How to make torque at higher RPM...
05-19-2006, 03:02 PM
#21
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Blackwood, NJ
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hammertime
If it's so great, why is it for sale?
V-8 engines make great torque, period. If you tune the engine to make torque N/A, and then add boost, you'll get similar results without the complicated tuning and the expense of a second power adder.
Above all, high RPM power is not the best answer for the street.
V-8 engines make great torque, period. If you tune the engine to make torque N/A, and then add boost, you'll get similar results without the complicated tuning and the expense of a second power adder.
Above all, high RPM power is not the best answer for the street.
05-19-2006, 03:13 PM
#22
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by THE LAST Z
I was reading about Torque VS Horsepower and basicly they say Its better to make torque at Higher RPM so you can take advantage of the gearing. I understand that, But how do you make torque at higher RPM's?
05-19-2006, 03:25 PM
#23
TECH Fanatic
Originally Posted by MrDude_1
two people already said it, but im going to agree and disagree... you may or may not have ment to, but its worded as a trick question..
if the trans output shaft isnt moving, then nothings going to the driveshaft... regardless of anything else.
if the trans output shaft isnt moving, then nothings going to the driveshaft... regardless of anything else.
in the extraneous information. There may very possibly be torque getting to the drive shaft if you are foot braking (with very effective rear brakes!), but no rotation therefore no power. You recognized that there's no power without rotation, which was the point of the question.
but i agree that when you're stalling a car up and nothings moving, not counting the minimal heat generated by the pressure of pushing things together, all off the energy is turning into heat in the trans...
05-19-2006, 03:50 PM
#24
TECH Fanatic
Originally Posted by 408WS6
Its better to make torque EVERYWHERE and as much as possible!!
Riddle me this:
1) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 3% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead?
2) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 4.5% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead? Why or why not?
3) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 5% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead? Why or why not?
05-19-2006, 04:21 PM
#25
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Old SStroker
To make maximum horsepower you strive to make as much torque as possible at the highest rpm possible.
Riddle me this:
1) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 3% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead?
2) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 4.5% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead? Why or why not?
3) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 5% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead? Why or why not?
Riddle me this:
1) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 3% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead?
2) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 4.5% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead? Why or why not?
3) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 5% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead? Why or why not?
Last edited by 408WS6; 05-19-2006 at 04:32 PM.
05-19-2006, 06:13 PM
#26
On The Tree
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: McAllen, TX
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old SStroker, why are you asking questions? The guy started the thread in search of an answer. I would recommend you not to complicate it any more. Just answer your own question and be done with it. 408WS6 has a very good point.
05-19-2006, 06:17 PM
#27
On The Tree
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my dads 92 camaro runs 8.90's with a quadrajet carb, If he put mufflers on it, he could get away with driving it on the street. (all stock steel, not a tube chassis car!) and he only had 790hp.
05-19-2006, 06:24 PM
#28
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rain Island, NY
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Incase you guys are wondering, This is where i got ot from:
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
Go all the way to the bottom and you will see the quote.
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
Go all the way to the bottom and you will see the quote.
05-19-2006, 07:05 PM
#29
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by novass72
my dads 92 camaro runs 8.90's with a quadrajet carb, If he put mufflers on it, he could get away with driving it on the street. (all stock steel, not a tube chassis car!) and he only had 790hp.
05-19-2006, 07:19 PM
#30
On The Tree
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry, I did not clarify. It is not street friendly b/c of the 5.68 gear. And it also had a 468 in it. Not a small block LT1. Since 408WS6 was on the topic of super gas, I thought I'd mention my dads super stocker. Just a chance to brag a little bit, don't get to a lot.
05-19-2006, 07:38 PM
#31
Who cares if someone's dad's car made 790 or 390, the point of this thread is getting muddled well below people posing more questions and calling bs on people's claims to fame.
408WS6 - Old SStroker wasn't saying that PEAK torque needs to occur as high as possible, but that you want to HOLD the most amount of torque as long as possible into the upper rpm's.
In general, the quote about making torque at higher rpm rather than lower rpm is from a racing/drag point of view. Disregarding how well you hook and other factors, the person who carries the most torque throughout the most useable part of the RPM band is the winner. In drag racing, the higher rpm is the most useable part, thus the statement about it is better to make the torque there rather than at lower rpm IF you had to make a choice. From a street/fun point of view, it's better to make more torque down low where you can USE it. Again, it's all about the useable part of the power band. The quote can be taken in many contexts, but the bottom line is that there is no use in making torque where you can't best utilize it.
408WS6 - Old SStroker wasn't saying that PEAK torque needs to occur as high as possible, but that you want to HOLD the most amount of torque as long as possible into the upper rpm's.
In general, the quote about making torque at higher rpm rather than lower rpm is from a racing/drag point of view. Disregarding how well you hook and other factors, the person who carries the most torque throughout the most useable part of the RPM band is the winner. In drag racing, the higher rpm is the most useable part, thus the statement about it is better to make the torque there rather than at lower rpm IF you had to make a choice. From a street/fun point of view, it's better to make more torque down low where you can USE it. Again, it's all about the useable part of the power band. The quote can be taken in many contexts, but the bottom line is that there is no use in making torque where you can't best utilize it.
05-19-2006, 08:20 PM
#34
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ArcticZ28
Who cares if someone's dad's car made 790 or 390, the point of this thread is getting muddled well below people posing more questions and calling bs on people's claims to fame.
408WS6 - Old SStroker wasn't saying that PEAK torque needs to occur as high as possible, but that you want to HOLD the most amount of torque as long as possible into the upper rpm's.
In general, the quote about making torque at higher rpm rather than lower rpm is from a racing/drag point of view. Disregarding how well you hook and other factors, the person who carries the most torque throughout the most useable part of the RPM band is the winner. In drag racing, the higher rpm is the most useable part, thus the statement about it is better to make the torque there rather than at lower rpm IF you had to make a choice. From a street/fun point of view, it's better to make more torque down low where you can USE it. Again, it's all about the useable part of the power band. The quote can be taken in many contexts, but the bottom line is that there is no use in making torque where you can't best utilize it.
408WS6 - Old SStroker wasn't saying that PEAK torque needs to occur as high as possible, but that you want to HOLD the most amount of torque as long as possible into the upper rpm's.
In general, the quote about making torque at higher rpm rather than lower rpm is from a racing/drag point of view. Disregarding how well you hook and other factors, the person who carries the most torque throughout the most useable part of the RPM band is the winner. In drag racing, the higher rpm is the most useable part, thus the statement about it is better to make the torque there rather than at lower rpm IF you had to make a choice. From a street/fun point of view, it's better to make more torque down low where you can USE it. Again, it's all about the useable part of the power band. The quote can be taken in many contexts, but the bottom line is that there is no use in making torque where you can't best utilize it.
05-19-2006, 10:49 PM
#36
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Old SStroker
To make maximum horsepower you strive to make as much torque as possible at the highest rpm possible.
Riddle me this: ?
Riddle me this: ?
Originally Posted by Old SStroker
1) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 3% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead??
.97*1.05= 1.0185, power has increased
Originally Posted by Old SStroker
2) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 4.5% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead? Why or why not??
Originally Posted by Old SStroker
3) If you can raise the hp peak rpm by 5% but lose 5% torque from what you had at hp peak rpm, are you farther ahead? Why or why not?
1.05 *.95= .9975 we are losing power at this point.
05-20-2006, 01:11 AM
#37
Restricted User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: virginia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 408WS6
All I know is I have a buddy that I've known since high school (about 20 years now) and his super gas Nova put 900 hp to the wheels and runs 8.80s all motor all day long. That torque curve looked flat as a pancake at 700 ft-lbs all across the RPM range. Now you tell me, how many NA motors do you know that runs 8.80s? I guess I'd better go tell him he needs to rebuild his motor to make sure that he is making maximum torque up high. LOL.
Huh Huh. 8.80's? How bout a Pro Stock engine going 6.70's! Your buddies Nova is a Pile. Bracket racing is for people who can't build engines.
Maximum torque as high as possible is the whole point of an F1 engine. Go argue with them. I'm sure they'd love to hear about the Nova. That car must be heavy as hell to put 900 to the groung and only run 8.80's. Sounds like you are the one who is internet racing.
05-20-2006, 01:42 AM
#38
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
Here is some info you might find infromative The info applies to F1 also.
Originally Posted by David Reher
Why does turning an engine higher make a race car run faster? This is my final column of the year, so I’ll offer my ideas and hope that they give racers something to think about over the winter break.
The simple explanation is that raising rpm effectively increases an engine’s displacement. This might seem nonsensical because the volume displaced by the pistons doesn’t change, but consider the effects of filling and emptying the cylinders faster in real time. An internal combustion engine is an air pump, and if we turn that pump faster, we can theoretically burn more fuel in a given amount of time and consequently produce more power. For example, an eight-cylinder engine running at 6,000 rpm fires its cylinders 24,000 times in one minute (assuming perfect combustion). Increase the engine’s speed to 8,000 rpm and it will fire 32,000 times per minute, a 33 percent increase. The volume of air and fuel that moves through the engine is now equivalent to an engine with a much larger displacement. There are also 8,000 additional power pulses per minute transmitted to the crankshaft that can be harnessed to turn the wheels and accelerate the car.
Raising engine speed is analogous to supercharging or turbocharging a motor; the goal is to increase the volume of air and fuel that moves through the engine. The airflow is increased with a forced induction system by pressurizing the intake system; in a naturally aspirated engine, the airflow is increased by raising rpm. If done correctly, both approaches will increase power.
A higher revving engine also permits the use of a numerically higher gear ratio to multiply the engine’s torque all the way down the drag strip. Let’s say an engine that produces 1,000 horsepower at 7,000 rpm is paired with a 4.56:1 rearend gear ratio. If this engine is then modified to produce 1,000 horsepower at 8,000 rpm, it can now pull a 4.88:1 or 5:14:1 rearend gear without running out of rpm before reaching the finish line. The numerically higher gear ratio gives the engine a mechanical advantage by multiplying its torque by a greater number to accelerate the car faster – in effect, it has a longer lever to move the mass.
The simple explanation is that raising rpm effectively increases an engine’s displacement. This might seem nonsensical because the volume displaced by the pistons doesn’t change, but consider the effects of filling and emptying the cylinders faster in real time. An internal combustion engine is an air pump, and if we turn that pump faster, we can theoretically burn more fuel in a given amount of time and consequently produce more power. For example, an eight-cylinder engine running at 6,000 rpm fires its cylinders 24,000 times in one minute (assuming perfect combustion). Increase the engine’s speed to 8,000 rpm and it will fire 32,000 times per minute, a 33 percent increase. The volume of air and fuel that moves through the engine is now equivalent to an engine with a much larger displacement. There are also 8,000 additional power pulses per minute transmitted to the crankshaft that can be harnessed to turn the wheels and accelerate the car.
Raising engine speed is analogous to supercharging or turbocharging a motor; the goal is to increase the volume of air and fuel that moves through the engine. The airflow is increased with a forced induction system by pressurizing the intake system; in a naturally aspirated engine, the airflow is increased by raising rpm. If done correctly, both approaches will increase power.
A higher revving engine also permits the use of a numerically higher gear ratio to multiply the engine’s torque all the way down the drag strip. Let’s say an engine that produces 1,000 horsepower at 7,000 rpm is paired with a 4.56:1 rearend gear ratio. If this engine is then modified to produce 1,000 horsepower at 8,000 rpm, it can now pull a 4.88:1 or 5:14:1 rearend gear without running out of rpm before reaching the finish line. The numerically higher gear ratio gives the engine a mechanical advantage by multiplying its torque by a greater number to accelerate the car faster – in effect, it has a longer lever to move the mass.
05-20-2006, 06:41 AM
#39
I can't believe Rehrer wrote that last paragraph which is wrong. If you have an engine to run 100mph at 7000rpm and another geared to run 100mph at 8000rpm, and the first makes 1000hp@7000rpm and the second makes 1000hp@8000rpm, they will both have the same force propelling the car.
I believe he meant to use torque instead of hp in that paragraph. A car with 1000lbf-ft of torque at 7000rpm would have 1333hp there. If it had 1000lbf-ft of torque at 8000rpm it would have 1523hp there. If they were geared to run 14.2% shorter (which would be a 4.56 vs 5.21), it would be that much quicker in acceleration.
So if you make more torque at higher speeds you have the ability to make higher overall power.
However, equally important, as ArticZ28 said, your operating range is most important. A drag racing car can run in a much narrower power band than a oval track or road racing car. A street car in most cases needs its power band a lower engine speeds (which is why I think diesels are superior street engines). Street/strip cars, which dominate this forum, combine the charateristics of a street car and a drag car, which involves tradeoffs. As a drag only car, I'd imagine everyone one would be spinning their solid roller LS1s to 8500+.
I believe he meant to use torque instead of hp in that paragraph. A car with 1000lbf-ft of torque at 7000rpm would have 1333hp there. If it had 1000lbf-ft of torque at 8000rpm it would have 1523hp there. If they were geared to run 14.2% shorter (which would be a 4.56 vs 5.21), it would be that much quicker in acceleration.
So if you make more torque at higher speeds you have the ability to make higher overall power.
However, equally important, as ArticZ28 said, your operating range is most important. A drag racing car can run in a much narrower power band than a oval track or road racing car. A street car in most cases needs its power band a lower engine speeds (which is why I think diesels are superior street engines). Street/strip cars, which dominate this forum, combine the charateristics of a street car and a drag car, which involves tradeoffs. As a drag only car, I'd imagine everyone one would be spinning their solid roller LS1s to 8500+.
05-20-2006, 09:05 AM
#40
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jessica
Huh Huh. 8.80's? How bout a Pro Stock engine going 6.70's! Your buddies Nova is a Pile. Bracket racing is for people who can't build engines.
Maximum torque as high as possible is the whole point of an F1 engine. Go argue with them. I'm sure they'd love to hear about the Nova. That car must be heavy as hell to put 900 to the groung and only run 8.80's. Sounds like you are the one who is internet racing.
Maximum torque as high as possible is the whole point of an F1 engine. Go argue with them. I'm sure they'd love to hear about the Nova. That car must be heavy as hell to put 900 to the groung and only run 8.80's. Sounds like you are the one who is internet racing.
Ps - You are making an unfair comparison. Comparing a car that is built by professionals, raced by professionals, and heavily funded by sponsors. Of course its going to run 6.70's. Prostock is a much more advanced class than super gas. My bud built his car all by himself, with only his funds, and has a very limited budget. No, its not as fast as a prostock, but he has alot of fun with it and I think its a fair accomplishment considering the obstacles he's overcome.
So go back and crawl under your rock troll. Come up with something that YOU built and raced thats faster and I'll listen to you. Otherwise, I will sadly recognize that you are just another worthless troll that doesn't really know ANYTHING about drag racing.
This thread is getting out of hand. I'm all for getting back on the original subject.
Last edited by 408WS6; 05-20-2006 at 09:36 AM.