OT: HP vs. Torque

[DrWho]

----------------

On 4/11/2005 10:48:35 AM picky wrote:

The auto industry made one particular attempt at producing an electric vehicle and putting out into the market on the West side of the country. We were told by the SIGs, "If you build will it. They will come!" Well, after several billions dollars worth of development in DC motors, drag co-

efficiency

and battery technology, we did, and they did not! No one wanted to drive these "earth-friendly" vehicles. Despite the fact that these cars were quite fast, no one wanted them. They are now all off the market. We learned that until future battery technology improves greatly, electric cars are not currently

----------------

I know you wanted to avoid brand names, but what electric cars were there that were fast? Or even hybrid cars? I would totally be all over purchasing either if they weren't so extremely butt ugly and slow. Heck, why not make a sports car that just happens to have an electric motor (or hybrid) and don't even mention it in the advertising? Targeting towards "save the environment wackos" doesn't seem to me to be the best target for trying to sell something. Build "cool" electric and hybrid cars and then "they will come". From a few somewhat reliable second hand sources I heard about an electric drag car powered by a normal unmodified electric forklift motor (hydrolic of course) that could do under 10 seconds on the quarter mile. it was powered by an array of normal car batteries (which had to be recharged before every run). I know it gets back to battery limitations, but we've also got hydrogen powered engines now and from what it sounds like, they've got feul cells now that do a good job of extracting the hydrogen from water. I think another factor in the whole scheme of things is the hold that the oil industry has on our society...changing to new energy sources will mean changing society.

[johnyholiday]

throw some dual flowmasters on. an you will get more of both;i'm running 68&71 chevelle's that run like striped a$$ apes, the young dudes flip out when you give em a ride ,an a 4 barrel is sucken air threw a k&N filter ,an they say "you drive like this everyday" they have never been pushed back in the seat before on launch, then you tell em about all the other goodies, an i lose em around kevlar bands in the powerglide ,if you can't rip the harmonic balancer of the crank whats the fun in it ,i'm going to burn all the gas, to force the oil companys ,to build a new refinery they haven't since 1976

[IAmtnbikr]

If you REALLY want to throw them back in the seat of a heavier car like an older Chevelle.....the Glide is NOT the way to go!

IMO the TH-350 is a better trans in a car heavier than 3K lbs, and if properly built (decent friction materials, hardened intermediate sprag race, and attention to details when assembled....) a TH-350 will easily handle close to 600hp. The TH-400 is a much stronger trans but takes more power due to frictional losses and rotating weight compared to the TH-350. The Glide is nearly always quicker in a car at or around 3K lbs or less, and sometimes depending on the combo it MAY be better in a heavier car. But....on the street....the lower first gear and less drop between gears on the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts make the 3-speeds the winner! Or, look to an overdrive for more tire-melting gear ratio advantages and the ability to lock up the converter for decent highway manners.

As to the question of turbocharged vs. supercharged....the reason the person mentioned "lag" is that a turbo car must build boost pressure via the turbo itself, which is exhaust gas-driven. It takes a slight amount of time for the boost to build. With a supercharged car, you mash the loud pedal and boost is there NOW! Trust me...there is NOTHING more fun than driving a short-wheelbase supercharged car with lots of power, lol! Some of the races we went to would pay a decent amount for winning a "burnout contest" during one qualifying pass. There was one race in Wichita that still comes to mind when I did a nearly 1/4-mile long burnout...and had to sit at the end of the track for probably 30 seconds with the roof hatch open so the smoke would clear enough for me to see to back up to the starting line, lol. Too much fun!!!!

[endover]

Mr. Holiday sounds like he's havin too much fun and I'd have to agree!

I've bumped up my '93 Z28 to 350 HP and there's NOTHING like letting that clutch out at 4000 rpm and rippin as much tire as you want. When I first did my mods, I was STILL getting 27mpg on the highway (when I kept it under 120mph). It now has about 150,000 miles on it and it hovers around 19mpg(but who cares about that anyway...Ha!).

380 ft-lbs of "Neck snapping Torque" occurs at 2400 RPM on this car so there's no need to rev up too high to get what you want!

Forget what the specs say....If your looking for performance find written reports on how they drive and perform. My 350hp Camaro produces quarter-mile times in line with other 400hp cars. Suspension, tires, transmissions make all the difference. Your buying the WHOLE car and not just the engine.

I'm a Mechanical Engineer so I can give you all the specs on what HP and torque are but definitions don't really matter. The rule of thumb is that Torque is what "gets you moving" and hp is what "gives you top speed". You need both but at the appropriate times!

...and oh yeah....I drive an 85hp, '93 Honda Civic back and forth to work everyday. It's the smallest cheapest car they made (almost) and it gets anywhere from 32 to 38mpg. I save up the fun stuff for the weekend!!!!

[auto_xer]

Don't forget about weight. Weight is probably the biggest unlooked at factor when determining how fast a car with XXX HP is. Lighter is almost always better for acceleration, handling and breaking.

[Colin]

So the questions are:

What four-wheel vehicle sold retail has the most horsepower for the least price?

What is the single BEST thing I can do to increase horsepower on my little pick-up?

What is the single CHEAPEST thing I can do to increase horsepower on my little pick-up?

[hwatkins]

----------------

On 4/11/2005 10:25:48 PM Olorin wrote:

I'll try the 3500+ idea. The thing is so torquey I really try to keep it low (except when I'm romping), again in the interest of economy. Any particular reason you liked to run it high?

O

----------------

On my 2.8 that seemed to be the best torque/speed combination that generally applied to 1 - 4 gear. Now mine was hopped up a bit in both torque and HP so your experience may vary. What this means is that for the best twisty driving at speed I would not shift up until above 3500 and I would not shift down unless I was sure that I would remain above 3500. Much of this was due to the cold air intake change, but it was a great torque band for speed. With a car that can turn 85+mph fairly easy in third gear there is lots of opportunity to take corners at speed and be very grippy.

Try the over 3500 rule after you get comfortable with the car. I bet you will be wearing the grin for a week.

Two warnings about the car - It is not as sloppy as it feels - the darn seats let you slide so much you think that it is the car yawing (many folks have gone to 5 point harnesses to alleviate that feeling). Also - the speedometers are notoriously wrong - your real speed is something less than the speedo tells you. It is not linear, as your speedometer reads a higher speed the difference between real speed is greater. In my car I had the opportunity to set cruise on 100 mph on an oval tral and the timed speed was closer to 95 mph. It is also not consistent between vehicles - go figure.

[auto_xer]

I don't know much about that specific truck but swapping the 4 liter V6 from the higher end B series might work. It might be a plug and play event - or not. There are plenty of V8 kits for Ford Rangers that would probably work also. And of course, there is the forced induction route on your current motor - probably turbo in your case. Each of these will require lots of time and effort - especially if you are doing the work.

Cheap? K&N makes either panel or entire intake systems that are relitivly cheap. A little freeier flowing muffler or an entire cat back system might help. I have a feeling that finding bolt-on performance stuff may be a little hard for that truck.

[hwatkins]

----------------

On 4/12/2005 7:43:24 AM Colin wrote:

So the questions are:

What is the single BEST thing I can do to increase horsepower on my little pick-up?

What is the single CHEAPEST thing I can do to increase horsepower on my little pick-up?

----------------

Hard to answer Colin not knowing the specs on your vehicle. Some generalizations though.

Many vehicles have a cold air feed to the engine that is larger than the cold air intake. If you let more cold air in you should (emphasis on should) get more HP. Sometimes you can also reroute the intake to a lower position to get 'colder' air.

Most vehicles come with a one size fits all exhaust system. You can look at a legal version of a new exhaust that doesn't create as much back pressure and get more HP.

Everything eles starts to get into bigger bucks. If the Cold Air intake is a solvable issue it is generally the least expensive and most noticable change. The exhaust can get a bit more expensive and doesn't have the same 'butt dyno' effect.

[auto_xer]

http://www.knfilters.com/search/product.aspx?Prod=57-2535

[sfogg]

Henry,

"BTW - you had the link to Rachel's site - is she still around with her Z3? Esmirelda was my car's twin..."

Yup, she still has Emmy and is still enjoying her. Awhile back she was having some driveability problems that her dealer couldn't fix and she was almost considering selling Emmy but she came by my place and I got Emmy running right again. I haven't seen them in awhile though but will probably try to get together with them sometime fairly soon.

Olorin,

" It's pretty grippy, and since I enjoy the turning-without-slowing-down-first aspects a lot more than the zippy-dooh-dah drag racing aspects of driving the car, that's a good thing."

Just wait to you put in some Koni's, better anti-sway bars and M3 offset upper strut mounts!

Auto-xer,

"Lighter is almost always better for acceleration, handling and breaking."

"Just add lightness."

-Colin Chapman

Shawn

[maxg]

In a straight choice between horsepower and torque I would take torque any time. We had a Land Rover Discovery 2 for a while a couple of years ago. Not much in the Horsepower department - but my God the Torque was incredible. I dont think I ever went over 2500 RPM and it would pull away clean at 800 RPM.

The net of all that was that it was one of the quietest and most relaxing cars to drive / be driven in.

Our other car is almost as torquey - and it is American (aren't you proud of me). It is a 2.5 litre Chrysler Stratus (Sebring in the US I think) Cabrio. Lazy engine is the word - masses of torque low down means it is truely serene on the road. Just put the thing in drive - sit back, relax and let the car do its thing. I would not want to go racing down country lanes in it (the handling aint there) but for motoring up a freeway or through town it is a dream.

If you get out of a car more relaxed than you got in - it is a good car in my book.

BMW's are great drivers cars - but relaxing they are not. I have had a few - and stuffed a 3 series into a Citroen at heady speed - walking away with a black line across my chest from the seat belt and nothing else. They are seriously well built - as are Mercs but you just cant chill out in them like you can an American car (remember I am not an American and I live in Greece).

Cause if you want power and relaxation - go British (well Ford now). A friend had a Jaguar XJS V12 cabrio for years. 300 BHP standard - but he added those ludicrous bottles!!!

Torque was impressive without. With the Nitrous it was MAD BAD AND DANGEROUS. He could spin the wheels at 80 mph! I seem to remember him measuring 550 BHP at the wheels. It took about 15,000 miles to blow that engine (completely).

[endover]

The other thing that can become a problem is that more horsepower from the engine means more wear on the rest of your vehicle so will reach a point of diminishing returns. Your engine may put out 1,000hp but if your transmission is only rated for 200hp, you'll find that parts fall off your car!

One of the biggest misconceptions is that gas makes horsepower...NOPE! In reality, more air/oxygen in your cylinders means more horsepower! In most cars, the mixture is about 14 parts of air to 1 part of gasoline. Turbo's and superchargers are just better ways to force more air into your cylinder. That's why "cold air intakes" are better. Colder air is denser and therefore has more oxygen.

bla....bla....bla.... Okay...so what that means for you is the biggest bang for your buck is to get more air into your engine. K&N air filters are great for adding anywhere from 3 to 30 HP (depending on your engine). Don't go thinking you have to buy the exact filter for your car. I went and found the biggest K&N filter I could fit under my hood and with some "jar sealing paraffin" (like grandma used to seal her Jelly's in) and a surfboard fiberglass repair kit, I formed my own cold air intake and it works great!

You can only put so much IN if you don't provide a place for it to come out so a larger exhaust system would also make a difference.

Now-a-days a performance computer chip is typically offered for your engine and that could add hp fairly easily (dpending on your engine).

The nice thing about adding air to your engine is that your not forced to screw up your gas mileage. If your car "breathes" better, it's more efficient. If it's more efficient, it will use less gas (for your gas pedal being in the same position). However...if you want to go faster, just push your foot down and you'll get the extra horsepower you've built into it. My mileage actually went UP after installing the "breathing" extras (except at 120mph).

Other than that, a full engine swap out with an added twin turbo or supercharger and with a transmission swap out and with 15 inch wide tires and with a frame stiffening package, bla....bla....bla....

As for the highest hp car....hmmmmm...how far can a boy throw a rock? Too many answers out there. Production car, race car, expiramental cars, kit cars, etc.....

My two cents!

[endover]

Oops....I missed the part where you said "sold-retail". hmmmm...I'll have to go look that one up....

[picky]

----------------

On 4/12/2005 12:19:54 AM DrWho wrote:

I know you wanted to avoid brand names, but what electric cars were there that were fast? Or even hybrid cars? I would totally be all over purchasing either if they weren't so extremely butt ugly and slow. Heck, why not make a sports car that just happens to have an electric motor (or hybrid) and don't even mention it in the advertising? Targeting towards "save the environment wackos" doesn't seem to me to be the best target for trying to sell something. Build "cool" electric and hybrid cars and then "they will come". From a few somewhat reliable second hand sources I heard about an electric drag car powered by a normal unmodified electric forklift motor (hydrolic of course) that could do under 10 seconds on the quarter mile. it was powered by an array of normal car batteries (which had to be recharged before every run). I know it gets back to battery limitations, but we've also got hydrogen powered engines now and from what it sounds like, they've got feul cells now that do a good job of extracting the hydrogen from water. I think another factor in the whole scheme of things is the hold that the oil industry has on our society...changing to new energy sources will mean changing society.

----------------

I apologize to all in advance for the length of this, but DrWho touched on a lot of topics:

DrWho: When I worked at the "skunk-works" (secret, coak & dagger design projects) at General Motors' Tech Center in Warren, Michigan, I designed the rear suspension on the GM EV1 electric car. During testing, we ran an ungoverned prototype against a Nissan 300ZX and the electric won the 1/8th mile consistently. The car could do over 115 MPH and the torque was unreal. Road-worthy models were governed at 85 MPH, but they got there very quickly. Their range was 50 to 100 miles without a charge.

Although, due to their nature, I would never lump Hybrids together with all electric vehicles, as electrics can be built to perform far-faster than hybrids (and even some gasoline-engine cars), I do not consider hybrids to be fast. The only Hybrid vehicle I have any history with is the Ford Escape Hybrid, which is currently available at Ford dealerships. It looks like any other Escape, which, in my opinion, is not a "butt ugly" vehicle. The vehicle has good driveability, but it's rather costly to produce and purchase just as are the offerings from Honda and others. Owners must currently pay top-dollar for the latest technology until it becomes mainstream. It's the same way with computers, DVD players, etc. Due to the technology involved and also the original intended purpose of hybrids (which is to save fuel and supposidly, the environment) it's not currently feasible to produce a "high-performance-minded" hybrid. Everything you stuff into a vehicle's design requires real estate within that car's body. It's called "packaging". High Performance Hybrids would require too-large an engine, DC motors and supplimental battery-packs to package in a smaller, sportier vehicle. Their weight alone would make them much slower.

However, one could produce an extremely-fast all electric car, but with battery technology being what it is today, the car would not be very practical as, depending on how hard it was driven, it would require frequent recharging. Range might be only 20 to 40 miles if driven hard. Additional range would require many more batteries and hence, enormous weight that would contribute to the car's downfall in mileage. Simply put: you've reached the point of diminshed returns, which is the reason effecient and affordible all-electric cars are not possible with today's technology. Additionally, an electric vehicle recharging infrastructure does not currenlty exist in this country. That would require curb-side charging stations at a portion of the spaces in every parking lot in the country (not to mention people's homes) and manner in which to collect the fees from the drivers for the electriclty used. GM did have a plan for all of this, but it would require federal intervention to make it happen. Had the EV-1 been able to achieve a range of 150 to 200 miles between charges, I'd be driving one now. It was a great car for a first try, in my opinion, but it missed the mark due to technology limitations that still exist today.

As far as addressing environmentalists as "wackos", although I don't always see eye-to-eye with SIG-types (Special Interest Groups), I must respect their opinions, just as I would expect them to respect mine. After all, their goal, according to themselves, is an attempt to make the earth a better place to live in. And, I can't argue with that. Therefore, I tend not to refer to those whom do not agree with me as "wackos".

With that said, in the early 1990's, California had adopted a law that required U.S. Automakers to produce a Zero-Emissions vehicle by a given year. The state also required automakers make those zero emission vehicles a minium of 25% (I think I recaLL) all vehicle sold by that automaker in the state of California. Otherwise, if the automaker failed to meet the 20%-mark, they would not be allowed to see any regular vehicles in the state of California. In short: California was attempting to mandate how many electric vehicles the car makers had to sell before they could sell vehicles that produce emissions, including low emission vehicles. Naturally, this absurd legislation failed, becuase technolgy has not advanced as far as it would need to and.....the real reason it failed.....California can't mandate what its citizens want to buy. Nobody wanted the electrics. People didn't give a darn what their stated wanted. Instead, full-size truck sales soared and GM was stuck with a bunch of shiny, new zero-emission vehicles. Over 50% of people in california drive large trucks (pickups and SUV's, etc.) California holds 25% of Ford's light truck market share. That is huge.

As for the hydrogen issue....it too was garnered out of the need for efficiency and low emissions, not high performance. No hydrogen-refilling infrastructure currently exists in this nation. I am not familiar enough with hydrogen-powered vehicles to shed any light on what it would take to build one with a high performnce capability. However, given what I do know about automotive technology, it would be my educated guess that there's going to be a much better answer out there somewhere, someday than hydrogen as a fuel source. We must be patient and allow technology to evolve as it has for years. The answers will be forthcoming. The oil companies have no reason to stand in the way, if they are. They'll continue to make their billions from plastics, which are all made from petroleum.

[sfogg]

" One of the biggest misconceptions is that gas makes horsepower...NOPE! In reality, more air/oxygen in your cylinders means more horsepower!"

Only because it lets you burn more fuel. If you just add air without increasing fueling you will go leaner. It is easy to add fuel, the trick is to add more air along with it. IOW, increasing the engines volumetric efficiency.

"In most cars, the mixture is about 14 parts of air to 1 part of gasoline."

When in closed loop, not during open loop operation.

http://ackthud.com/shawnfogg/mixture.htm

"That's why "cold air intakes" are better. Colder air is denser and therefore has more oxygen."

Most cars no don't suck hot engine air anyway. So the whole 'cold air intake' is sort of a misnomer. What some of them (and many are crap) do is reduce restrictions in the intake path of an engine. If you reduce the places that are the biggest restrictions to the engines breathing you can increase its ability to take in more air. If you can take in more air you can burn more fuel and put out more power. If your engine is taking in all the air it possibly can at a certain RPM band things like CAI and such can't help the engine. It is only where the engine is being 'choked' where simple bolts ons can improve airflow. Typically if you actually measure the airflow into an engine you will find things like CAI only improve flow at the higher RPM because down low the engines air needs are much smaller and the system is adequately sized to fully supply what the engine needs. Double the RPM and the engine needs twice as much airflow, it is a linear relationship.

What is very interesting is when you start charting out engines airflow and then converting the airflow to volumetric efficiency then chart the volumetric efficiency (VE) you will find that chart looks very very similiar to the engines torque curve. If you do pre/post charts of VE and compare them to pre/post dyno charts of torque they will show gains in the same places. From that you can determine where the engines increased HP by converting torque+rpm to HP.

" If your car "breathes" better, it's more efficient. If it's more efficient, it will use less gas (for your gas pedal being in the same position). "

Yup, if you reduce pumping losses (when at cruising speeds) you can actually increase fuel efficency slightly. However most people that put things like CAI into cars tend to get into it more so their MPG will go down.

Shawn

[auto_xer]

----------------

On 4/12/2005 8:42:31 AM endover wrote:

The other thing that can become a problem is that more horsepower from the engine means more wear on the rest of your vehicle so will reach a point of diminishing returns. Your engine may put out 1,000hp but if your transmission is only rated for 200hp, you'll find that parts fall off your car!

----------------

Yep - what he said.

My car now has a nasty habit of shearing off axles near the CV joint. Sticky tires, more power and a limited slip diff didn't help matters...

You really shouldn't worry if youre only adding a filter on a stick and an exhaust. Your truck will run better, get better mileage and sound better (hopefully).

[sfogg]

Picky,

"and the torque was unreal."

I'm sure it was, electric motors generate max. torque at 0 rpm so it probably got going very well because of this.

I can't recall... did the EV1 use a CVT? That would seem to be a good match.

Shawn

[picky]

----------------

On 4/12/2005 8:59:42 AM sfogg wrote:

Picky,

"and the torque was unreal."

I'm sure it was, electric motors generate max. torque at 0 rpm so it probably got going very well because of this.

I can't recall... did the EV1 use a CVT? That would seem to be a good match.

Shawn----------------

Shawn: (BTW: Nice Z!) If memory serves me right (we're going back 15 years), we did the EV-1 car, originally called "Impact" (a really bad name for a car!), with two direct-drive DC motors (one for each front wheel) that were controlled electronically. They used active feedback which allowed you to hold the pedal to the floor and the front wheels would run up max torque and almost barely begin to break loose from the pavement. The electronic circuits would bias the motors to hold them at this point of almost breaking loose until max speed was reached. In early trials we began snapping axles off the thing! Production models used only one DC motor and I left GM to return to Ford before I could discover the type of transmission used. CVT would be an excellent guess. The braking system used regeneration in order to assist the batteries in staying charged. The car even had air conditioning and a killer sound system. I really enjoyed driving the car. One huge problem was that in parking lots, when backing out of a parking spot the car was silent. A few engineer-type pedestrians got run over until they made us install a backup beeper on the thing! I am serious! You could not hear the car move when backing slowly in reverse.

[picky]

----------------

On 4/11/2005 2:07:06 PM rplace wrote:

Picky, you are wise beyond your years. I have had that same conversation with many, many people. My Z3 was assembled in South Carolina by US workers. It is a global economy we live in. Cars are literally made around the world. My traitor remark, while misspelled, was meant more of a joke for the Motor City types. So many of them are old school and if it did not come from the big three then you might as well be dissecting their children while still alive. I gave up even trying to breach the subject. Listen to the equipment YOU like and drive the car YOU want to drive and you cant go wrong. BTW I started off as a Mechanical Engineer at UofM, then switched my major to Computer Science after taking Thermo Dynamics 3 timesnot thermo I & IIbut Thermo I three times. I hated that class ;-) Maybe when I get up to see my parents (still live in Plymouth) I can bum an invite to the Picky HT, rumor is it sounds pretty darn good. I love the picks and the Red Wing jersey! We will invite ColterPhoto1 along too for good measure.

----------------

rplace: I understand what you refer to as the "old school" mentality of the automotive types. However, since this "old school" opinion of the workers here in Detroit is still very prevalent, especially among our UAW (union) ranks, that stance is not really Old School, but rather "current school"...at least here in Wayne County, Michigan. Let me begin by prefacing that, even though I am not union (I am salaried), I have worked formerly as a blue-collar worker as well as side-by-side with hourly workers as a launch engineer. Despite the fact that my view differs with their view on foreign cars, I will tell you that I have the utmost respect and admiration for our workers as they are actually what our customers see. The customers does not view all of the research and development stuff that I and my peers do. Instead, they see the final product turned out by our folks in the plants. When you buy a Ford that is made with foreign parts, the bulk of the money you paid stays here inthe states. When you buy a Toyota built here in the states by US workers, the bulk of the money still goes back to Japan. So, there is some gravity to the "old School" attitude. But, what I have discovered at that we are Americans first. And to be American, is to be able to make your own choices. That is what freedom is supposed to be all about. But, I still occassionally bump heads with my union counterparts over this subject. Thank God we both enjoy drinking the same beer together!

On a personal note: I too have migrated from Engineering into Computer Science (IT). After 20-some-odd years, I needed a change. And, yes, you are welcome at our place if you ever happen to be in the neighborhood.