If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Elle wrote: >>Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz What a Civic >>does is immaterial. > > Bull****. I raised the point ONLY to compare the Jazz and Fit to my Civic. My original post about this point was comparing the U.S. version and lamentinhg that we couldn't get the 1.2 as it was much more efficient for a paltry amount of loss in power. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
SoCalMike wrote: > Joseph Oberlander wrote: > >> Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz > > > whats the diff between the fit and the jazz? JUst the name. In the U.K., they sell a version with a tuned for maximum efficiency 1.2l engine. 60mpg highway and about 50mpg overall efficiency. No hybrid nonsense and it's not a tin can Smart Car or Mini, either. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote
> Elle wrote: > > > "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote > > snip > > > >>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure. > >>All that matters is torque. Period. > > > > > > Bull****. Period. > > HP = T*N/5252 > > Where T = Torque (lbft) > N = Speed (rpm) > > Where did that 5252 come from???? The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian). It is a "unity conversion factor," in the same way that 12 inches/foot and 1.34 hp / kw are both "unity conversion factors," as in length, inches = (length, feet) * 12 power, hp = (power, kw) * 1.34 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Elle wrote: > "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote > >>Elle wrote: >> >> >>>"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote >>>snip >>> >>> >>>>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure. >>>>All that matters is torque. Period. >>> >>> >>>Bull****. Period. >> >>HP = T*N/5252 >> >>Where T = Torque (lbft) >>N = Speed (rpm) >> >>Where did that 5252 come from???? > > > The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian). Makes no difference. It's derived from the amount of torque and how fast you are reving the engine. People have it backwards. They think that "Horsepower" is how powerful an engine is and it's really nearly useless in determining that. Of course, people do the same thing in audio - they honestly think that how many "watts" the receiver is rated for determines which one is better. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:44:23 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote: > > >Elle wrote: >> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote >> >>>Elle wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote >>>>snip >>>> >>>> >>>>>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure. >>>>>All that matters is torque. Period. >>>> >>>> >>>>Bull****. Period. >>> >>>HP = T*N/5252 >>> >>>Where T = Torque (lbft) >>>N = Speed (rpm) >>> >>>Where did that 5252 come from???? >> >> >> The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian). > >Makes no difference. It's derived from the amount of torque and >how fast you are reving the engine. People have it backwards. >They think that "Horsepower" is how powerful an engine is and >it's really nearly useless in determining that. Of course, >people do the same thing in audio - they honestly think that >how many "watts" the receiver is rated for determines which >one is better. "Better" is a broad characterization which may include many factors including subjective ones. However, when it comes to the ability of an engine to do work (such as accelerating a car) power is the primary determinant. If you have an engine that produces 10000 ft*lb at 10 rpm but won't turn any faster, you are goining to be very slow even though you have lots of torque. You will get beaten by a car of identical weight with 100 hp at 10,000 rpm every time. He will blow your doors off, even though he might have peak torque of less than 1% of your engine. orque alone doesn't matter. It's power that moves the car. Sorry. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote
> Elle wrote: > > "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote > > > >>Elle wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote > >>>snip > >>> > >>> > >>>>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure. > >>>>All that matters is torque. Period. > >>> > >>> > >>>Bull****. Period. > >> > >>HP = T*N/5252 > >> > >>Where T = Torque (lbft) > >>N = Speed (rpm) > >> > >>Where did that 5252 come from???? > > > > > > The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian). > > Makes no difference. It's derived from the amount of torque and > how fast you are reving the engine. You just changed your claim above that, "All that matters is torque. Period." > People have it backwards. > They think that "Horsepower" is how powerful an engine is Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how powerful an engine is. The thread speaks for itself. I withdraw. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon McGrew wrote: > If you have an engine that produces 10000 ft*lb at 10 rpm but won't > turn any faster, you are goining to be very slow even though you have > lots of torque. You will get beaten by a car of identical weight with > 100 hp at 10,000 rpm every time. He will blow your doors off, even > though he might have peak torque of less than 1% of your engine. > orque alone doesn't matter. It's power that moves the car. Sorry. Except that it only takes about 40-50hp to maintain 70mph. That one car can do 140 and the other only 100mph really means nothing. (It's not as drastic as you imply for automobiles) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Elle wrote: > Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how powerful > an engine is. Yet this is as meaningless as "watts" are in audio. That it is commonly accepted as such is meaningless. Torque is how powerful the engine is. The rest is gearing, and any idiot can calculate ratios or add another gear to the transmission. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message news > > > Elle wrote: > >> Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how >> powerful >> an engine is. > > Yet this is as meaningless as "watts" are in audio. That it is > commonly accepted as such is meaningless. Torque is how powerful > the engine is. The rest is gearing, and any idiot can calculate > ratios or add another gear to the transmission. Watts are not at all regarded as meaningless in audio. The unit is misunderstood, misused, and like horesepower, does not tell the whole story. You might want to review your basic physics with regard to the meanings of the terms torque and power. Leonard |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:58:13 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote: > >Elle wrote: > >> Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how powerful >> an engine is. > >Yet this is as meaningless as "watts" are in audio. That it is >commonly accepted as such is meaningless. Torque is how powerful >the engine is. The rest is gearing, and any idiot can calculate >ratios or add another gear to the transmission. Elle is right, horsepower is the only unit that makes sense to use. For example, the typical civic needs 70HP to do 100mph and 90HP to do 110mph. Try to use torque to describe the same and write half a page of meaningless equations. -- Leon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2006 5 series E60 - when? | sycle | BMW | 0 | July 1st 05 05:35 AM |
New to Hondas, got a few questions | tonyrama | Honda | 21 | May 11th 05 12:56 AM |
UK Hondas | [email protected] | Honda | 6 | April 29th 05 04:33 PM |
TDI and 2006 Diesel Regulations | MB | VW water cooled | 12 | October 31st 04 12:05 AM |
buying bmw 325 (2005 vs 2006) | Ruwan | BMW | 2 | September 19th 04 11:27 PM |