Search results

What does this mean? What metaphorical definition of horsepower should I be using that makes your solution correct? No, it won't. Once again, this is like saying a ton of lead weighs more than a ton of feathers. They both weigh 2,000 lbs, there is just a higher volume of feathers. Since...

It is the "at a given RPM" that matters, though. This is a very important distinction to make, because it changes what is being measured. If I were to say I traveled 9 miles that means one thing. If I were to say I traveled 9 miles per second, that means an entirely different thing. So...

No, it really isn't. They can be derived from one another using time, but they are definitely NOT the same thing. I don't understand why you can't grasp this. Torque at RPM is horsepower, as we've already established. Horsepower at the wheels already takes into consideration gearing...

Horsepower at the wheels and weight are actually the only things required to determine acceleration, assuming perfect traction. At no point does torque come into the equation. Exactly.

No, it is correct to say that torque moves the vehicle, period. Torque at an RPM is measuring a different thing than torque, just like a foot is measuring a different thing than a ft/lb. You can't say that a car's length in feet makes it go faster. Saying that the torque it produces does this...

No, we're not having the same argument that people have been arguing for years. I am not saying either of these are better. I am not stating an opinion. It is a physical fact that it is horsepower that allows vehicles to accelerate and move, not torque. I am not saying it is peak horsepower. I...

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?

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...

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...

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...

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...

No, torque at the wheels does not accelerate a car. Torque does not accelerate a car, period. This isn't what it is a measure of. Horsepower enables a car to accelerate, as it is a measure of power, not force. Get a torque wrench. Tighten a nut to 100 ft/lbs of torque and maintain this...

This actually is exactly the case, and there are a number of Z06 owners that had dealerships receive their vehicles with cracked tires from being transported via non-heated means. If it gets cold, and you have a non-heated garage, you'll probably either want to invest in a heater or bring the...

GM has an option to tour BGAP, and an option to build your own engine, but you can't actually pick it up at the factory, as far as I know. There is an option for Corvette Museum delivery, which is just down the road, but you can't get it at the factory itself.

Here's another way to look at it, since you're apparently having difficulty understanding the argument. Let's say I claimed Chevy was coming out with a new large displacement V8 to replace the LS7 based on the LT1. The LT1 is a 6.2L V8. We are going to say the LT7 is going to be a 7.3L V8. The...

I am saying the LT1 is more technologically advanced than the Coyote. The LT1 offers Direct Injection, Displacement on Demand and VVT. The Coyote offers VVT, but not Direct Injection or Displacement on Demand. What technologies does the Coyote have that the LT1 doesn't that makes it more...

You keep saying it's DI and VVT, but every single Ecoboost engine manufactured today already has implemented this technology, so this wouldn't be a change or improvement that your theoretical engine would have. As for the 10 speed minimizing energy lost between shifts, this should largely...

Speaking of the 3.5EB vs the 5.0L in the F150, the 3.5EB gets 23 MPG highway versus the 21 MPG of the 5.0L for a less than 10% increase in an engine that has two less cylinders and 33% less displacement. You're suggesting that this theoretical 4.2L would see 32 MPG versus the current 25 MPG in...

I was saying that it is extremely unlikely that a 4.2L V8 will get the same gas mileage as a 2.3L I4 from the same company in the same model of car, and I still haven't seen any convincing argument for this fantasy engine you have dreamed up. What advantage would it have over the 2.3L Ecoboost...

The current 2.3L Ecoboost aleady has DI, variable timing and turbocharging. It seems optimistic to think that a 10 speed auto would allow the same gas mileage with a 200% increase in the number if cylinders and a 182% increase in displacement, not to mention the increased weight of the vehicle...