GT350 1/4 mile

[DrumReaper]

You can have infinite torque at 0 rpm, that will break a good wrench.

Idk of anything that has infinite, or any, torque at 0 RPMs.

Sponsored

 

[derpington]

F=ma

A=F/m

Yes, it is force which dictates acceleration moreso than horespower. You can have diesel trucks with lower HP but gobs or torque outrun higher horsepower vehicles which have low torque. It's the combination of torque curves, RPM limits, and gearing which dictate strip times. A 5000 HP rocket engine with 500 ft/lbs of torque will get beat by a 1500 HP 1500 ft/lb motor assuming the same gearing.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The reason that engines with a lot of low end torque typically accelerate more quickly is because they also have more low end horsepower. Since they are producing a higher amount of horsepower over a longer time, they can accelerate more quickly. Sure you can derive the amount of force applied if you know the acceleration and mass, but that doesn't mean it is the force making the vehicle accelerate. You can also derive the amount of mechanical power if you know the force and the RPM. But make no mistake, it is the power that is causing the vehicle to accelerate, not the force.

 

[derpington]

Idk of anything that has infinite, or any, torque at 0 RPMs.

RPM is completely inconsequential to torque. Read what I said above about the torque wrench. You can absolutely tighten a nut to where it no longer moves, and then still apply force to the to it resulting in a reading on the torque wrench. This is an example of applying torque without something rotating.

 

[cosmo]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The reason that engines with a lot of low end torque typically accelerate more quickly is because they also have more low end horsepower. Since they are producing a higher amount of horsepower over a longer time, they can accelerate more quickly. Sure you can derive the amount of force applied if you know the acceleration and mass, but that doesn't mean it is the force making the vehicle accelerate. You can also derive the amount of mechanical power if you know the force and the RPM. But make no mistake, it is the power that is causing the vehicle to accelerate, not the force.

Nope. I'll run my 500 HP/800 ft-lb car and race is against your 5000 HP/1 ft-lb car and we'll see.

Your argument is flawed in that an engine doesn't operate at 0 RPM, so your torque wrench example doesn't work. Horsepower is derived from torque AND RPM. Horsepower shows how fast your car can go, but NOT how fast it can get to that speed.

 

[DrumReaper]

RPM is completely inconsequential to torque. Read what I said above about the torque wrench. You can absolutely tighten a nut to where it no longer moves, and then still apply force to the to it resulting in a reading on the torque wrench. This is an example of applying torque without something rotating.

This is in relation to an actual engine man... yes you can apply torque to wrench a nut, but the torque is coming from an external force.

The engine in a car generates its own torque when under cycling. Without cycling (i.e., 0 RPMs), the engine is not able to generate HP or torque.

 

[derpington]

Nope. I'll run my 500 HP/800 ft-lb car and race is against your 5000 HP/1 ft-lb car and we'll see.

Your argument is flawed in that an engine doesn't operate at 0 RPM, so your torque wrench example doesn't work. Horsepower is derived from torque AND RPM. Horsepower shows how fast your car can go, but NOT how fast it can get to that speed.

You're still wrong. The reason I used the 0 RPM engine is to illustrate that torque doesn't equate to power.

If you don't like the 0 RPM example, use an large industrial mill producing 100,000 ft/lbs of torque that can rotate at 5 RPM. Imagine it is possible to place this in a vehicle and the whole thing only weighs 400 lbs. Would this win a race against a sportbike producing 60 ft/lbs of torque at 16,000 RPM? Assume the same gearing and tires. Why or why not?

Please note that this example doesn't work for illustrating my point like the 0 RPM example because both of these engines are producing horsepower (which, as stated allows the vehicle to move), unlike the 0 RPM example.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

My head hurts from reading all of this. Is there a single GT350 or 350r buyer getting one of these for the express purpose of drag racing it??? And if there is one potential owner that responds with a yes! My next question would be why???

 

[Armen]

If a train leaves the station in Timbuktu and travels at 50mph and then another train leaves...

 

[cosmo]

You're still wrong. The reason I used the 0 RPM engine is to illustrate that torque doesn't equate to power.

If you don't like the 0 RPM example, use an large industrial mill producing 100,000 ft/lbs of torque that can rotate at 5 RPM. Imagine it is possible to place this in a vehicle and the whole thing only weighs 400 lbs. Would this win a race against a sportbike producing 60 ft/lbs of torque at 16,000 RPM? Assume the same gearing and tires. Why or why not?

Please note that this example doesn't work for illustrating my point like the 0 RPM example because both of these engines are producing horsepower (which, as stated allows the vehicle to move), unlike the 0 RPM example.

The same gearing and tires? No it couldn't, that's why they have different gearing. But if you mess with gearing, I bet that windmill would win. Comparing GM and Ford engines in drag racing, the GM motor has higher torque values, and uses that higher torque with lower gear ratios to compensate for their lower RPM limits. The Ford motor has lower torque values, and compensates for it with higher gear ratios and higher RPM limits.

Both cars typically end a drag race at the same gear, despite different rev limiters and at different trap speeds. That's due to their RPM limits and gearing.

Again, horsepower is the measurement of the output of torque at a certain RPM. If you want your car to get to the end of the quarter mile faster than your opponent, you need to accelerate to that position quicker than them (assuming you are at the same starting point). By manipulating your engine torque output and RPM limits with gearing, you can do that.

 

[jaja6009]

I think that both the GT350 and the Camaro will have better 1/4 mile times to come. Way too many variables to just say the GT350's best times are these given. The trap speeds alone say there is more ET in them. I hate magazine tests because except for Road and Track you dont get the full run info. I need 60ft and DA. I saw that the Camaro had a 2.1 60ft. Cant wait to see what it will run when a good driver gets a 1.9. 11s are coming for the auto bone stock. The old saying for every .1 in 60ft is .2 at the end.

The GT350 and R being manuals is gonna be harder for people to get lower times. But they will come. Low 12s for the 350 base and 11s for the R. Is there any info on what the DA was for the 350 runs? At least a 60ft time would help to tell its potential.

 

[derpington]

The same gearing and tires? No it couldn't, that's why they have different gearing.

Weird, then, since you literally just said it is torque that allows the vehicle to accelerate. How do you explain a vehicle producing over 1,000 times the amount of torque with everything else being equal (tires, gearing, weight) losing a race? It's almost as torque isn't the rate at which something performs work. Maybe there's some of measurement of this that can account for this observation.

 

[cosmo]

Weird, then, since you literally just said it is torque that allows the vehicle to accelerate. How do you explain a vehicle producing over 1,000 times the amount of torque with everything else being equal (tires, gearing, weight)? It's almost as torque isn't the rate at which something performs work. Maybe there's some of measurement of this that can account for this observation.

But when we're discussing vehicle engines, we don't have these examples of super high HP with next to nothing torque, or super high torque with zero RPM (and thus virtually no HP). In your example, lets have a 20000 lb vehicle with a 5:1 gear ratio. They're the same, right? Good luck with your motorcycle getting that moving. Torque wins.

But in the real world, it's almost as if engines have a similar range of torque and RPM (usually topping out around 6-8000 RPM).

 

[derpington]

But in the real world, it's almost as if engines have a similar range of torque and RPM (usually topping out around 6-8000 RPM).

Oh, so you're saying that it requires torque AND RPM in order to move! I see, now. What is the resultant measurement called if you measure torque in ft/lbs, multiply it by the RPM and then divide by an arbitrary number to keep it low enough to not require too many digits--say, 5252?

 

[mustang_guy]

Your avatar is creepy. Just needed to say that

 

[cosmo]

Oh, so you're saying that it requires torque AND RPM in order to move! I see, now. What is the resultant measurement called if you measure torque in ft/lbs, multiply it by the RPM and then divide by an arbitrary number to keep it low enough to not require too many digits--say, 5252?

I've said that from the beginning. Your initial example was trying to cheat, by having an amount of torque with no RPM and say that proves your theory that horsepower is king. I at least gave your example both torque and RPM.

We're having an argument on exactly what people have been arguing about for years, and is shown in the Camaro versus Mustang debate. High torque with low RPM limiter versus lower torque with higher RPM limiter. Gearing makes the difference, and is why the 11-14 Mustang typically won in the quarter mile, because of the gearing which multiplied the engine's torque output to a higher degree than the Camaro, and the higher RPM limiter was enough to push it over the edge and give it the win.

Sponsored