PDA

View Full Version : Torque/Horsepower Relationship n 1/4 Mile.


bart
10-09-2003, 08:41 PM
http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6854&page_number=4

:confused:
Ekliptix
10-09-2003, 08:48 PM
no kidding,

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19380&highlight=Forester

I'm not raggin on you.
LancerShelby
10-09-2003, 08:57 PM
More torque than a WRX, cause of the extra cubic inches.
bart
10-09-2003, 09:29 PM
ok repost, delete me. lol
Eric Happy Meal
10-09-2003, 10:15 PM
yeah torque determines 1/4 times not hp.
szw
10-09-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Eric Happy Meal
yeah torque determines 1/4 times not hp.

cuz that makes sense......
Eric Happy Meal
10-09-2003, 10:27 PM
it does, you can have a shitload of hp and have a slow 1/4, its all dependant upon torque.
max_boost
10-09-2003, 10:46 PM
A chipped golf TDI has double the torque than hp but still runs 16/17's in the 1/4 mile
GTS Jeff
10-09-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Eric Happy Meal
yeah torque determines 1/4 times not hp. so my john deere will run a 7 second pass?

hahaha, go have fun with your 400hp car.
bart
10-09-2003, 11:19 PM
my best time was a 17.3. you need hp in 1/4, because you're in the high rev range most of the time.
5.9 R/T
10-09-2003, 11:22 PM
you need both.
fast95pony
10-09-2003, 11:27 PM
What are the other mags saying ?? That 1/4 mile time for the hp/tq/weight seems a tad quick to my simple mind. I wonder if there are any actual timeslips floating around the 'net.
Time for some research...after F1 qualifying...:)
rice_eater
10-09-2003, 11:56 PM
no one seems to factor in the elevation we are at!!! for all we know they may have done the tests at sea level...we are over 3000ft higher!
AutodreamMarvin
10-10-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by max_boost
A chipped golf TDI has double the torque than hp but still runs 16/17's in the 1/4 mile

OOOHHH!!! dem's fightin' words! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
^SkylinE^
10-10-2003, 12:22 AM
I can't believe the fuggin stuff that comes of Eric Happy Meal words?
fast95pony
10-10-2003, 12:24 AM
I'm sure the tests were done close to sea level. All I'm asking is there any other reports that can verify those times ??
finboy
10-10-2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by rice_eater
no one seems to factor in the elevation we are at!!! for all we know they may have done the tests at sea level...we are over 3000ft higher!

it wouldn't have near the effect on the turbo forester as it would on an NA car.
Ben
10-10-2003, 12:29 AM
Torque gets you going, Horsepower keeps you going.

For example, my car...I've put down a 2.25 60' in my car. in my opinion, that is rather impressive for a FWD car with only 160hp, and shitty rubber. I also have 160lb/ft of torque though, and short gearing. I outlaunch alot of everyday FWD cars and generally have the edge till about midway through 3rd when I get passed.

I'm running 10 second 1/8th @69-70mph but because I lack some HP, and the way my gearing is, it takes a while to get to the 1/4, so I often get passed between the 1/8th and 1/4 and run a mid 15 at only 88mph. Car has great accelleration because of the good strong torque curve but runs out of steam in the taller gears.

Examples:

http://members.shaw.ca/psylence/accellfrmstop.avi

Note this first vid. This is from idle at a stationary position, just a standard start and then flooring it once the car rolls foward. Could have been a bit quicker, but hard to hold camera and manage brutal torque steer while shifting. This is torque giving the advantage for me, being able to pull from Idle is a bonus :) Also note the hard pull between 3500-7000

http://members.shaw.ca/psylence/accellfrm70in4th.avi

This second vid however shows pretty weak accelleration from 4th gear at 70mph-100mph, taking 12 seconds. It takes an additional 14 seconds to hit 130mph in 5th.

*speedo is slow by roughly 12% and of course, is in MPH. Vids done on closed location.*
szw
10-10-2003, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by rice_eater
no one seems to factor in the elevation we are at!!! for all we know they may have done the tests at sea level...we are over 3000ft higher!
Uh..i think everyone knows that. Does it make it any less impressive? no
4wheeldrift
10-10-2003, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by fast95pony
What are the other mags saying ?? That 1/4 mile time for the hp/tq/weight seems a tad quick to my simple mind. I wonder if there are any actual timeslips floating around the 'net.
Time for some research...after F1 qualifying...:) That's actually pretty consistent with what I've seen. It's got a bigger motor (far more low range torque) than a WRX with tighter 1-2 gears.
alloroc
10-10-2003, 08:16 AM
Looks like a great vehicle.

As for HP and Torque and how to explain it, I don't know if this is a repost but look here. Best read on the topic I have ever seen.


http://www.isimpression.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1570
alloroc
10-10-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by rice_eater
no one seems to factor in the elevation we are at!!! for all we know they may have done the tests at sea level...we are over 3000ft higher!

Elevation has less effect on turbo cars because the wastegate measures and regulates absolute pressure, therefore the intake manifold sees the same boosted pressure.

Most wastegates operate via a spring and the spring doesn't care what altitute it is working at.

http://www.taftan.com/thermodynamics/PRESSURE.HTM

http://www.hondalife.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5