looking.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

You really havent got the foggiest idea what my post was about dont you?
And do you think I'm an Aussie?
(I live in europe and there are still over twice as many europeans as americans...those kind of numbers seem to impress you...apparantly its now 2:1 in your logic. Not that that matters, even if only 1 person says something he can still be right.)

Here some more links that prove and clarify my posting and explain the physics a little bit more in detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-foot_(torque)

Do you have a technical education? (and if so, in what?)

And where is your source on how the SAE sets your particular ft·lb standard and not ft·lbf?
Because you seem to be pretty sure about SAE's standpoint on that.
Have you actually checked with SAE's Technical Standards Board? (which describes how their technical standards are set)

Why do you assume I'm arguing with you, trying to take any time to show any way to measure horsepower ot torque using any standard from any ciuntry whatsoever? Were you the op? Did you ask the question? Did you provide the OP an answer? No. I'm not because it has NOTHING to do whatsoever with the op original and subsequent questions.

He asked the relationship not the formula. And Aussie was directed at the guts stuck in Nm units, not Kw.

[Chadmatic]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Why do you assume I'm arguing with you

Probably because your avatar looks really angry.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Why do you assume I'm arguing with you, trying to take any time to show any way to measure horsepower ot torque using any standard from any ciuntry whatsoever?

You said you were wondering why not to drop the Nm standard all togheter, right here:

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I'm trying to understand why the whole Nm system isnt just dropped entirely.

furthermore:

Were you the op? Did you ask the question? Did you provide the OP an answer?

The 'answer' was imho already given in post 3 by antych.

He asked the relationship not the formula. And Aussie was directed at the guts stuck in Nm units, not Kw.

The relationship is per definition a formula, as they're both physical concepts.

Furthermore, you said:

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

And I stated SAE which automatically means foot pounds.

For using Nm vs. ft·lbf (not ft·lb) and even how to pronounce that conform SAE rules, SAE in fact has a reglatory statement set up for that:
http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/tsb/tsb003.pdf
This document describes what physical units of measurements should be used or at least try to should be used when playing by SAE rules.
And its quite an interesting document as it also explains why and how.

For instance in the foreword it says:

"The SAE’s current metric policy is, "Operating Boards shall not use any weights and measures system other than metric (SI), except when conversion is not practical, or where a conflicting world industry practice exists.

So that means that their current standpoint is that they prefer metric, unless its conflicting with a world standard.
If you look at world standard, one could argue that in the US the standard still is ft·lbf, whereas in europe and asia (and apparantly also Australia) the standard is Nm. The US has 320million people, Europe and Asia combined have over 5 billion, so at least 15 times as many.
So I wonder if that should provide any question for debate what the 'world standard' should be.
The purpose of that document is therefore how to proceed with this 'metrification' the SAE wants, so it covers all the aspects of the metric units and how to apply them, also in regard to the 'old' US units that were based upon the yard and the pound.

Furthermore it as a table (table 1) that displays the 'old' non-metric units used for the various units to measure data and their name/pronounciation accoring to SAE.
And yes, there it actually says ft·lbf and not ft·lb and it describes it as "foot pound-force" and not foot pound:



So take this as a learing lesson. If you want to play by SAE's rules in a discussion, use Nm. If you still want to use the old US system based on yards and pounds, use ft·lbf and not ft·lb and say 'foot pound-force' and not 'foot pound'. That way you're showing that you comprehend the physical background of those units of measurement.
If people say you're wrong, just direct them to this post


btw I still dont understand the relationship between 'Aussie' and Nm.
As far as I'm concerned the whole world except the USA uses Nm. Even in the UK I think it's the preferred standard.