GT350 1/4 mile

[Magpul]

If I wanted to read on horsepower vs. torque I would do the appropriate Google search. This thread has gone way off topic.

Sponsored

 

[SpursFan]

Wow soooooo much wrong in this whole argument of torque force power and acceleration

Surprising there have been a few correct statements but mostly not

For the sanity of all here probably best not to read this thread. Just fair warning to the unsuspecting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amen to that:amen:..reading this thread makes me wonder who paid attention in high school or even junior high.

Back on track. So heres to the embargo ending tomorrow a solid week of information and Shelby's heading to dealers :cheers:

 

[Hack]

I mean, I have torqued probably hundreds of lugnuts to ~100 ft./lbs and never once have I had the vehicle accelerate away from me even a single time.
.

Now I know you're just arguing for the sake of trying to prove yourself right on the internet rather than thinking. Not my cup of tea. :cheers:

On a car in park or in gear with the parking brake set is one thing, but did you notice that the front tires on a rear wheel drive car can turn when the car is jacked up? And if you have the car in neutral on a level surface it absolutely will accelerate even with a paltry 100 ft/lbs applied. And - every time you torque a bolt you will absolutely notice that the torque is moving the car.

And, did you realize that both the transmission gearing and rear end gearing multiply the torque output from the engine?

If I wanted to read on horsepower vs. torque I would do the appropriate Google search. This thread has gone way off topic.

IMO it's on topic to conversation about the 1/4 mile performance of the GT350. Did you want the thread to be one post? here are the numbers. End..

 

[cosmo]

I agree with hack. You're just arguing to argue now. 1 HP can accelerate a mass differently, it just won't travel as far. The RPM of an engine encapsulates the time and distance of the section regarding the horse pulling a mass 1 foot in 1 second. If you change the RPM, you change time and distance. If you change the torque of the engine (lbf), you're effectively changing the mass the horse pulls (and also, the acceleration of the car). I've explained this numerous times in different ways and your arrogance and refusal to learn anything are hindering you.

 

[Hack]

I agree with hack. You're just arguing to argue now. 1 HP can accelerate a mass differently, it just won't travel as far. The RPM of an engine encapsulates the time and distance of the section regarding the horse pulling a mass 1 foot in 1 second. If you change the RPM, you change time and distance. If you change the torque of the engine (lbf), you're effectively changing the mass the horse pulls (and also, the acceleration of the car).

I guess I understand what you are saying but it is stated in completely incorrect ways.

 

[derpington]

On a car in park or in gear with the parking brake set is one thing, but did you notice that the front tires on a rear wheel drive car can turn when the car is jacked up? And if you have the car in neutral on a level surface it absolutely will accelerate even with a paltry 100 ft/lbs applied. And - every time you torque a bolt you will absolutely notice that the torque is moving the car.

If a car accelerates at 100 ft./lbs of torque you would never be able to tighten the lugnuts on the front wheel of a RWD vehicle because you would always be moving the vehicle. This hasn't been my experience. Here is what happens and why:

Lift the front wheels of a vehicle. Apply 100 ft/lbs of torque to a lugnut in to try to tighten the front wheel. The wheel spins. This is because you are simply moving the mass of one wheel/tire. Since this is only around 50 lbs or so, it doesn't require much power to move. Since you are spinning the wrench slowly, you are not producing very much horsepower with your 100 ft/lbs of torque you are applying, but it is enough to move the 50 lb wheel. It is the power you are generating that makes it move.

Lower the vehicle, placing the vehicle's weight on the suspension. Now you can apply the same 100 ft/lbs to the lugnut, and now the vehicle doesn't move. Even though you are applying the same amount of torque, you are now required to move the mass of the entire vehicle. Since this is 60+ times greater than the wheel/tire you are moving, applying the same torque at the same speed does not allow the vehicle to move because you are not producing enough power to move the weight.

Now put the vehicle in gear and start the engine and drive just off idle when your engine is making very little torque. The vehicle still easily moves with no throttle input, even though it is not applying much more torque than you were even with the multiplying factors of first gear and the final drive. This is because the engine is making significantly more power than you were because it is rotating more quickly. Same torque, more horsepower.

It is horsepower that moves vehicles, not torque. This isn't what torque is measuring. It is what power is measuring.

I agree with hack. You're just arguing to argue now. 1 HP can accelerate a mass differently, it just won't travel as far. The RPM of an engine encapsulates the time and distance of the section regarding the horse pulling a mass 1 foot in 1 second. If you change the RPM, you change time and distance. If you change the torque of the engine (lbf), you're effectively changing the mass the horse pulls (and also, the acceleration of the car). I've explained this numerous times in different ways and your arrogance and refusal to learn anything are hindering you.

If you change the RPM, you do not change the distance 1 HP can pull something. A horsepower already factors in time, distance and weight. If you increase the torque at a given RPM, you automatically increase the horsepower (since it's torque over time, i.e., a unit of power). But if you are changing the RPM and the horsepower remains constant, acceleration will remain constant. Saying that 1 HP at 150 RPM can move weight at a different rate than 150 HP at 5000 RPM is literally the same as saying that a 300 lb man that is 5' tall weighs more than a 300 lb man that is 6' tall.

 

[cosmo]

If a car accelerates at 100 ft./lbs of torque you would never be able to tighten the lugnuts on the front wheel of a RWD vehicle because you would always be moving the vehicle. This hasn't been my experience. Here is what happens and why:

Lift the front wheels of a vehicle. Apply 100 ft/lbs of torque to a lugnut in to try to tighten the front wheel. The wheel spins. This is because you are simply moving the mass of one wheel/tire. Since this is only around 50 lbs or so, it doesn't require much power to move. Since you are spinning the wrench slowly, you are not producing very much horsepower with your 100 ft/lbs of torque you are applying, but it is enough to move the 50 lb wheel. It is the power you are generating that makes it move.

Lower the vehicle, placing the vehicle's weight on the suspension. Now you can apply the same 100 ft/lbs to the lugnut, and now the vehicle doesn't move. Even though you are applying the same amount of torque, you are now required to move the mass of the entire vehicle. Since this is 60+ times greater than the wheel/tire you are moving, applying the same torque at the same speed does not allow the vehicle to move because you are not producing enough power to move the weight.

Now put the vehicle in gear and start the engine and drive just off idle when your engine is making very little torque. The vehicle still easily moves with no throttle input, even though it is not applying much more torque than you were even with the multiplying factors of first gear and the final drive. This is because the engine is making significantly more power than you were because it is rotating more quickly. Same torque, more horsepower.

It is horsepower that moves vehicles, not torque. This isn't what torque is measuring. It is what power is measuring.



If you change the RPM, you do not change the distance 1 HP can pull something. A horsepower already factors in time, distance and weight. If you increase the torque at a given RPM, you automatically increase the horsepower (since it's torque over time, i.e., a unit of power). But if you are changing the RPM and the horsepower remains constant, acceleration will remain constant. Saying that 1 HP at 150 RPM can move weight at a different rate than 150 HP at 5000 RPM is literally the same as saying that a 300 lb man that is 5' tall weighs more than a 300 lb man that is 6' tall.

Say you're driving a vehicle whose weight and wind resistance is so much that you cannot accelerate at 6000 RPM with 300 HP. You are coasting at 6000 RPM with 300 HP, leading to 262 ft-lbs of torque. You cannot accelerate the vehicle any more, and thus your acceleration is 0 but you are still outputting work. Dropping the RPM to 5000, you now have 315ftlbs of torque, allowing you to accelerate. Same horsepower, different acceleration, as the lower RPMs allow you to increase your torque but still make the same amount of power.

 

[derpington]

Say you're driving a vehicle whose weight and wind resistance is so much that you cannot accelerate at 6000 RPM with 300 HP. You are coasting at 6000 RPM with 300 HP, leading to 262 ft-lbs of torque. You cannot accelerate the vehicle any more, and thus your acceleration is 0 but you are still outputting work. Dropping the RPM to 5000, you now have 315ftlbs of torque, allowing you to accelerate. Same horsepower, different acceleration, as the lower RPMs allow you to increase your torque but still make the same amount of power.

No, not even close.

It requires more power to overcome the wind resistance. Since your car is producing its maximum horsepower, it cannot overcome the wind resistance.

Dropping your RPM to 5000 decreases your speed*, which decreases the wind resistance. Wind resistance is not linear; it increases with the cube of speed, so even if you only dropped 10 MPH with the 1000 RPM decrease, it requires significantly less power to overcome the resistance. This is why you're able to accelerate up to your maximum horsepower. It has nothing to do with torque.

*This is assuming you stayed in the same gear. If you upshifted, you should be producing less power at the wheels and the wind resistance would cause you to decelerate. This is why many vehicles that are drag limited do not reach their top speed in their top gear.

 

[_M_]

#windresistance

sorry had to do that, just struck as funny. BUT…true

 

[Fordlandia]

Huh? 11.4 @ 130 MPH?

Can anybody explain this one? Seems like total fiction...

https://plus.google.com/114014362233789327198/posts/TzA8LmaRVbc

Those claims are WAY quicker than anything I have seen... am I missing something?

 

[roadace]

This is a great thread for those of us who enjoy and digest the technical angles. I love to read the stuff from the engineers. Amazing how this car is weighted in the direction of road racing but the metrics that the majority of the sports/performance car world looks for is 1/4 mile trap MPH and E.T. Oh well, how many of us really care about a Laguna Seca time or the like. Obviously not many.

 

[5.0 435]

Back to 1/4 mile times please. Any new info from any mags. Keep it short please. Just the article link.

 

[5.0 435]

Can anybody explain this one? Seems like total fiction...

https://plus.google.com/114014362233789327198/posts/TzA8LmaRVbc

Those claims are WAY quicker than anything I have seen... am I missing something?

Holy crap I hope this is factual because it is amazing. Need to fact check.

 

[mustang_guy]

This is a great thread for those of us who enjoy and digest the technical angles. I love to read the stuff from the engineers. Amazing how this car is weighted in the direction of road racing but the metrics that the majority of the sports/performance car world looks for is 1/4 mile trap MPH and E.T. Oh well, how many of us really care about a Laguna Seca time or the like. Obviously not many.

People look at its trap speed because its a measure of how fast it can accelerate in a straight and coming out of turns. It does matter. Obviously this car will handle stupid well but its acceleration over 60 matters too.

 

[Trackaholic]

Can anybody explain this one? Seems like total fiction...

https://plus.google.com/114014362233789327198/posts/TzA8LmaRVbc

Those claims are WAY quicker than anything I have seen... am I missing something?

Completely bogus. No way the car traps that high with its known power to weight.

-T

Sponsored