The answer is in the end of video. The gearbox. No mater what torque was in 1.8t or in 1.9pd in crankshaft, it matters what torque was on the wheels, and it will be +- the same because of gearbox
i love riding in my old 7.3 V8 Turbodiesel F250 towing a 28 foot camping trailer to the races. good fuel mileage, goes 70-75mp/h all day long and goes across any mountain. It has 250k miles on it, all towing miles, and i feel it will keep doing it until the end of time. cruising at 2000rpm, 4 grand at the redline. my 86 BMW eta, 2.7 liter had 125 hp at 4500 rpm. drove it for 25 years, 250k miles, 30mpg and passed emissions until i traded it in. low rpm, good torque, that is where it is at. such a relaxed way of getting there. And getting there is all that matters anyway.
Basically more torque means more power at lower rpms. Doesn’t matter in 0-60 and 1/4mile, but has way more power down low where you use it day to day basis
This is why the 1 ton utes are all coming out with little 2.0l diesels these days, down from 3.0l. The each claim 500nm torque. They do it with higher revving engines and 10 speed gearboxes, vs lower revving 3.0l with 5 or 6 gears. But when you put them to a tow test up a hill the larger engines win out. Overall, though, in normal day to day operation where the utes are not at maximum load or using maximum performance the smaller engines are more economical to operate.
Not exactly. Diesel Ute's are nearly always turbo charged, a 14.5psi increase in inlet pressure equates roughly to double the volumetric efficiency of the engine, this means a 2.0l engine with 14.5psi acts like a 4.0l N/A engine. So you can't compare sizes of engines like that. If the engine is less capacity and makes similar horse power and torque it's likely a large percentage of that comes from a boost increase.
probably wrong. Just calculate: Engine RPMxDiffxGearing in EACH gear. The gearing makes the most difference, not engine Torque. If you can gear lower, you can pull harder - simple as that.
Bingo.@@derJackistweg Most don't know a transmission is a torque MULTIPLIER- HP is same out the back regardless if it's in 1st gear, or even OD. That's a physics constant! But, but HORSEPOWER!!! goes the squeal!! meh. I just ask why cars need to be downshifted to pass, or get over the hill!
Horsepower is the "made up number" power is meassured in watts, or kilowatts and is calculated by multiplying torque in NM by the angular velocity in radians/ second. W = NM × rad/s. The reason 2 cars with the same hp but one with 300 resp 600 torque but at half the rpm accelerate the same, is bc to achive the same speed, the lower revving engine requires twice as "long" gears. Resulting in the exact same TORQUE at the wheels. It can also as you said even be slower, if the target speed requires one more gearchange.
you aremade up 🤭 more hp lesss torque at engine and less torque at whellll at shorter wheel radious still accelerate better 🤷🏻♂️ less hp with shorter wheel radious wpuld not accelerate better 👌🏻 shorter wherel radious dont give you acceleration but hp transfer be leverage / final gear ratio at given velocity 👌🏻 torque is piss of 💩 dont full yourself 😁
That was super clear explanation. I never been able to find those simple words for that, but you did. Now it'll be easier for my kid to get how's that engine physics works :) Thanx a million!!!
So refreshing to see this correctly explained on a Diesel channel. (As a Honda fan 😂) …..other great things about low torque engines is they put far less stress on the drivetrain, and have far less problems with traction……have a look at how well a k20 Honda with a Rotrex charger can put over 400bhp to the ground……look at the contact patch and size of chain on a motorbike….and they can put down 200bhp easily…..torque is literally the enemy. 😂
Thank God.. For years we heard 'HP sells cars, torque wins races.' At the time when this was popular, and arguably the fastest (if tyres were equal) form of motorsport from point A to B , Formula 1 cars, were 3L N/A putting out around 850hp and 300lb.ft
It all comes back to hp because of the equation, really depends on where you need your torque. Also really it depends on area under the curve and rpm band you want to use. A broader rpm band is typically better minus some racing applications high rpm or towing low rpm. where you need your torque is important per application. in general hp wins races, smaller lighter engine spinning faster and compensated by more gear reduction more torques to the ground. Where torque is important is efficiency, drivability and reliability, you’re engine typically live under 2500rpm most of the time. Another is the off the line grunt you need in large manual trucks, also off road rigs idling as they crawl. Which you have more torque multiplication to go slower but have huge torque at the wheels. But racing you want rpm cause you want speed and more rpm more hp. For racing it’s not as important but for everything else I’d say it’s way more important and the shape of the torque curve and area under it. I’d take an engine that makes 500lbs from idle to 6000 then engine that makes 100 from idle to 5000rpm and has a 2000rpm where it makes 550lbs at 7000 then falls drastically at the top, it makes more power but unless I’m spending all my time there it’s not going be a good application, but if geared right it would pull on the other one and be faster, now from a dig the other one might give it a run for it’s money tho especially with same gearing but the other would eventually catch up, anyway it’s late and I’m rambling
I think a large part of the appeal of a torquey engine is the feeling that it's not trying. My last bike was an IL4 600 and my current is a V2 1000 with the same power but far more torque and it's the fact that I can open the throttle at low revs and feel power. On the IL4 600 I'd have to drop 2 gears and slip the clutch to get the same output, which with the added faff and noise and theatre of all those revs makes it feel like it's really trying, vs cracking open the throttle on the 1000 and getting power without all the hoo-ha and screaming. Feeling like the engine isn't trying gives the illusion that there's more on tap than there actually is, at least under normal low-mid rpm road use.
Reminds me of a challenge between a power lifter and an endurance runner carrying 1000 lbs up a flight of stairs. First test with 100 pound weights x 10 trips up the stairs, second with 10 pound weights x 100 trips. Both excelled at what they were good at, and struggled at the other. And like the 1.8L vs the 1.9L, the endurance runner will have less internal stress.
No the powerlifter has less internal stress. Well in most cases, because most of the time when an engine has more torque it's physically bigger and revs slower.
@@shanerorko8076 To be fair, the powerlifter does have a hemorrhoidal pressure relief. It is interesting though that EGT's skyrocketed at low rpm under load vs higher rpm with my old 200tdi. With the 606 I can't help myself and rev the piss out of it all the time so I do not have a reference there.
@@HairHelmet Cylinder temperature is directly related to how much diesel is being burnt. Because the engine is diesel regulated and not air regulated when you push the throttle down to WOT at lower engine speed you are using all available diesel the engine can give you. You would see the same temps if you went WOT at full engine speed for a long distance like on an Autobahn.
I usually calculate hp from torque for torque rews, and then I Drow a strength line to the hp rpm and see about what kind usable power you got. If the curve is quite flat, you don't get much more by rewing the engine high and there isn't a big difference in what gear you might be in as long you are over to torque rpm. But if you have big hp different between torque rpm and hp rpm you usually have smal power band and you need to gear more often. And of course it's having a big difference if you're torque rpm is @2000 rpm and hp @4000 rpm vs torque @5000rpm and hp @ 8000 rpm. With 2 to 4k you have much more to play with then from 5 to 8k also gearing is more often in high rpm so the difference is much bigger in speed. Power is power, and you need to look at the graf and the gearing to see what's the usable power. If you making 300hp @ 7k, your redline is 8k and you're turbo spools @ 6k and a gear change drops the rews by 3.5k you will have quite a bompy ride and not much of usable power
Finally somebody popular told this. Thank you a lot. Next myth: displacement really matter (at least with gasoline where fuel burn time doesn't limit rpm) but surface area of the pistons doesn't, and all variations of it like long stroke/under square and so on.
Work done vs turning force. Good practical explanation. Fancy autos do skew things a fair bit...always makes me laugh that manufacturers insist on putting sports modes on auto gearboxes on diesels
Feather weight boxer vs heavy weight. Both can inflict a beating in one round, feather weight in lots of smaller punches. Heavy weight in a few big hits.
Great torque 😆 takes us back to the days of the RS 2000 understanding gear ratios and rpm. Would you mind doing a torque on MAF & MAP as you have on the torque subject as this is where I’m at. I have tried calling but haven’t been able to get an answer.
Con rod length makes no direct difference, different lengths can favour more or less torque through other means but doesn't directly effect torque output. Same as stroke Vs bore, if the ve is identical between 2 equal capacity engines then the Dyno graph should be the same.
We need big torque motors here in Canada's Western mountains. My diesel is 440 cu.in. for hauling big loads, keeping the rev's down, as to not produce to much heat...I get almost 20 mpg, and can pull an 18 deck trailer loaded, with an old 4 speed trans. 1970 Highboy f-350. 4x4, 7.3 indirect inj , WVO sometimes, diesel most of the time...
Not really. You'd better have 8-10 speed gearbox. Torque on the wheel (nm) = Final ratio (N) * Gear ration * (N) * Engine torque (nm). So higher ratios on lower gears will help you maintaining low RPMs. Also RPM has nothing to do with heat (it actually does, but friction force has relatively low impact comparing to direct heating),. To move your load during your path (m) you are applying some force (n) for some time (s), and it doesn't depend on your engine but on the total weight. Path (m) * force (n) / time (s) = Work (J) / time (s) = Power (watt). So your engine need to OUTPUT defined amount of power. Heat on other hand is the difference between all power of burnt fuel and your output power, so technically speaking more modern engines will produce less heat (it has nothing to do with overheating because here cooling system comes into play). Or think about it this way: if your car would be absolutely efficient then you would need e.g. 200hp to move your load, but your engine isn't, so you burn fuel that produce 200hp to move, also 200hp to heat the engine, and also 30hp to overcome internal friction force in the engine and transmission. p.s bigger engine doesn't automatically mean it's more reliable, but in most cases there is a correlation with some other manufacturing technics and technical decisions made while developing newer smaller engines, so older ones still favorable.
@@barongogenzoler4300 Seems to be a mith, people forget the old 4speeds had long gears, it would be nice to have an overdrive.. but, when you look at 5 ton trucks from the 50's, they had 5 speeds, with 3 spd auxiliary trans behind them and, 308 cu.in. engines that worked had all day, we are finally going back to more gears, and smaller engines, again, using the torque of either a long crankshaft 6 cyl or a bigger engine. Not fast but hard working.
Ive tried to explain this to so many people, they just stare blindly at torque as if that means something. It doesnt, where the torque is located is what matters. Because that tells you the HP. HP is all tha matters.
This should dispel a few myths, throwing in something random though a typical car manual gearbox does not mind be rotated a bit faster but increased torque tends to break them...
5 min in I dont know where this leads but Audi in LeMans... came once out with a (afaik) 5l Diesel engine. They said: "We have tooo much torque". Sounds strange but the point is: You NEED REVS for a race car. Less NM= more RPM
The car with more torque will be faster/quicker because it will produce more HP at all rpms leading up to that peak hp figure. An engines hp rating is just its peak hp at one rpm. An engine with high torque will have higher hp across its powerband. This will allow you to accelerate faster through that powerband and also turn higher gears.
It’s really not. HP is the power. Torque is just half of the equation. So to make your saying make sense Rpm is how fast you hit the wall Torque is how hard you push on it
For identical weight vehicles. It is power multiplied by % change in rpm.... Then you will get the largest amount of kinetic energy added to the vehicle per gear pull. Torque is a fixed constant within that and not relevant. All the other variables are considerations of durability, efficiency, cost and efficiency
My old Tech lecturer told me, power is how fast you will hit the wall, torque is how hard you will hit it 🤣 yes there was more to it but he was explaining to teenagers 🤣
Torque is force, Higher torque harder punch. Then it is about speed how many punches you do in a second. One punch gives one work thats is HP two punches gives double HP. Though you can not put a weak punch moving a truck but it can move a car!
Here is how I understand HP and TQ. ***TQ is how much work an engine can do and HP is how quickly it can do this work. A. My ML350 diesel has 300 HP and 500TQ. 500 means it can do a lot of work but 300 means it does it slowly. B. F2004 Ferarri F1 V10 has 900 HP and only 300 TQ. It does little work EXTREMELY quickly. C. A Semi Truck or Lorry has 2100TQ and only 600 HP. It does a MASSIVE amount of work but VERY slowly. D. A McLaren 720S has 568 TQ and 710 HP. It does A LOT of work VERY Quickly. E. Modern Ducati V4 sportbike has 200 HP and 90 TQ. Like the F1 V10, it does a tiny amount of work but does this work rapidly. Work means pulling, pushing, moving a load. The higher the TQ number the more load it can move. The higher the HP number the faster it can move this load. My ML350 Bluetec diesel stock numbers were: 210 HP, 400 TQ. After tuning (OM642) the numbers are 305 HP, 530 TQ. The differences are 50% and 25%. So, now it can perform 25% more work and do this work 50% faster. Real world results? THE CAR IS AN ABSOLUTE BLAST TO DRIVE NOW! Feels like the acceleration has doubled and... it keeps pulling and pulling and pulling above 140 kph. Previous, it was scary to pass on the highway. It was gutless over 120 kph but now... it pulls hard to over 200 kph. If my engine increased the HP to 400 but dropped the TQ to 400, it would be even quicker. This means it does the same amount of work but TWICE as fast and the stock engine/numbers. TQ moves a load, HP controls the speed of this load. Many years ago a friend had a Ford truck with a 7.5 litre, 460 cubic inch engine. This is a work engine designed with high torque for pulling heavy trailers. My friend told me it didn't matter what he pulled from a speed boat to snow machines, and even to lighter things like a motorcycle or tools. The truck accelerated the same so long as the load was not 50,000 lbs. TQ for the 7.5 litre, 460 cu. in. engine was 362 and the HP is 225. Hops this helps. Cheers.
What did you do to your 460?? Last one I had made 450HP and 550TQ, passed smog and got 9mpg no matter if I pulled a trailer or not. It also had 40”s on it
Actually it was built to spec and came in an 89’ F250, bored .020 over, mild port work on the intake manifold as well as cleanup port work on exhaust port of heads, ran headers and aftermarket valves but same size as stock, new stock camshaft but 2 degrees offset. It was a FI motor.
I have a slightly different analogy. I have a friend with a 350z. 350z’s are extremely high hp and low torque. I have a tuned pontiac solstice. We both have around 400hp. His car does 0-60 around 7 seconds. I do it in just under 5. Why? 1. I’m 10% lighter. 2. I have almost 100 more horsepower than him at 4500 rpm. Average horsepower is extremely important. The peak numbers are the same, but I have almost 75hp more average power from my shift point to redline. Combine this with a leverage advantage because my final drive is shorter and my car is significantly faster. Cylinder pressure is only damaging if you exceed the material strengths of the hardware. The oil film strength of any decent oil is stronger than the metals themselves.
Torque =Force against resistance. A biproduct of the rotating mass. The heavier The mass The more weight it carries. Only really any good for hill climbs 🙂 It's all in the gear box/ratios.
My grandfather explained this similarly to me. Torque gets you moving and hp gets you the speed. I had a Jetta (Bora) 1.8T when I lived in Northern Italy and was blast to drive around the mountains in summer time. Sometimes I wish I would have kept it and put a limited slip differential.
@@martinsv9183 you think I am not arguing but I am not. I understand my 3.0 liter turbo diesel awd Jeep Cherokee will never be the fastest compared to the SRT8. I know it has a wider powerband and more rpm to build more hp.
@@tomdillan No its just that torque and hp always matters in the same way regardless of speed or what you're trying to do. But you might get other befinits with a high torque but low hp engine.
Torque makes a vehicle feel faster. Having the same power but wildly different torque gives different acceleration to the same top speed. Look up how quickly electric cars get to 60mph, but their acceleration diminishes rapidly afterwards as the torque delivery decreases as speed and revs increase. The electric motors in Tesla etc. have near 1,000 lbs-ft. This also allows them to eliminate the need to change gear ratios. If a high revving (motorbike?) engine has say 150bhp it will need more gearing to match the acceleration. That's why low revving diesels feel relaxing to drive, and the in-gear at highway speeds meant I enjoyed wallowing around in top gear all the time. Oh and by the way, the pressure load that gives high torque is in fact tiny compared to the inertial loads induced by high rotational speeds, hence the success of turbo engines in racing applications. The pressure strain is mainly on the head gasket. Put another way: how much (air) pressure would it take to distort an engine cylinder or cylinder liner, if sealed at each end? Many thousands of psi or hundreds of bar, far more than peak cylinder pressures.
I would agree that high torque at low rpm may give the driver a little thrill but it’s certainly not winning any races without rpm attached. More power = more acceleration.
Bragging about having a high torque figure is the same as Bragging about having RPM figure both figure are irrelevant unless you know what they are at the same time in which case you may aswell state the power figure
The potatoes- I like to think of it as an engines crank been connected 1:1 to a 1 foot radius rope drum hung over a cliff edge if the rope is connected to a 100 pound mass the engine will require more than 100 pound feet of torque to move the mass but without a RPM figure for when the engine is producing the 100 pound feet you have no idea what speed it will move the mass at just the fact it will move it. If there are two engines both with 100bhp but one has 50 pound feet of torque and the other has 100 pound feet of torque. The 50 pound feet torque engine can only lift half the mass but is going to be doing it in half the the time hence been the same power it is doing the same amount of work in the same time frame or half the work in half the time.
this is all about gearing. Now, add fuel consumption into the equation to move that 40tons and that 12ltr. engine that rotating only 2k vs. that engine at 5+k over a long distance and considerations as to application become apparent. Such as durability of the engines survival over time. 40 years ago some grain haulers were using 350 hp gas motors to move 24tons of grain over the interstate hwy at max rpm.. well, less than 10k and the engines were wore out. This was done because of ^^^^^ knowing what was explained above. A turbine prop airplane.. that turbine is spinning 20k to get the xhp at the prop that is only turning at 3200 rpm max. APPLICATION is the key.
I had exactly this a few years ago! Random bloke interrupts conversation with a mate about my E55 AMG and tells me mine is just a waste of fuel 'cos his turbo diesel Mini Cooper makes "diesel torque" and would be much quicker. 🙄
Torque is the real number, horsepower is the imaginary calculated one. The differences come from gearing and weight. Lighter vehicles blow past the low rpm and get into their power band, but will struggle against a load. Compare engine and chassis dynos, the engine has one power range, and a transmission moves this to a different point. This is why you have to run in a 1:1 gear to get an accurate number, low gears will look like more torque and overdrive would look like more horsepower. Even then you're depending on the correct diff gear and tire size for that vehicle to run best. Production cars have manufacturing cost as part of that "runs best" formula.
@@AaronCook83 When you torque a lugnut how much power went into it? Did you need a 80HP, 1L engine to do it? In the end torque alone does no work, and work is what gets the car down the road. The transmission converts HP to torque. It all about HP and gearing. You talk about power/weight ratios, not torque/weight.
I think you are comparing a gas engine and a diesel engine, right? There are a lot of factors at play that will impact acceleration in the diesel but you will find with two similar gas engines with equal hp, the one with more torque will be quicker. For example, increasing compression ratio generally will not really increase max hp but it will increase acceleration because it is increasing torque and hp a those lower RPMs.
That simply means you have increased HP in the lower rpm range so more HP is again the gain you feel. Both same hp one engine with more torque being quicker is simply wrong.
@@DieselPumpUK your whole argument is that two cars with equal hp will accelerate the same regardless of one having more torque. You were clearly referring to having the same peak hp numbers. The example I showed proves your point wrong because two cars with same peak hp and different torque figures will accelerate differently. The higher torque means you will have more hp on tap in the rpm range leading up to the peak hp. Simple as that. It’s about the entire powerband, not just peak hp.
@@DieselPumpUK Here’s another way to look at it. For N/A engines, torque climbs until the point that volumetric efficiency starts to decrease. Timing events are happening too quickly for full cylinder fill and it gets worse as rpms further increase. Hp starts to drop when the decrease in torque outweighs increase in rpms. If that torque holds steady but drops off quickly at a certain rpm, hp will sharply drop, but you made a lot more power leading up to that than a engine with the same peak HP but a more gradual HP curve. The former will pull much harder. Peak HP only shows HP at one rpm.
The weight of the vehicle is what would determine how far you would go through, that saying was probably made by a clever person that was having a laugh haha
Really helpful video, thanks. Particularly relevant comparison for me in there as a former owner of a few PD TDIs, those engines definitely did a great impression of having decent pace. It's amazing how different acceleration can feel from engine to engine or rather engine to motor!
Great explanation. Often in practice if two cars have same hp but one has much higher max torque, then the one with higher torque can be faster just because it will have higher torque/hp at lower rpms than the other car, likely due to a turbo when the other car is N/A. So it will give a flatter hp curve. That would only be irrelevant if you could keep both engines at max hp rpm all the time. How close you can get to that depends very much on the gearbox.. I dont know if its also easier to get a flatter torque curve if you have bigger volume...?
The same car with higher torque has the power at lower rpm and therefore longer gears. Because of the longer gears the torque at the wheels is lower. The car with a longer rev range and powerband is most likely faster in reality. That’s why all racecars prefer high revvs over high torque.
@@autobootpiloot No, torque at the wheels will be the same. You dont put in an even longer gear for no reason. Only question is the power band.. But if the higher torque is because of a turbo then the car with the higher torque will likely be faster, since it will have higher torque/hp at lower rpms. You can look at MB:s factory acceleration claims for example. For certain years. Their diesels with same hp but higher torque are faster than the same car with N/A gasoline and same hp.
@@martinsv9183 It's all about area under the HP curve and how trans gearing fits in if talking acceleration. The trouble here is comparing a low rev diesel to a high rev gas, there will absolutely be a different final drive ratio. You need to plot axle thrust over each gear (drive power) to see the big picture. Theoretical TQ/HP curves are just guessing. When it comes to details you need real data.
Not listening to the entire video in depth and just the point taken from the intro is misleading, but I’ll watch the rest to see where it goes! My experience with torque over just top end power is from a street or drag perspective and working with a combination to achieve the desired results! As not always a higher power option will give the best speed especially if the accessibility of torque is sacrificed for top end! Sometimes keeping less power but with more of a tendency to stay in the power band overall for longer especially between shifts will be faster! This is especially true with an automatic transmission vs a manual With some cases power dropping below peak will have a lesser powered but better setup vehicle going faster! It’s also much easier to be consistent with an automatic transmission when launching that’s part of the reason manually shifted drag cars are highly respected
lower topend use more avg power 👌🏻 thats why it win feg 100 hp at 5000 rpm 200 hp at 10000 rpm when ypu shift at 10 k to another gear and rpm drop to 5 k rpm you have let say 150 hp avg power at this gear if 175 hp version would have always this 175 hp it mean it use 175 hp avg 175 is more than 150 👌🏻 so at big doffrenc in velocity at big dostance depsite it have lower topend 175 vs 200 it be faster due to more avg power but if you change gearing for biger top end version enogh good including turbo lag eliminate it somehow etc if it haveturbo asf it be quicker 👌🏻 not be much but it be 😎🤷🏻♂️so ? btw 200 hp version at rpm from which it generate 175 hp + it would push driver into seat stronger = accelerate quicker but not enough long time for win whole distance lenght race with 175 hp wide peak 👍🏻 feg if 200 hp version will have 175 hp at 8750 rpm at 3 gear where velocity be 87,5 km/h than this version WILL accelerate better up to velocity where its engine at this gear start generate less power than 175 hp version so i set up this version at 10 k rpm shifting point so up to 100 km/h from 87,5 to 100 km/h it be push you stronger into seat than 175 hp version which always use this 175 hp but from 50 to 87,5 km/h 200 hp version will push you weaker so if you want it to be faster you need to change gearing in such way that when you shift at 10 k rpm rpm cant drop lower than 8750 rpm on another higher gear 👌🏻 and 175 hp wide version is smoked in drag race 🌪👋🏻 assumingenough fast shifting and enough small turbo lag if it have turbo cos 175 hp wide peak dont need so small difreenc in gear lenght and this kean it would shift much less time through race lenght 😎 if gearbox be enough slow or and + turbo lag enough big even despite on gear it would have more avg ppwer at perfect gearing for 200 hp version it can lost due to more shifitng which be long let say and plus turbo lag so slow increase boost after shift asf 🫣 thers alot stuff which must be consider if you want know which setup be faster or just made it and test it if you cant calculate it but at end thers only one formula which rule in racing WATT:m/s = FORCE everything else is horse 💩😁👋🏻 gove me engine 200 hp 200 nm in the same car and you or f1 team can have max 100 hp and freely big tprque at engine crank let say 2000 nm but quiet close peak width or even they can have 2 time wider peak feg 100 hp between 1000 to 2000 rpm fer me version 200 hp between 8000 to 12000 rpm only yep me version have 2 times more narrow peak in regard diffrenc in velocity at set gear for egzample if at 2 they have 50 km/h at 1000 rpm that mean 100 km/h at 2000 rpm vs if me version have at 50 km/h 8000 rpm that mean 75 km/h only at 12000 rpm so me version would need 1 shift more 😎 and we can setup freely gearbox / gearing for both. so naturally optimal gear quantity and diffrenc in gear lenght for both car whatever how much gear and diffrenc in gear lenght be rauired for each for achieve best psoibble acceleration and top speed well perfect diffrencin gear lenght i already subscribe 👌🏻., wheel size the same let say or freely whatever they want but its uselees factor here really and they are fccccd up be me version on 1/4 mille i win each faken time 🤭 dosent matter how they setup gearing 🤷🏻♂️ they be unable to use the same avg power as me version physiqally imposiible and because they are in f1 team enginner they egzacly know this and they dont even try cos they know they dont have chance with meversion if they try that mean somebody do massive misteake puting them in f1 engineer team 🤭 but if you are limited when you change some stuff in some car than like you write sometimes increase torque at midrange and sacrifice top end can give lil better results but its compromise cos you cant change enough stuff for get best posibble results thats diffrenc 😎
Your dyno graph is incorrect. All true graphs of hp vs tq should cross at 5252rpm based on the equation you give. Your graph crosses at approximately 3000rpm.
Torque is a force. Force through a distance is work. Horsepower adds in the RPM (time) factor which means that it is the Rate or speed at which the work is being done. Torque = acceleration. Horsepower = top speed.
Thank You for fucking with a 53 year old brain that thought he knew what torque was... Especially given my work involves Torque Specs on fasteners and Twisting Torque Specs of various Shafts, Rotors and Drivelines. I'm now going to drink to forget. Interesting that Flywheel Weight is not somehow involved.
Disagree with too many points to cover bud the most important thing is (@) - (at) IE ... Rpm obviously the curve , so obviously if two engines are 300 hp and one is 1000 lbft peak ------( @ )!!!!!!-------3000 rpm And one is 500 lbft peak ------(@)!!!!!!!----3000 rpm and assuming final gearing is the same then of course the one with more torque will be a lot faster. Everything is in context. The context being rpm. Subjectively hp is boring to drive Torque is thrills providing its over a reasonable spread of rpm obviously. Ad you said you cant feel speed but u sure as hell feel torque. Bigger engines are more fun because you have more scope for everything! Ultimately more power and torque. Its an age old discussion and hard to explain clearly all aspects but i recon u had a good crack even if i didnt agree with lots. Maybe ill do my own take some day.
Yes you're right I'm about a 1/4 in so if you cover this excuse me. But you also have to remember the bigger physically an engine the more durable it is. So your 4l boat engine will be smaller than the 6l meaning the durability will be different. But in a boat application cooling is pretty good and the engine on a normal boat only sees constant load. So depending on the boat I would go the smaller higher revving engine for the weight reduction. Also the more torque an engine has the more weight you can add to the rotating assembly because the acceleration of the engine will be higher. Also generally speaking most engines make power somewhere from 4000rpm to 6000rpm so a significant increase in torque like 100% will see a power increase in most standard engine designs.
50 years ago 5.0 v8 would give 170-200hp, I put a beer that K20A with 200hp last much more miles because of lean EFI startup, better materials, better manufacturing and so on.
@@barongogenzoler4300 well yes that is true, but compare that K20A making 200hp to a modern V8 if you de-tuned a modern V8 like a Ford Modular to 200hp it would likely live for much longer. Here in Australia we have the Ford Barra, one of my old bosses had one with 900,000km on it, big old cast iron block with 4 bolt mains from the factory but twin variable cam shafts. Plus some 50 year old Volvo stuff can do over 1 million miles.
@@bentheguru4986 I don't know what it is that's confusing you, and replying with a question mark doesn't help to clear it up. The analogy I'm your original comment, is a common misconception, one that has been proven false.
Your looking at this from the wrong angle. Torque is pulling power , that’s why all trucks are diesel. Diesels have tuns of torque low down the rev range. Example 6bt it’s nearly a flat shelf on torque from 1200 - 2500 . It’s not about speed it’s about pulling weight. Hey go for it light up those tyres
Power is pulling power, torque is just a factor in an equation, it’s like saying rpm is pulling power. Torque is totally useless without rpm and the two together are HP. Advertising torque figures is just marketing that people have unknowingly lapped up.
„ pulling power is torque „ 🤔 nope 👎🏻 pulling power is FORCE 👍🏻 engine with 100 hp 50 nm at crank at 10 km/h will pull stronger heavy weight on trailer than feg 50 hp 500 nm at crank also at 10 km/h 🤭 how. much stronger ? excluding loses in drivetrain etc 2 times stronger so you wpuld need to setup 2 times biger load resist on 100 hp 50 nm version for hold it at this 10 km/h without acceleration but also without deceleration let say uphill with trailer and load on it 😎 if 50 hp 500 nm version be able to go up this hill at 10 km/h without deceleration with 5 tons than 100 hp version with 50 nm be able to go up this hill with 10 tons 🤭 where 50 hp 500 nm version at 5 tons from helicopters while it drive up this hill with 5 tons will slow down from 10 km/h to much lower speed 🤭
Totally WRONG. Go look at an Abrams Tank, it's turbine engine has less torque than most sports cars. It's "power unit" is rated at like 3500 ft/lbs due to the massive gear reduction and the turbine engine spinning at 20k RPM.....
I like that you're trying to get this point across, but this is the type of video that needs a well revised script, because without it you get slightly lost in tangents and the explanation isn't too clear.
hp and torque is like apples and potatoes, in regards to they both come from plants. torque should never be confused with hp power. my understanding has always been that torque is low end delivery of power before the revs get high enough for the true hp to take over. kinda like whats seen on the dyno readout. guys in the pub are generally full of shite. especially after a few jars of anti-reality juice. now, 2 automatic cars, same models, same engines, same weight, same power, but with different torque values will reach the same speed because the gear ratios are the same, yes?. but wouldnt the high torque engine get off the line faster due to the torque giving power at low rpm?
Overall, I think this description and the conclusion is still not fully correct. You're right that 'the torque number' of an engine isn't the full picture, because it isn't, and neither is 'the hp number.' The torque and hp numbers touted by manufacturers and also used to summarize the results of a dyno test are ONLY the peak torque and the peak horsepower. Neither of these peak figures separately or together are really enough to get the full picture. You really need the full dyno chart and gearing information to evaluate how 'fast' a powertrain is. Horsepower is in fact NOT what is felt in a vehicle when you're 'rippin.' Torque is force on a rotating (or swiveling) body - the tires translate rotational force/torque into linear force. T=F/r and F=ma, so linear force and linear acceleration are directly proportional to torque (radius of tires after all your gearing is virtually constant). Because horsepower is proportional to (and resultant of) torque AND (angular/rotational speed) RPM, you can't 'feel' horsepower in the sense you feel torque. Ignoring the limited gearing of cars in general (auto or manual transmission, transfer case, diff), horsepower essentially only limits the theoretical top speed, per drag. For example, assume two identical cars with two different engines, with a CVT for a transmission (one that doesn't break) following the ratio that keeps the engine at the RPM with peak torque at all times. One engine has peak horsepower of 200hp and the other has peak hp of 1,600hp, each has peak torque at different RPM (this case is comparable to a diesel vs a forced induction gasser). Horsepower = Power = (Energy / Time); drag is also a power figure (watts, horsepower). The drag (assuming infinite gearing) will limit the top speed of the 200hp car to 1/2 the top speed of the 1,600hp car. The 200hp car very well may feel faster during accel and could also closely compete with the 1,600hp car in an 1/8 mile drag race due to its torque curve, but the 1600hp car can overcome 8x as much drag at speed - not because it produces more peak torque, but because it still produces torque at an RPM and vehicle speed that is still greater than drag (until drag and the power of the powertrain become equal). Since drag is proportional to the cube of speed, you only get double the top speed, not octuple the top speed. Horsepower does not dictate how fast you accelerate, or the feeling of being pushed in your seat. That IS strictly instantaneous torque, gearing and mass. Turbocharged engines do also have that characteristic turbo lag and the sharp rise of the torque and hp curve, but even with a smooth torque curve, torque is what you feel in your seat and it is what accelerates the vehicle. Although torque is what accelerates the car, peak torque by itself is not as important as the area under the torque curve and the shape of the curve, which basically characterize the power band, as you mentioned. If we want a full picture, we have to look at the dyno chart. I think the reason we've all been able to be fooled to give a damn about peak numbers only is because, in general, engines of similar types have quite similar torque and power curve shapes. Diesels (forced induction) have a narrow power band and much lower RPM of peak torque, which differs significantly from a N/A gasser. Then a turbocharged gasser differs greatly from N/A gasser; not only higher peak power and torque, but much sharper rise of torque and power. There may be characteristic differences between i4, b4, v6, i6, v8, etc, but there are relatively few dividing lines in terms of basic behavior among ICE engines... so, here we are, peak torque and peak HP dominate peoples minds. A large torque spike at 2k RPM or 4k RPM or 7k RPM without much torque before or after the peak will really throw off your impression of the 'fast' potential of an engine or powertrain if you rely solely on peak torque and peak hp numbers. The peak figures simply are not enough. Throw in fixed gearing and you get a yet more complicated picture, in terms of optimizing power output, acceleration and top speed, which is why a CVT is a good way to simplify the explanation of relationships between energy, power, acceleration, force, drag and top speed.
@Tom Rudd you're right, I should have double checked the hp vs torque formulas before posting. Drag force is proportional to square but power proportional to cube of v. Hp = F(pounds) * v(mph)^3 Pounds = .5 * Ca* A * p * v^2 (I normally use SI units but I'm pulling these directly from a specific example I found, in hp and pounds) I'll update the figures above^^^
It's silly to use terms "feel", trying to humanize physics leads to puzzling arguments. Forget CVTs, just think.of it in terms of a electric generator or hydraulic pump....all either care about is input HP to pump or convey. It could be a power unit at 20k RPM reduced to 5k via a 4:1 reduction gearbox or a 2.5k RPM overdriven via a 2:1 gearbox....if power is same between power units you'll have same end result. Torque needed between power units will different, but largely meaningless...
@Motominded you do feel force. I'll reiterate, PEAK HP and PEAK torque are almost meaningless, but instantaneous torque at any given RPM is more meaningful than HP, in terms of acceleration and in terms of what your body feels. Yes, instantaneous power/horsepower indicates work per time, but the force and acceleration aspect of horsepower are inversely proportional to RPM per unit of torque. Horsepower is harder to compare at varying RPM ranges because of that. Bottom line, peak figures are practically useless in general. You need the whole picture.
@@tanner3801 instantaneous torque at RPM = HP. You can certainly have torque or a force with no movement, you'd feel nothing. Using terms like "power" illustrate work with provide motive force.
Torque is not a measure of power?????? really? Torque is the only true measure of power/force!!! We have torque wrenches not horsepower wrenches. The fact is you can have torque without horse power but you cant have horse power without torque.
Reminded me my kindergarten teacher Jessica golden words: winner isnt the one, that gets you there fastest but who screws you the hardest getting there. More torque is always better ( ͡❛ ͜ʖ ͡❛)
Let's take your 2-stroke example, yes it does have torque. But it's the way it applies it. Nobody who has ever put a second person on a Yamaha rd350 in the 1970s, and believes for a second that the engine is capable of doing any realistic work. It is not able to keep up under load. Now this was a motorcycle that I could easily run a consistent 12-second quarter-mile, I could get it to stop from 70 inside of about 80 ft without sliding a tire. It was quick, until I put my wife on the back of it. Bandit with bog and lug and wouldn't do a damn thing because it could not force its way into pushing the two of you until it finally got up to speed. Even at that, there was little in the way of any realistic acceleration. Torque does have a role to play it depends on how it's applied. Your original math example is an example on how you don't know math. Because you're starting with an engine that supposed to have 300 horsepower, you say it has 300 foot pounds of torque, and yet at the end of the your measurement, you claimed it only has one horsepower. Your short-circuiting your Abbott and Costello math. If the engine had 300 horsepower you should have come up with 300 horse power, not one. As with the other two examples you still should have come up with 300 horsepower because you're supposed to be starting with a 300 horsepower engine. Let's take your example and let's put it in the three engines of the early 1960s in NASCAR. The 427 Ford, the 427 Chevrolet, and the 426 Chrysler. And in one single year in Nascar Chrysler won 80% of the races. Because it put out over 100 ft lb of torque more than all of the others. With the same 425 horsepower rating. Not to mention that you are rating the engines one at 5252 RPM the next one at 2626 RPM, and the third one at 1313 RPM. There's no way on this planet that people drive with their engines at that low in RPM. So what you're saying is that they're all three doing the same work at just above idle, while the other one is almost at its Redline. Your application is flawed. Wake up! In case you haven't figured out your flaw? You didn't finish the equation properly. It has to be three hundred times the one which would make 300. And that's in the first instance. On the other two, you are measuring them at different RPMs. It is torque times the actual RPM of the engine / 5252 which equals the horsepower after you multiply it back against the torque. And it just after 23 minutes into this video you finally State what this entire video exhibits. You don't understand. If you don't know how to present a proper math formula and go through the entire math formula. Please don't put math formulas up on whiteboard for the whole world to see.
I'm not going to tell my mates who are all optimizing for torque in their big displacement diesel engines while I start going for HP This feels like it should be obvious, but you get tunnel vision so easily, pretty much exactly like the pub analogy
I would still go for high torque. Within reason though. It’s much nicer to drive if you have high torque (power at low rpm) and it won’t damage anything if done correctly. But it won’t win any races…
Why are you lying 😂 if one engine has more torque than another and they both have the same hp then the engine with more torque will have a higher average hp and therefore be faster all other things kept equal
beside some stuff which he said wrong its not true 🤭 you forget that low torque engine can have the same or even wider peak power band 😉👍🏻 it depend how rapidly torque drop down after peak at higher rpm if it drop at very specified amplitude what is easy to achieve be manufactory if they want be setup proper i take exhaust electronicue bore to stroke and so forth =asf you can get very wide peak power it just be at much biger rpm than high torque engine but if prak width be similar dosent matter at which rpm it be both low and high torque version would accelerate the same and achieve the same top speed 👍🏻 assuming also offcorse similar diffrenc in gear lenght 👌🏻 feg disel 200 hp between 3 to 4 k rpm be egzacly the same fast as n/a gasoline with 200 hp between let say 6 to 8k rpm 🤷🏻♂️ assuming in disel when you shift at 4 k rpm drop on another higher gear to 3 k rpm each time vs n/a gas when you shift at 8 k they drop to 6 k rpm each time on another higher gear excluding turbo lag in disel etc this 2 car motorcycle truck whatever what would accelerate gzacle the same 😎
@@motominded5275 The M1 Abrams engine produces 3730 N-m after it's integrated 7.5:1 reduction gearbox. The power turbine still produces about 500 N-m. That's still pretty good for a sports car.
@@fascistpedant758 it's a fraction of what a large diesel has but pushes around a 70T tank better than any diesel does....it illustrates the point well though, I think!
The answer is in the end of video. The gearbox. No mater what torque was in 1.8t or in 1.9pd in crankshaft, it matters what torque was on the wheels, and it will be +- the same because of gearbox
Well yes but the gearbox is longer because the engine cant use its torque due to lack of rpms. So the problem here is still the engine
i love riding in my old 7.3 V8 Turbodiesel F250 towing a 28 foot camping trailer to the races. good fuel mileage, goes 70-75mp/h all day long and goes across any mountain. It has 250k miles on it, all towing miles, and i feel it will keep doing it until the end of time. cruising at 2000rpm, 4 grand at the redline. my 86 BMW eta, 2.7 liter had 125 hp at 4500 rpm. drove it for 25 years, 250k miles, 30mpg and passed emissions until i traded it in. low rpm, good torque, that is where it is at. such a relaxed way of getting there. And getting there is all that matters anyway.
Basically more torque means more power at lower rpms. Doesn’t matter in 0-60 and 1/4mile, but has way more power down low where you use it day to day basis
thats excatly the truth 👌🏻
yup and thats why the diesel has much lower fuel consumption because it wont loose torque due to compression and friction
Best explanation I've herd yet
Thank you sir 👍
People in pubs have always been full of it
This is why the 1 ton utes are all coming out with little 2.0l diesels these days, down from 3.0l. The each claim 500nm torque. They do it with higher revving engines and 10 speed gearboxes, vs lower revving 3.0l with 5 or 6 gears. But when you put them to a tow test up a hill the larger engines win out. Overall, though, in normal day to day operation where the utes are not at maximum load or using maximum performance the smaller engines are more economical to operate.
Not exactly. Diesel Ute's are nearly always turbo charged, a 14.5psi increase in inlet pressure equates roughly to double the volumetric efficiency of the engine, this means a 2.0l engine with 14.5psi acts like a 4.0l N/A engine. So you can't compare sizes of engines like that.
If the engine is less capacity and makes similar horse power and torque it's likely a large percentage of that comes from a boost increase.
probably wrong.
Just calculate: Engine RPMxDiffxGearing in EACH gear.
The gearing makes the most difference, not engine Torque. If you can gear lower, you can pull harder - simple as that.
Bingo.@@derJackistweg
Most don't know a transmission is a torque MULTIPLIER-
HP is same out the back regardless if it's in 1st gear, or even OD. That's a physics constant!
But, but HORSEPOWER!!! goes the squeal!!
meh.
I just ask why cars need to be downshifted to pass, or get over the hill!
Horsepower is the "made up number" power is meassured in watts, or kilowatts and is calculated by multiplying torque in NM by the angular velocity in radians/ second. W = NM × rad/s.
The reason 2 cars with the same hp but one with 300 resp 600 torque but at half the rpm accelerate the same, is bc to achive the same speed, the lower revving engine requires twice as "long" gears. Resulting in the exact same TORQUE at the wheels. It can also as you said even be slower, if the target speed requires one more gearchange.
you aremade up 🤭 more hp lesss torque at engine and less torque at whellll at shorter wheel radious still accelerate better 🤷🏻♂️ less hp with shorter wheel radious wpuld not accelerate better 👌🏻 shorter wherel radious dont give you acceleration but hp transfer be leverage / final gear ratio at given velocity 👌🏻 torque is piss of 💩 dont full yourself 😁
That was super clear explanation. I never been able to find those simple words for that, but you did. Now it'll be easier for my kid to get how's that engine physics works :)
Thanx a million!!!
So refreshing to see this correctly explained on a Diesel channel. (As a Honda fan 😂) …..other great things about low torque engines is they put far less stress on the drivetrain, and have far less problems with traction……have a look at how well a k20 Honda with a Rotrex charger can put over 400bhp to the ground……look at the contact patch and size of chain on a motorbike….and they can put down 200bhp easily…..torque is literally the enemy. 😂
Thank God..
For years we heard 'HP sells cars, torque wins races.' At the time when this was popular, and arguably the fastest (if tyres were equal) form of motorsport from point A to B , Formula 1 cars, were 3L N/A putting out around 850hp and 300lb.ft
It all comes back to hp because of the equation, really depends on where you need your torque. Also really it depends on area under the curve and rpm band you want to use. A broader rpm band is typically better minus some racing applications high rpm or towing low rpm. where you need your torque is important per application. in general hp wins races, smaller lighter engine spinning faster and compensated by more gear reduction more torques to the ground. Where torque is important is efficiency, drivability and reliability, you’re engine typically live under 2500rpm most of the time. Another is the off the line grunt you need in large manual trucks, also off road rigs idling as they crawl. Which you have more torque multiplication to go slower but have huge torque at the wheels. But racing you want rpm cause you want speed and more rpm more hp. For racing it’s not as important but for everything else I’d say it’s way more important and the shape of the torque curve and area under it. I’d take an engine that makes 500lbs from idle to 6000 then engine that makes 100 from idle to 5000rpm and has a 2000rpm where it makes 550lbs at 7000 then falls drastically at the top, it makes more power but unless I’m spending all my time there it’s not going be a good application, but if geared right it would pull on the other one and be faster, now from a dig the other one might give it a run for it’s money tho especially with same gearing but the other would eventually catch up, anyway it’s late and I’m rambling
I think a large part of the appeal of a torquey engine is the feeling that it's not trying. My last bike was an IL4 600 and my current is a V2 1000 with the same power but far more torque and it's the fact that I can open the throttle at low revs and feel power. On the IL4 600 I'd have to drop 2 gears and slip the clutch to get the same output, which with the added faff and noise and theatre of all those revs makes it feel like it's really trying, vs cracking open the throttle on the 1000 and getting power without all the hoo-ha and screaming. Feeling like the engine isn't trying gives the illusion that there's more on tap than there actually is, at least under normal low-mid rpm road use.
Reminds me of a challenge between a power lifter and an endurance runner carrying 1000 lbs up a flight of stairs. First test with 100 pound weights x 10 trips up the stairs, second with 10 pound weights x 100 trips. Both excelled at what they were good at, and struggled at the other. And like the 1.8L vs the 1.9L, the endurance runner will have less internal stress.
No the powerlifter has less internal stress.
Well in most cases, because most of the time when an engine has more torque it's physically bigger and revs slower.
@@shanerorko8076 To be fair, the powerlifter does have a hemorrhoidal pressure relief. It is interesting though that EGT's skyrocketed at low rpm under load vs higher rpm with my old 200tdi. With the 606 I can't help myself and rev the piss out of it all the time so I do not have a reference there.
@@HairHelmet Cylinder temperature is directly related to how much diesel is being burnt. Because the engine is diesel regulated and not air regulated when you push the throttle down to WOT at lower engine speed you are using all available diesel the engine can give you.
You would see the same temps if you went WOT at full engine speed for a long distance like on an Autobahn.
Most accurately, it's power under the curve that counts....so different peaks of torque has, at best, highly inferential impact upon total area
Finally. The potato/BMW explanation all made sense . Best explanation I have seen. Awesome video.
Very well explanation, did clear up a lot what really matters !
I usually calculate hp from torque for torque rews, and then I Drow a strength line to the hp rpm and see about what kind usable power you got.
If the curve is quite flat, you don't get much more by rewing the engine high and there isn't a big difference in what gear you might be in as long you are over to torque rpm. But if you have big hp different between torque rpm and hp rpm you usually have smal power band and you need to gear more often.
And of course it's having a big difference if you're torque rpm is @2000 rpm and hp @4000 rpm vs torque @5000rpm and hp @ 8000 rpm. With 2 to 4k you have much more to play with then from 5 to 8k also gearing is more often in high rpm so the difference is much bigger in speed.
Power is power, and you need to look at the graf and the gearing to see what's the usable power.
If you making 300hp @ 7k, your redline is 8k and you're turbo spools @ 6k and a gear change drops the rews by 3.5k you will have quite a bompy ride and not much of usable power
Finally somebody popular told this. Thank you a lot. Next myth: displacement really matter (at least with gasoline where fuel burn time doesn't limit rpm) but surface area of the pistons doesn't, and all variations of it like long stroke/under square and so on.
The area under curve matters!
Work done vs turning force. Good practical explanation. Fancy autos do skew things a fair bit...always makes me laugh that manufacturers insist on putting sports modes on auto gearboxes on diesels
Feather weight boxer vs heavy weight. Both can inflict a beating in one round, feather weight in lots of smaller punches. Heavy weight in a few big hits.
Great torque 😆 takes us back to the days of the RS 2000 understanding gear ratios and rpm. Would you mind doing a torque on MAF & MAP as you have on the torque subject as this is where I’m at. I have tried calling but haven’t been able to get an answer.
Fantastic explanation.
Usually 1.8t takes a dump way faster before the 1.9tdi both remaped 1.9TDI with proper remap is almost bulletproof
Thanks for taking the time to explain this
Interesting video and you explained it very well 👍🏻
Is it down to con-Rod length as well? That’s for the explanation 👍
Con rod length makes no direct difference, different lengths can favour more or less torque through other means but doesn't directly effect torque output.
Same as stroke Vs bore, if the ve is identical between 2 equal capacity engines then the Dyno graph should be the same.
We need big torque motors here in Canada's Western mountains. My diesel is 440 cu.in. for hauling big loads, keeping the rev's down, as to not produce to much heat...I get almost 20 mpg, and can pull an 18 deck trailer loaded, with an old 4 speed trans. 1970 Highboy f-350. 4x4, 7.3 indirect inj , WVO sometimes, diesel most of the time...
Not really. You'd better have 8-10 speed gearbox. Torque on the wheel (nm) = Final ratio (N) * Gear ration * (N) * Engine torque (nm). So higher ratios on lower gears will help you maintaining low RPMs. Also RPM has nothing to do with heat (it actually does, but friction force has relatively low impact comparing to direct heating),. To move your load during your path (m) you are applying some force (n) for some time (s), and it doesn't depend on your engine but on the total weight. Path (m) * force (n) / time (s) = Work (J) / time (s) = Power (watt). So your engine need to OUTPUT defined amount of power. Heat on other hand is the difference between all power of burnt fuel and your output power, so technically speaking more modern engines will produce less heat (it has nothing to do with overheating because here cooling system comes into play). Or think about it this way: if your car would be absolutely efficient then you would need e.g. 200hp to move your load, but your engine isn't, so you burn fuel that produce 200hp to move, also 200hp to heat the engine, and also 30hp to overcome internal friction force in the engine and transmission.
p.s bigger engine doesn't automatically mean it's more reliable, but in most cases there is a correlation with some other manufacturing technics and technical decisions made while developing newer smaller engines, so older ones still favorable.
@@barongogenzoler4300 Seems to be a mith, people forget the old 4speeds had long gears, it would be nice to have an overdrive.. but, when you look at 5 ton trucks from the 50's, they had 5 speeds, with 3 spd auxiliary trans behind them and, 308 cu.in. engines that worked had all day, we are finally going back to more gears, and smaller engines, again, using the torque of either a long crankshaft 6 cyl or a bigger engine. Not fast but hard working.
Awesome explanation!
I thought Ryan was going to pop up when you said PD 😂
Brilliant explanation 👍🏼
Ive tried to explain this to so many people, they just stare blindly at torque as if that means something. It doesnt, where the torque is located is what matters. Because that tells you the HP. HP is all tha matters.
This should dispel a few myths, throwing in something random though a typical car manual gearbox does not mind be rotated a bit faster but increased torque tends to break them...
Yes. Some don't like to be shifted at high rpm though.
So is a Gearbox just a Torque Multiplier?
@@mountainconstructions yes it is
The most enjoyable maths lesson
5 min in I dont know where this leads but Audi in LeMans...
came once out with a (afaik) 5l Diesel engine. They said: "We have tooo much torque". Sounds strange but the point is: You NEED REVS for a race car. Less NM= more RPM
The car with more torque will be faster/quicker because it will produce more HP at all rpms leading up to that peak hp figure. An engines hp rating is just its peak hp at one rpm. An engine with high torque will have higher hp across its powerband. This will allow you to accelerate faster through that powerband and also turn higher gears.
Easiest way to remember and explain is that the horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how much you take the wall with you
It’s really not. HP is the power. Torque is just half of the equation.
So to make your saying make sense
Rpm is how fast you hit the wall
Torque is how hard you push on it
For identical weight vehicles. It is power multiplied by % change in rpm.... Then you will get the largest amount of kinetic energy added to the vehicle per gear pull. Torque is a fixed constant within that and not relevant.
All the other variables are considerations of durability, efficiency, cost and efficiency
My old Tech lecturer told me, power is how fast you will hit the wall, torque is how hard you will hit it 🤣 yes there was more to it but he was explaining to teenagers 🤣
Torque is force, Higher torque harder punch.
Then it is about speed how many punches you do in a second. One punch gives one work thats is HP two punches gives double HP.
Though you can not put a weak punch moving a truck but it can move a car!
Sp: Lied to. Not, Lied too. Soz, great video 😁
Here is how I understand HP and TQ.
***TQ is how much work an engine can do and HP is how quickly it can do this work.
A. My ML350 diesel has 300 HP and 500TQ. 500 means it can do a lot of work but 300 means it does it slowly.
B. F2004 Ferarri F1 V10 has 900 HP and only 300 TQ. It does little work EXTREMELY quickly.
C. A Semi Truck or Lorry has 2100TQ and only 600 HP. It does a MASSIVE amount of work but VERY slowly.
D. A McLaren 720S has 568 TQ and 710 HP. It does A LOT of work VERY Quickly.
E. Modern Ducati V4 sportbike has 200 HP and 90 TQ. Like the F1 V10, it does a tiny amount of work but does this work rapidly.
Work means pulling, pushing, moving a load. The higher the TQ number the more load it can move. The higher the HP number the faster it can move this load.
My ML350 Bluetec diesel stock numbers were: 210 HP, 400 TQ. After tuning (OM642) the numbers are 305 HP, 530 TQ. The differences are 50% and 25%. So, now it can perform 25% more work and do this work 50% faster.
Real world results? THE CAR IS AN ABSOLUTE BLAST TO DRIVE NOW! Feels like the acceleration has doubled and... it keeps pulling and pulling and pulling above 140 kph. Previous, it was scary to pass on the highway. It was gutless over 120 kph but now... it pulls hard to over 200 kph.
If my engine increased the HP to 400 but dropped the TQ to 400, it would be even quicker. This means it does the same amount of work but TWICE as fast and the stock engine/numbers.
TQ moves a load, HP controls the speed of this load. Many years ago a friend had a Ford truck with a 7.5 litre, 460 cubic inch engine. This is a work engine designed with high torque for pulling heavy trailers. My friend told me it didn't matter what he pulled from a speed boat to snow machines, and even to lighter things like a motorcycle or tools. The truck accelerated the same so long as the load was not 50,000 lbs. TQ for the 7.5 litre, 460 cu. in. engine was 362 and the HP is 225.
Hops this helps. Cheers.
Incorrect
What did you do to your 460?? Last one I had made 450HP and 550TQ, passed smog and got 9mpg no matter if I pulled a trailer or not. It also had 40”s on it
@@jasoncampbell4723 Not sure. It was stock back in the 80's. I pulled the specs from the Ford website. Your 460 is a modern or built engine?
Actually it was built to spec and came in an 89’ F250, bored .020 over, mild port work on the intake manifold as well as cleanup port work on exhaust port of heads, ran headers and aftermarket valves but same size as stock, new stock camshaft but 2 degrees offset. It was a FI motor.
Doesn't help as it's incorrect
But the 1.8 turbo had a blue drop forged power band where as the pd was just a standard elastic powerband
I have a slightly different analogy. I have a friend with a 350z. 350z’s are extremely high hp and low torque. I have a tuned pontiac solstice. We both have around 400hp. His car does 0-60 around 7 seconds. I do it in just under 5. Why? 1. I’m 10% lighter. 2. I have almost 100 more horsepower than him at 4500 rpm.
Average horsepower is extremely important. The peak numbers are the same, but I have almost 75hp more average power from my shift point to redline. Combine this with a leverage advantage because my final drive is shorter and my car is significantly faster.
Cylinder pressure is only damaging if you exceed the material strengths of the hardware. The oil film strength of any decent oil is stronger than the metals themselves.
Torque =Force against resistance.
A biproduct of the rotating mass. The heavier The mass The more weight it carries.
Only really any good for hill climbs 🙂
It's all in the gear box/ratios.
Yeah leverage force again…
and pulling your mates clapped out overheating 325i
My grandfather explained this similarly to me. Torque gets you moving and hp gets you the speed. I had a Jetta (Bora) 1.8T when I lived in Northern Italy and was blast to drive around the mountains in summer time. Sometimes I wish I would have kept it and put a limited slip differential.
No, everything is hp in the end as explained in video.
@@martinsv9183 you think I am not arguing but I am not. I understand my 3.0 liter turbo diesel awd Jeep Cherokee will never be the fastest compared to the SRT8. I know it has a wider powerband and more rpm to build more hp.
@@tomdillan No its just that torque and hp always matters in the same way regardless of speed or what you're trying to do.
But you might get other befinits with a high torque but low hp engine.
That was well done
Torque makes a vehicle feel faster. Having the same power but wildly different torque gives different acceleration to the same top speed. Look up how quickly electric cars get to 60mph, but their acceleration diminishes rapidly afterwards as the torque delivery decreases as speed and revs increase. The electric motors in Tesla etc. have near 1,000 lbs-ft. This also allows them to eliminate the need to change gear ratios.
If a high revving (motorbike?) engine has say 150bhp it will need more gearing to match the acceleration.
That's why low revving diesels feel relaxing to drive, and the in-gear at highway speeds meant I enjoyed wallowing around in top gear all the time.
Oh and by the way, the pressure load that gives high torque is in fact tiny compared to the inertial loads induced by high rotational speeds, hence the success of turbo engines in racing applications. The pressure strain is mainly on the head gasket. Put another way: how much (air) pressure would it take to distort an engine cylinder or cylinder liner, if sealed at each end? Many thousands of psi or hundreds of bar, far more than peak cylinder pressures.
I would agree that high torque at low rpm may give the driver a little thrill but it’s certainly not winning any races without rpm attached. More power = more acceleration.
Good info!
Excellent once again! Great explanation :)
Actually a Honda CR 500 has a lot of torque, thats how i can make 65HP at only 6000rpm
Great Video 🤌🏻
Bragging about having a high torque figure is the same as Bragging about having RPM figure both figure are irrelevant unless you know what they are at the same time in which case you may aswell state the power figure
You just broke the heart of every American
The potatoes- I like to think of it as an engines crank been connected 1:1 to a 1 foot radius rope drum hung over a cliff edge if the rope is connected to a 100 pound mass the engine will require more than 100 pound feet of torque to move the mass but without a RPM figure for when the engine is producing the 100 pound feet you have no idea what speed it will move the mass at just the fact it will move it. If there are two engines both with 100bhp but one has 50 pound feet of torque and the other has 100 pound feet of torque. The 50 pound feet torque engine can only lift half the mass but is going to be doing it in half the the time hence been the same power it is doing the same amount of work in the same time frame or half the work in half the time.
Absolute great video
what engine were you talking about in the end comparing it to PD?
this is all about gearing. Now, add fuel consumption into the equation to move that 40tons and that 12ltr. engine that rotating only 2k vs. that engine at 5+k over a long distance and considerations as to application become apparent. Such as durability of the engines survival over time. 40 years ago some grain haulers were using 350 hp gas motors to move 24tons of grain over the interstate hwy at max rpm.. well, less than 10k and the engines were wore out. This was done because of ^^^^^ knowing what was explained above. A turbine prop airplane.. that turbine is spinning 20k to get the xhp at the prop that is only turning at 3200 rpm max. APPLICATION is the key.
I had exactly this a few years ago! Random bloke interrupts conversation with a mate about my E55 AMG and tells me mine is just a waste of fuel 'cos his turbo diesel Mini Cooper makes "diesel torque" and would be much quicker. 🙄
I think that sudden change and torquee feeling might actually be jerk (rate of change of acceleration)
Its about how the power is transferred to the ground , ive seen cars wheel spin with to much power, and a less powerfull car leave them in the dust !
Stop teasing me with glimpses of the GMC !
Torque is the real number, horsepower is the imaginary calculated one. The differences come from gearing and weight. Lighter vehicles blow past the low rpm and get into their power band, but will struggle against a load. Compare engine and chassis dynos, the engine has one power range, and a transmission moves this to a different point. This is why you have to run in a 1:1 gear to get an accurate number, low gears will look like more torque and overdrive would look like more horsepower. Even then you're depending on the correct diff gear and tire size for that vehicle to run best. Production cars have manufacturing cost as part of that "runs best" formula.
Torque and rpm are the measurable factors that equate to power, torque is useless without rpm and vice versa, torque is not a measure of power.
Semantics of terminology. Torque is the number that matters, and you gear it to get the magic unicorns on a spreadsheet. The rest still applies.
@@AaronCook83 When you torque a lugnut how much power went into it? Did you need a 80HP, 1L engine to do it? In the end torque alone does no work, and work is what gets the car down the road. The transmission converts HP to torque. It all about HP and gearing. You talk about power/weight ratios, not torque/weight.
Torque is literally "work" in physics. Everything else you said is just as backwards.
@@AaronCook83 You'll want to check those books. Work is defined as force over distance. In an engine torque and RPM.
18:53 as a bmw fan,...ouch. but true.
Very interesting 🤔 this is ehy they say that it's torque that breaks con rods not hp
I think you are comparing a gas engine and a diesel engine, right? There are a lot of factors at play that will impact acceleration in the diesel but you will find with two similar gas engines with equal hp, the one with more torque will be quicker. For example, increasing compression ratio generally will not really increase max hp but it will increase acceleration because it is increasing torque and hp a those lower RPMs.
That simply means you have increased HP in the lower rpm range so more HP is again the gain you feel. Both same hp one engine with more torque being quicker is simply wrong.
@@DieselPumpUK your whole argument is that two cars with equal hp will accelerate the same regardless of one having more torque. You were clearly referring to having the same peak hp numbers. The example I showed proves your point wrong because two cars with same peak hp and different torque figures will accelerate differently. The higher torque means you will have more hp on tap in the rpm range leading up to the peak hp. Simple as that. It’s about the entire powerband, not just peak hp.
@@DieselPumpUK Here’s another way to look at it. For N/A engines, torque climbs until the point that volumetric efficiency starts to decrease. Timing events are happening too quickly for full cylinder fill and it gets worse as rpms further increase. Hp starts to drop when the decrease in torque outweighs increase in rpms. If that torque holds steady but drops off quickly at a certain rpm, hp will sharply drop, but you made a lot more power leading up to that than a engine with the same peak HP but a more gradual HP curve. The former will pull much harder. Peak HP only shows HP at one rpm.
Hp is how fast you hit a wall and torque is how far you go through
it .. 👌
The weight of the vehicle is what would determine how far you would go through, that saying was probably made by a clever person that was having a laugh haha
But we do want to go deep into this. What else have we been lied to about?
Really helpful video, thanks. Particularly relevant comparison for me in there as a former owner of a few PD TDIs, those engines definitely did a great impression of having decent pace.
It's amazing how different acceleration can feel from engine to engine or rather engine to motor!
0:33
Great explanation.
Often in practice if two cars have same hp but one has much higher max torque, then the one with higher torque can be faster just because it will have higher torque/hp at lower rpms than the other car, likely due to a turbo when the other car is N/A. So it will give a flatter hp curve.
That would only be irrelevant if you could keep both engines at max hp rpm all the time. How close you can get to that depends very much on the gearbox..
I dont know if its also easier to get a flatter torque curve if you have bigger volume...?
The same car with higher torque has the power at lower rpm and therefore longer gears. Because of the longer gears the torque at the wheels is lower. The car with a longer rev range and powerband is most likely faster in reality. That’s why all racecars prefer high revvs over high torque.
@@autobootpiloot No, torque at the wheels will be the same. You dont put in an even longer gear for no reason.
Only question is the power band.. But if the higher torque is because of a turbo then the car with the higher torque will likely be faster, since it will have higher torque/hp at lower rpms.
You can look at MB:s factory acceleration claims for example. For certain years. Their diesels with same hp but higher torque are faster than the same car with N/A gasoline and same hp.
@@martinsv9183 It's all about area under the HP curve and how trans gearing fits in if talking acceleration. The trouble here is comparing a low rev diesel to a high rev gas, there will absolutely be a different final drive ratio. You need to plot axle thrust over each gear (drive power) to see the big picture. Theoretical TQ/HP curves are just guessing. When it comes to details you need real data.
1:50, horsepower is not 1lb over 33000ft. Thats not power at all. Thats work.
Not listening to the entire video in depth and just the point taken from the intro is misleading, but I’ll watch the rest to see where it goes! My experience with torque over just top end power is from a street or drag perspective and working with a combination to achieve the desired results! As not always a higher power option will give the best speed especially if the accessibility of torque is sacrificed for top end! Sometimes keeping less power but with more of a tendency to stay in the power band overall for longer especially between shifts will be faster! This is especially true with an automatic transmission vs a manual With some cases power dropping below peak will have a lesser powered but better setup vehicle going faster! It’s also much easier to be consistent with an automatic transmission when launching that’s part of the reason manually shifted drag cars are highly respected
lower topend use more avg power 👌🏻 thats why it win feg 100 hp at 5000 rpm 200 hp at 10000 rpm when ypu shift at 10 k to another gear and rpm drop to 5 k rpm you have let say 150 hp avg power at this gear if 175 hp version would have always this 175 hp it mean it use 175 hp avg 175 is more than 150 👌🏻 so at big doffrenc in velocity at big dostance depsite it have lower topend 175 vs 200 it be faster due to more avg power but if you change gearing for biger top end version enogh good including turbo lag eliminate it somehow etc if it haveturbo asf it be quicker 👌🏻 not be much but it be 😎🤷🏻♂️so ? btw 200 hp version at rpm from which it generate 175 hp + it would push driver into seat stronger = accelerate quicker but not enough long time for win whole distance lenght race with 175 hp wide peak 👍🏻 feg if 200 hp version will have 175 hp at 8750 rpm at 3 gear where velocity be 87,5 km/h than this version WILL accelerate better up to velocity where its engine at this gear start generate less power than 175 hp version so i set up this version at 10 k rpm shifting point so up to 100 km/h from 87,5 to 100 km/h it be push you stronger into seat than 175 hp version which always use this 175 hp but from 50 to 87,5 km/h 200 hp version will push you weaker so if you want it to be faster you need to change gearing in such way that when you shift at 10 k rpm rpm cant drop lower than 8750 rpm on another higher gear 👌🏻 and 175 hp wide version is smoked in drag race 🌪👋🏻 assumingenough fast shifting and enough small turbo lag if it have turbo cos 175 hp wide peak dont need so small difreenc in gear lenght and this kean it would shift much less time through race lenght 😎 if gearbox be enough slow or and + turbo lag enough big even despite on gear it would have more avg ppwer at perfect gearing for 200 hp version it can lost due to more shifitng which be long let say and plus turbo lag so slow increase boost after shift asf 🫣 thers alot stuff which must be consider if you want know which setup be faster or just made it and test it if you cant calculate it but at end thers only one formula which rule in racing WATT:m/s = FORCE everything else is horse 💩😁👋🏻 gove me engine 200 hp 200 nm in the same car and you or f1 team can have max 100 hp and freely big tprque at engine crank let say 2000 nm but quiet close peak width or even they can have 2 time wider peak feg 100 hp between 1000 to 2000 rpm fer me version 200 hp between 8000 to 12000 rpm only yep me version have 2 times more narrow peak in regard diffrenc in velocity at set gear for egzample if at 2 they have 50 km/h at 1000 rpm that mean 100 km/h at 2000 rpm vs if me version have at 50 km/h 8000 rpm that mean 75 km/h only at 12000 rpm so me version would need 1 shift more 😎 and we can setup freely gearbox / gearing for both. so naturally optimal gear quantity and diffrenc in gear lenght for both car whatever how much gear and diffrenc in gear lenght be rauired for each for achieve best psoibble acceleration and top speed well perfect diffrencin gear lenght i already subscribe 👌🏻., wheel size the same let say or freely whatever they want but its uselees factor here really and they are fccccd up be me version on 1/4 mille i win each faken time 🤭 dosent matter how they setup gearing 🤷🏻♂️ they be unable to use the same avg power as me version physiqally imposiible and because they are in f1 team enginner they egzacly know this and they dont even try cos they know they dont have chance with meversion if they try that mean somebody do massive misteake puting them in f1 engineer team 🤭 but if you are limited when you change some stuff in some car than like you write sometimes increase torque at midrange and sacrifice top end can give lil better results but its compromise cos you cant change enough stuff for get best posibble results thats diffrenc 😎
Hits blunt
The worst exhibition of math formula I have ever seen.
Your dyno graph is incorrect. All true graphs of hp vs tq should cross at 5252rpm based on the equation you give. Your graph crosses at approximately 3000rpm.
I was wondering this also
Nothing wrong. The scale for TQ and HP aren't the same.
It's the scaling.
More 1.9PD Content please 🥰
They do PD?
@@tanner3801 Just for explanation purposes in this video
@@imbackinthegame3611 I must have missed that part
@@tanner3801 7:34
Once again, all about leverage force… you can tighten a bolt faster with a small ratchet… Thanks boy!
Calculus explained, the slope of a line.
I was trying to explain that to a young that that works for me. He didn't get it. I've sent him a link to this... 💯
Torque is a force. Force through a distance is work. Horsepower adds in the RPM (time) factor which means that it is the Rate or speed at which the work is being done.
Torque = acceleration. Horsepower = top speed.
No torque equals nothing if not paired with rpm. Power (HP) gives acceleration and top speed it’s a combination of torque and rpm.
Nope
Thank You for fucking with a 53 year old brain that thought he knew what torque was...
Especially given my work involves Torque Specs on fasteners and Twisting Torque Specs of various Shafts, Rotors and Drivelines.
I'm now going to drink to forget.
Interesting that Flywheel Weight is not somehow involved.
Disagree with too many points to cover bud
the most important thing is (@) - (at)
IE ... Rpm obviously the curve , so obviously if two engines are 300 hp and one is 1000 lbft peak ------( @ )!!!!!!-------3000 rpm
And one is 500 lbft peak ------(@)!!!!!!!----3000 rpm and assuming final gearing is the same then of course the one with more torque will be a lot faster.
Everything is in context. The context being rpm.
Subjectively hp is boring to drive Torque is thrills providing its over a reasonable spread of rpm obviously.
Ad you said you cant feel speed but u sure as hell feel torque.
Bigger engines are more fun because you have more scope for everything! Ultimately more power and torque.
Its an age old discussion and hard to explain clearly all aspects but i recon u had a good crack even if i didnt agree with lots. Maybe ill do my own take some day.
Yes you're right I'm about a 1/4 in so if you cover this excuse me. But you also have to remember the bigger physically an engine the more durable it is.
So your 4l boat engine will be smaller than the 6l meaning the durability will be different. But in a boat application cooling is pretty good and the engine on a normal boat only sees constant load. So depending on the boat I would go the smaller higher revving engine for the weight reduction.
Also the more torque an engine has the more weight you can add to the rotating assembly because the acceleration of the engine will be higher.
Also generally speaking most engines make power somewhere from 4000rpm to 6000rpm so a significant increase in torque like 100% will see a power increase in most standard engine designs.
50 years ago 5.0 v8 would give 170-200hp, I put a beer that K20A with 200hp last much more miles because of lean EFI startup, better materials, better manufacturing and so on.
@@barongogenzoler4300 well yes that is true, but compare that K20A making 200hp to a modern V8 if you de-tuned a modern V8 like a Ford Modular to 200hp it would likely live for much longer.
Here in Australia we have the Ford Barra, one of my old bosses had one with 900,000km on it, big old cast iron block with 4 bolt mains from the factory but twin variable cam shafts.
Plus some 50 year old Volvo stuff can do over 1 million miles.
Old one for the kids:
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall when you screw up...
Torque is how far you take it with you after hitting it....
That’s some of that old pub talk or should I say pub torque.
That's another misconception that has already been debunked, in much better detail than I can, by engineering explained.
@@DieselPumpUK LOL, yerp
@@liamholcroft7212 ?
@@bentheguru4986 I don't know what it is that's confusing you, and replying with a question mark doesn't help to clear it up. The analogy I'm your original comment, is a common misconception, one that has been proven false.
Torque is the ability to do work. Hp is how quickly can it do that work. It's that simple. Lol.
Your looking at this from the wrong angle. Torque is pulling power , that’s why all trucks are diesel. Diesels have tuns of torque low down the rev range. Example 6bt it’s nearly a flat shelf on torque from 1200 - 2500 . It’s not about speed it’s about pulling weight. Hey go for it light up those tyres
Power is pulling power, torque is just a factor in an equation, it’s like saying rpm is pulling power. Torque is totally useless without rpm and the two together are HP. Advertising torque figures is just marketing that people have unknowingly lapped up.
„ pulling power is torque „ 🤔 nope 👎🏻 pulling power is FORCE 👍🏻 engine with 100 hp 50 nm at crank at 10 km/h will pull stronger heavy weight on trailer than feg 50 hp 500 nm at crank also at 10 km/h 🤭 how. much stronger ? excluding loses in drivetrain etc 2 times stronger so you wpuld need to setup 2 times biger load resist on 100 hp 50 nm version for hold it at this 10 km/h without acceleration but also without deceleration let say uphill with trailer and load on it 😎 if 50 hp 500 nm version be able to go up this hill at 10 km/h without deceleration with 5 tons than 100 hp version with 50 nm be able to go up this hill with 10 tons 🤭 where 50 hp 500 nm version at 5 tons from helicopters while it drive up this hill with 5 tons will slow down from 10 km/h to much lower speed 🤭
Totally WRONG. Go look at an Abrams Tank, it's turbine engine has less torque than most sports cars. It's "power unit" is rated at like 3500 ft/lbs due to the massive gear reduction and the turbine engine spinning at 20k RPM.....
The reason diesels are generally used is economy / cheap to operate.
I like that you're trying to get this point across, but this is the type of video that needs a well revised script, because without it you get slightly lost in tangents and the explanation isn't too clear.
hp and torque is like apples and potatoes, in regards to they both come from plants. torque should never be confused with hp power. my understanding has always been that torque is low end delivery of power before the revs get high enough for the true hp to take over. kinda like whats seen on the dyno readout.
guys in the pub are generally full of shite. especially after a few jars of anti-reality juice.
now, 2 automatic cars, same models, same engines, same weight, same power, but with different torque values will reach the same speed because the gear ratios are the same, yes?. but wouldnt the high torque engine get off the line faster due to the torque giving power at low rpm?
Well. He really managed to complicate it and got it wrong too. His other videos are all good though.
Here is a little ryme an old man taught me.
If I’ve got 1 foot pound and you have 2
I spin twice as fast and make the same power you tool.
Overall, I think this description and the conclusion is still not fully correct. You're right that 'the torque number' of an engine isn't the full picture, because it isn't, and neither is 'the hp number.' The torque and hp numbers touted by manufacturers and also used to summarize the results of a dyno test are ONLY the peak torque and the peak horsepower. Neither of these peak figures separately or together are really enough to get the full picture. You really need the full dyno chart and gearing information to evaluate how 'fast' a powertrain is.
Horsepower is in fact NOT what is felt in a vehicle when you're 'rippin.' Torque is force on a rotating (or swiveling) body - the tires translate rotational force/torque into linear force. T=F/r and F=ma, so linear force and linear acceleration are directly proportional to torque (radius of tires after all your gearing is virtually constant). Because horsepower is proportional to (and resultant of) torque AND (angular/rotational speed) RPM, you can't 'feel' horsepower in the sense you feel torque. Ignoring the limited gearing of cars in general (auto or manual transmission, transfer case, diff), horsepower essentially only limits the theoretical top speed, per drag.
For example, assume two identical cars with two different engines, with a CVT for a transmission (one that doesn't break) following the ratio that keeps the engine at the RPM with peak torque at all times. One engine has peak horsepower of 200hp and the other has peak hp of 1,600hp, each has peak torque at different RPM (this case is comparable to a diesel vs a forced induction gasser). Horsepower = Power = (Energy / Time); drag is also a power figure (watts, horsepower). The drag (assuming infinite gearing) will limit the top speed of the 200hp car to 1/2 the top speed of the 1,600hp car. The 200hp car very well may feel faster during accel and could also closely compete with the 1,600hp car in an 1/8 mile drag race due to its torque curve, but the 1600hp car can overcome 8x as much drag at speed - not because it produces more peak torque, but because it still produces torque at an RPM and vehicle speed that is still greater than drag (until drag and the power of the powertrain become equal). Since drag is proportional to the cube of speed, you only get double the top speed, not octuple the top speed. Horsepower does not dictate how fast you accelerate, or the feeling of being pushed in your seat. That IS strictly instantaneous torque, gearing and mass. Turbocharged engines do also have that characteristic turbo lag and the sharp rise of the torque and hp curve, but even with a smooth torque curve, torque is what you feel in your seat and it is what accelerates the vehicle.
Although torque is what accelerates the car, peak torque by itself is not as important as the area under the torque curve and the shape of the curve, which basically characterize the power band, as you mentioned. If we want a full picture, we have to look at the dyno chart.
I think the reason we've all been able to be fooled to give a damn about peak numbers only is because, in general, engines of similar types have quite similar torque and power curve shapes. Diesels (forced induction) have a narrow power band and much lower RPM of peak torque, which differs significantly from a N/A gasser. Then a turbocharged gasser differs greatly from N/A gasser; not only higher peak power and torque, but much sharper rise of torque and power. There may be characteristic differences between i4, b4, v6, i6, v8, etc, but there are relatively few dividing lines in terms of basic behavior among ICE engines... so, here we are, peak torque and peak HP dominate peoples minds. A large torque spike at 2k RPM or 4k RPM or 7k RPM without much torque before or after the peak will really throw off your impression of the 'fast' potential of an engine or powertrain if you rely solely on peak torque and peak hp numbers. The peak figures simply are not enough.
Throw in fixed gearing and you get a yet more complicated picture, in terms of optimizing power output, acceleration and top speed, which is why a CVT is a good way to simplify the explanation of relationships between energy, power, acceleration, force, drag and top speed.
Are you sure you don't need 8 time the power to get double the top speed not the 4 times you mentioned?
@Tom Rudd you're right, I should have double checked the hp vs torque formulas before posting. Drag force is proportional to square but power proportional to cube of v.
Hp = F(pounds) * v(mph)^3
Pounds = .5 * Ca* A * p * v^2
(I normally use SI units but I'm pulling these directly from a specific example I found, in hp and pounds) I'll update the figures above^^^
It's silly to use terms "feel", trying to humanize physics leads to puzzling arguments. Forget CVTs, just think.of it in terms of a electric generator or hydraulic pump....all either care about is input HP to pump or convey. It could be a power unit at 20k RPM reduced to 5k via a 4:1 reduction gearbox or a 2.5k RPM overdriven via a 2:1 gearbox....if power is same between power units you'll have same end result. Torque needed between power units will different, but largely meaningless...
@Motominded you do feel force.
I'll reiterate, PEAK HP and PEAK torque are almost meaningless, but instantaneous torque at any given RPM is more meaningful than HP, in terms of acceleration and in terms of what your body feels.
Yes, instantaneous power/horsepower indicates work per time, but the force and acceleration aspect of horsepower are inversely proportional to RPM per unit of torque. Horsepower is harder to compare at varying RPM ranges because of that.
Bottom line, peak figures are practically useless in general. You need the whole picture.
@@tanner3801 instantaneous torque at RPM = HP. You can certainly have torque or a force with no movement, you'd feel nothing. Using terms like "power" illustrate work with provide motive force.
and this is the reason cvt gearbox were invented 😆
shame there isn't a single decent one that can handle big torque
Also diesels cheat with twin turbos!!
My tractor has more torque than a diesel golf but I ain't winning races
But that golf won't be plowing either
Torque is not a measure of power?????? really? Torque is the only true measure of power/force!!! We have torque wrenches not horsepower wrenches.
The fact is you can have torque without horse power but you cant have horse power without torque.
Reminded me my kindergarten teacher Jessica golden words: winner isnt the one, that gets you there fastest but who screws you the hardest getting there. More torque is always better ( ͡❛ ͜ʖ ͡❛)
Let's take your 2-stroke example, yes it does have torque. But it's the way it applies it. Nobody who has ever put a second person on a Yamaha rd350 in the 1970s, and believes for a second that the engine is capable of doing any realistic work. It is not able to keep up under load. Now this was a motorcycle that I could easily run a consistent 12-second quarter-mile, I could get it to stop from 70 inside of about 80 ft without sliding a tire. It was quick, until I put my wife on the back of it. Bandit with bog and lug and wouldn't do a damn thing because it could not force its way into pushing the two of you until it finally got up to speed. Even at that, there was little in the way of any realistic acceleration. Torque does have a role to play it depends on how it's applied.
Your original math example is an example on how you don't know math. Because you're starting with an engine that supposed to have 300 horsepower, you say it has 300 foot pounds of torque, and yet at the end of the your measurement, you claimed it only has one horsepower. Your short-circuiting your Abbott and Costello math. If the engine had 300 horsepower you should have come up with 300 horse power, not one. As with the other two examples you still should have come up with 300 horsepower because you're supposed to be starting with a 300 horsepower engine. Let's take your example and let's put it in the three engines of the early 1960s in NASCAR. The 427 Ford, the 427 Chevrolet, and the 426 Chrysler. And in one single year in Nascar Chrysler won 80% of the races. Because it put out over 100 ft lb of torque more than all of the others. With the same 425 horsepower rating.
Not to mention that you are rating the engines one at 5252 RPM the next one at 2626 RPM, and the third one at 1313 RPM. There's no way on this planet that people drive with their engines at that low in RPM. So what you're saying is that they're all three doing the same work at just above idle, while the other one is almost at its Redline. Your application is flawed. Wake up!
In case you haven't figured out your flaw?
You didn't finish the equation properly. It has to be three hundred times the one which would make 300. And that's in the first instance. On the other two, you are measuring them at different RPMs. It is torque times the actual RPM of the engine / 5252 which equals the horsepower after you multiply it back against the torque.
And it just after 23 minutes into this video you finally State what this entire video exhibits. You don't understand. If you don't know how to present a proper math formula and go through the entire math formula. Please don't put math formulas up on whiteboard for the whole world to see.
Who put 50p in this guy?
I'm not going to tell my mates who are all optimizing for torque in their big displacement diesel engines while I start going for HP
This feels like it should be obvious, but you get tunnel vision so easily, pretty much exactly like the pub analogy
I would still go for high torque. Within reason though. It’s much nicer to drive if you have high torque (power at low rpm) and it won’t damage anything if done correctly. But it won’t win any races…
Why are you lying 😂 if one engine has more torque than another and they both have the same hp then the engine with more torque will have a higher average hp and therefore be faster all other things kept equal
beside some stuff which he said wrong its not true 🤭 you forget that low torque engine can have the same or even wider peak power band 😉👍🏻 it depend how rapidly torque drop down after peak at higher rpm if it drop at very specified amplitude what is easy to achieve be manufactory if they want be setup proper i take exhaust electronicue bore to stroke and so forth =asf you can get very wide peak power it just be at much biger rpm than high torque engine but if prak width be similar dosent matter at which rpm it be both low and high torque version would accelerate the same and achieve the same top speed 👍🏻 assuming also offcorse similar diffrenc in gear lenght 👌🏻 feg disel 200 hp between 3 to 4 k rpm be egzacly the same fast as n/a gasoline with 200 hp between let say 6 to 8k rpm 🤷🏻♂️ assuming in disel when you shift at 4 k rpm drop on another higher gear to 3 k rpm each time vs n/a gas when you shift at 8 k they drop to 6 k rpm each time on another higher gear excluding turbo lag in disel etc this 2 car motorcycle truck whatever what would accelerate gzacle the same 😎
Not a great explanation. Anyone who didn't already understand the point you were trying to make is surely more confused now.
It was a good explanation. it's just 99.9% of people who are into cars have no understanding of what torque is.
I thought it was spot on and explains why a M1 Abrams Tank uses an engine that has less torque than a sports car
@@tomrudd4168 The first 3 minutes were fine.
@@motominded5275 The M1 Abrams engine produces 3730 N-m after it's integrated 7.5:1 reduction gearbox. The power turbine still produces about 500 N-m. That's still pretty good for a sports car.
@@fascistpedant758 it's a fraction of what a large diesel has but pushes around a 70T tank better than any diesel does....it illustrates the point well though, I think!
There is soo much wrong in this video 😂 stick to making pumps and less physics lectures
yay he uploading again