torque vs. horsepower
January 21st, 2016, 12:20 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 383
torque vs. horsepower
Just curious why I see so many people get hung up on torque. Even if it is a street car, why do people think that torque rules the roost?
I am a racer and want horsepower. Thats what I feel going 7 seconds down the 1/4 mile.
I do not have a street car anymore. I drive a 98 Chevy truck to and fro and does what I have it to do..........including hauling my race car that goes fast. I just don't understand the torque fascination.......they say that guys that brag about torque are the guys that can't make upper RPM horsepower.
Torque gets you about 50ft down the drag strip. After that, horsepower has to take over.
I am a racer and want horsepower. Thats what I feel going 7 seconds down the 1/4 mile.
I do not have a street car anymore. I drive a 98 Chevy truck to and fro and does what I have it to do..........including hauling my race car that goes fast. I just don't understand the torque fascination.......they say that guys that brag about torque are the guys that can't make upper RPM horsepower.
Torque gets you about 50ft down the drag strip. After that, horsepower has to take over.
January 21st, 2016, 06:48 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,407
Why do people get hung up on peak numbers and not area under their intended RPM range? 
The easiest way I've heard it explained is like this... you can only get so much air (and therefore fuel) through the engine each revolution. Therefore, the more revolutions per unit time the engine can turn, the more air and fuel it ingests, and the more work it can do in that time period (which is basically the definition of power). Of course, this means the induction and exhaust systems have to be up to the task of operating with the required flowrates at these rpm's, and the rotating components have to be capable of sustain the load.
You pretty much always want maximum RPM in a drag race engine. Road racing or autocrossing looks for more flat torque curves for driveability. You don't want a "peaky" engine...
The easiest way I've heard it explained is like this... you can only get so much air (and therefore fuel) through the engine each revolution. Therefore, the more revolutions per unit time the engine can turn, the more air and fuel it ingests, and the more work it can do in that time period (which is basically the definition of power). Of course, this means the induction and exhaust systems have to be up to the task of operating with the required flowrates at these rpm's, and the rotating components have to be capable of sustain the load.
You pretty much always want maximum RPM in a drag race engine. Road racing or autocrossing looks for more flat torque curves for driveability. You don't want a "peaky" engine...
January 21st, 2016, 07:13 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 10,628
What a lot of car guys who aren't mechanical engineers or some other form of educated technical guy is that torque and horsepower are simply units of rotational work and power, respectively, and one is the multiple of the other. That's the easy part. Everyone's like "Yeah, dude, just multiply your torque by your RPM and divide by 5252" but people don't get that all that number is is a radian conversion, 60 seconds in a minute, and a 550 ft*lbs/sec unit conversion. It's.....literally....just the torque the engine makes times the number of times it spins in a unit of time. That's it.
The hard part to conceptualize is that the power that you make is a product of the work you do per cycle, and how many cycles you do in a given amount of time. You can get the SAME power with high torque at low RPM, as you can with low torque at high rpm. 2 * 4 = 4 * 2 = 8. Same thing. It's the integral of work over the time of the run, which is what Luke said about the area under the curve.
Like Luke said above, you want high rev capacity, but you also want torque. The problem is that things that lend themselves to low end torque, like long stroke, do not lend themselves to high end RPM, and vice versa. Instead of being two sets of engineering qualities you can aim for, people who really don't get it get panicky because they don't really understand the relationships and feel like they have to defend themselves and their (or their engine builder's) choices.
It's always HP. It's whether you make it with revs or torque that is the question. Speaking as an auto engineer, what sucks about new cars is they make them higher revving to keep the HP numbers, yet make more economy and less emissions....but the torque keeps dropping and it has no streetability.
The hard part to conceptualize is that the power that you make is a product of the work you do per cycle, and how many cycles you do in a given amount of time. You can get the SAME power with high torque at low RPM, as you can with low torque at high rpm. 2 * 4 = 4 * 2 = 8. Same thing. It's the integral of work over the time of the run, which is what Luke said about the area under the curve.
Like Luke said above, you want high rev capacity, but you also want torque. The problem is that things that lend themselves to low end torque, like long stroke, do not lend themselves to high end RPM, and vice versa. Instead of being two sets of engineering qualities you can aim for, people who really don't get it get panicky because they don't really understand the relationships and feel like they have to defend themselves and their (or their engine builder's) choices.
It's always HP. It's whether you make it with revs or torque that is the question. Speaking as an auto engineer, what sucks about new cars is they make them higher revving to keep the HP numbers, yet make more economy and less emissions....but the torque keeps dropping and it has no streetability.
January 21st, 2016, 07:15 AM
#5
Beer Connoisseur
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Daly City, California
Posts: 2,091
I agree with Eric, most of us don't race if we do it's an occasional visit.
Copied from an article on hotrod.com
Raising the torque peak to make more top-end horsepower means less torque down low. That's OK in a relatively lightweight car, where more bottom-end may just overpower the available traction anyway. But to get up into the usable powerband, steep (high numerical) rearend gears and (if running an automatic trans) a really high stall-speed torque converter are required.
Most street cars are relatively heavy, sometimes carrying as much as 12-14 pounds/hp. To overcome a heavyweight's inertia-the property of a body by which it tends to resist a change in its state of rest or motion-requires lots of initial leverage. And if nothing else, torque is leverage.
All this seems to argue in favor of building for low-rpm performance. Many builders call this "building for torque" or "assembling a torque monster." But in the final analysis, it's really a matter of semantics. Whatever the term, the goal is maximizing engine output in the rpm range where the engine spends most of its time-whether it's because of inherent design limitations, or because of intended use, or a combination of these factors. Even with low-rpm setups, the engine that makes the most torque at equivalent rpm points will make more power-and should be faster.
Area Under The Curve
Notice we said "the rpm range where the engine spends most of its time." Merely considering peak numbers is misleading. In almost every case, it is better to look at the average area under the power curve rather than simply at peak numbers, because a broader, flatter curve generally delivers superior performance to a peaky curve. As SuperFlow's Harold Bettes puts it, "Some engines [that] have a power curve that looks like a tabletop [instead of] a mountain range in profile are pure pleasures to drive." Comp Cams' Scooter Brothers adds, "If it's a Comp Eliminator, Pro Stock, or Winston Cup car, maybe peak power is the answer," because these engines operate in a relatively narrow rpm band. "But for the dual-purpose car, torque must be flat for an extended period of time."
the whole article can be found here
Copied from an article on hotrod.com
Raising the torque peak to make more top-end horsepower means less torque down low. That's OK in a relatively lightweight car, where more bottom-end may just overpower the available traction anyway. But to get up into the usable powerband, steep (high numerical) rearend gears and (if running an automatic trans) a really high stall-speed torque converter are required.
Most street cars are relatively heavy, sometimes carrying as much as 12-14 pounds/hp. To overcome a heavyweight's inertia-the property of a body by which it tends to resist a change in its state of rest or motion-requires lots of initial leverage. And if nothing else, torque is leverage.
All this seems to argue in favor of building for low-rpm performance. Many builders call this "building for torque" or "assembling a torque monster." But in the final analysis, it's really a matter of semantics. Whatever the term, the goal is maximizing engine output in the rpm range where the engine spends most of its time-whether it's because of inherent design limitations, or because of intended use, or a combination of these factors. Even with low-rpm setups, the engine that makes the most torque at equivalent rpm points will make more power-and should be faster.
Area Under The Curve
Notice we said "the rpm range where the engine spends most of its time." Merely considering peak numbers is misleading. In almost every case, it is better to look at the average area under the power curve rather than simply at peak numbers, because a broader, flatter curve generally delivers superior performance to a peaky curve. As SuperFlow's Harold Bettes puts it, "Some engines [that] have a power curve that looks like a tabletop [instead of] a mountain range in profile are pure pleasures to drive." Comp Cams' Scooter Brothers adds, "If it's a Comp Eliminator, Pro Stock, or Winston Cup car, maybe peak power is the answer," because these engines operate in a relatively narrow rpm band. "But for the dual-purpose car, torque must be flat for an extended period of time."
the whole article can be found here
January 21st, 2016, 07:34 AM
#6
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
Of course, on the other hand, years ago I had a Porsche 911 with an S-type engine, which really was only happy between about 4,500 and 6,000 RPM.
Man, that car was a blast to drive. It made such a great noise when it was "on the cam."
- Eric
Man, that car was a blast to drive. It made such a great noise when it was "on the cam."
- Eric
January 21st, 2016, 09:10 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Delta BC Canada
Posts: 3,688
7s
Just curious why I see so many people get hung up on torque. Even if it is a street car, why do people think that torque rules the roost?
I am a racer and want horsepower. Thats what I feel going 7 seconds down the 1/4 mile.
I do not have a street car anymore. I drive a 98 Chevy truck to and fro and does what I have it to do..........including hauling my race car that goes fast. I just don't understand the torque fascination.......they say that guys that brag about torque are the guys that can't make upper RPM horsepower.
Torque gets you about 50ft down the drag strip. After that, horsepower has to take over.
I am a racer and want horsepower. Thats what I feel going 7 seconds down the 1/4 mile.
I do not have a street car anymore. I drive a 98 Chevy truck to and fro and does what I have it to do..........including hauling my race car that goes fast. I just don't understand the torque fascination.......they say that guys that brag about torque are the guys that can't make upper RPM horsepower.
Torque gets you about 50ft down the drag strip. After that, horsepower has to take over.
January 21st, 2016, 11:07 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 10,628
I agree with Eric, most of us don't race if we do it's an occasional visit.
Copied from an article on hotrod.com
Raising the torque peak to make more top-end horsepower means less torque down low. That's OK in a relatively lightweight car, where more bottom-end may just overpower the available traction anyway. But to get up into the usable powerband, steep (high numerical) rearend gears and (if running an automatic trans) a really high stall-speed torque converter are required.
Most street cars are relatively heavy, sometimes carrying as much as 12-14 pounds/hp. To overcome a heavyweight's inertia-the property of a body by which it tends to resist a change in its state of rest or motion-requires lots of initial leverage. And if nothing else, torque is leverage.
All this seems to argue in favor of building for low-rpm performance. Many builders call this "building for torque" or "assembling a torque monster." But in the final analysis, it's really a matter of semantics. Whatever the term, the goal is maximizing engine output in the rpm range where the engine spends most of its time-whether it's because of inherent design limitations, or because of intended use, or a combination of these factors. Even with low-rpm setups, the engine that makes the most torque at equivalent rpm points will make more power-and should be faster.
Area Under The Curve
Notice we said "the rpm range where the engine spends most of its time." Merely considering peak numbers is misleading. In almost every case, it is better to look at the average area under the power curve rather than simply at peak numbers, because a broader, flatter curve generally delivers superior performance to a peaky curve. As SuperFlow's Harold Bettes puts it, "Some engines [that] have a power curve that looks like a tabletop [instead of] a mountain range in profile are pure pleasures to drive." Comp Cams' Scooter Brothers adds, "If it's a Comp Eliminator, Pro Stock, or Winston Cup car, maybe peak power is the answer," because these engines operate in a relatively narrow rpm band. "But for the dual-purpose car, torque must be flat for an extended period of time."
the whole article can be found here
Copied from an article on hotrod.com
Raising the torque peak to make more top-end horsepower means less torque down low. That's OK in a relatively lightweight car, where more bottom-end may just overpower the available traction anyway. But to get up into the usable powerband, steep (high numerical) rearend gears and (if running an automatic trans) a really high stall-speed torque converter are required.
Most street cars are relatively heavy, sometimes carrying as much as 12-14 pounds/hp. To overcome a heavyweight's inertia-the property of a body by which it tends to resist a change in its state of rest or motion-requires lots of initial leverage. And if nothing else, torque is leverage.
All this seems to argue in favor of building for low-rpm performance. Many builders call this "building for torque" or "assembling a torque monster." But in the final analysis, it's really a matter of semantics. Whatever the term, the goal is maximizing engine output in the rpm range where the engine spends most of its time-whether it's because of inherent design limitations, or because of intended use, or a combination of these factors. Even with low-rpm setups, the engine that makes the most torque at equivalent rpm points will make more power-and should be faster.
Area Under The Curve
Notice we said "the rpm range where the engine spends most of its time." Merely considering peak numbers is misleading. In almost every case, it is better to look at the average area under the power curve rather than simply at peak numbers, because a broader, flatter curve generally delivers superior performance to a peaky curve. As SuperFlow's Harold Bettes puts it, "Some engines [that] have a power curve that looks like a tabletop [instead of] a mountain range in profile are pure pleasures to drive." Comp Cams' Scooter Brothers adds, "If it's a Comp Eliminator, Pro Stock, or Winston Cup car, maybe peak power is the answer," because these engines operate in a relatively narrow rpm band. "But for the dual-purpose car, torque must be flat for an extended period of time."
the whole article can be found here
As for the power discussion, technically torque is force, not work. The article used the linear definition of work, but forgot they were dealing with rotation. Linear work is, indeed, I put 100 lbs of force and moved it a foot, so I did 100 ft lbs of work. However, rotation is different. If I put 200 lbs of force on the end of a 1 foot breaker bar, I just put 200 lbs ft of torque.
You'll notice that linear work is indeed ft lbs (foot pounds), but rotational force is lb ft (pound feet). Linear work is work; torque is force.
Now, if you integrate torque with respect to distance, you get total work done, and that is energy, and the derivative of energy with respect to time is power. Put in English, power is the rate at which you are doing rotational work, and torque is the force you are putting in to DO that work.
January 21st, 2016, 02:42 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,286
"However, rotation is different. If I put 200 lbs of force on the end of a 1 foot breaker bar, I just put 200 lbs ft of torque."
Interesting that the same units [units same] describe work for linear but torque for rotational.
It was described to me in class that unless something moves, no "work" by the strict engineering definition has been done. The example they like is to have a worker push a bridge abutment all day long- the person may get tired and feel like they "worked" but unless the bridge moved, no "work" was done. Therefore, one could apply 200 lb-ft of torque to said shaft all day long, and if it does not move, no work can be measured.
btw can't we use "lb ft" for pound foot or the plural pound feet? Why lbs for plural? Only pounds or feet need be plural.
Please read the next three chapters and do all the even numbered exercises and meet back here in two days.
Interesting that the same units [units same] describe work for linear but torque for rotational.
It was described to me in class that unless something moves, no "work" by the strict engineering definition has been done. The example they like is to have a worker push a bridge abutment all day long- the person may get tired and feel like they "worked" but unless the bridge moved, no "work" was done. Therefore, one could apply 200 lb-ft of torque to said shaft all day long, and if it does not move, no work can be measured.
btw can't we use "lb ft" for pound foot or the plural pound feet? Why lbs for plural? Only pounds or feet need be plural.
Please read the next three chapters and do all the even numbered exercises and meet back here in two days.
January 21st, 2016, 04:19 PM
#12
Lansing built
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Grand Ledge, MI
Posts: 3,239
I am in the ag industry. We like torque! Pulling wagons and tillage.
I remember dyno testing some the higher end tractors with 180hp with 1300 lb ft of torque.
I also like snapping the throttle on my cutlass, the whole car bucks!
Pat
I remember dyno testing some the higher end tractors with 180hp with 1300 lb ft of torque.
I also like snapping the throttle on my cutlass, the whole car bucks!
Pat
January 21st, 2016, 04:38 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 14,344
January 21st, 2016, 04:40 PM
#15
The only numbers i care about are the ones it puts down on the track. HP/TQ numbers are useless on the street becasue there is no way to measure whats its doing or if you are really properly putting it down.
The sad part is the guys that dont hit the track all their are after is a tire smoking machine that can keep up in traffic. Guess what i did that in my 72 cutlass with a 307. That little 307 kicked *** for such a worn out engine. Now that was a torque monster lol.
Guys wanna brag hp and tq. numbers but id rather see track numbers. Thats where it matters to me. Dyno numbers are just tuning tools with out going to the track that investment is totally wasted imo.
The sad part is the guys that dont hit the track all their are after is a tire smoking machine that can keep up in traffic. Guess what i did that in my 72 cutlass with a 307. That little 307 kicked *** for such a worn out engine. Now that was a torque monster lol.
Guys wanna brag hp and tq. numbers but id rather see track numbers. Thats where it matters to me. Dyno numbers are just tuning tools with out going to the track that investment is totally wasted imo.
January 21st, 2016, 06:02 PM
#16
Hookers under Hood
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,543
[QUOTE=80 Rocket;888030]Just curious why I see so many people get hung up on torque. Even if it is a street car, why do people think that torque rules the roost?
Oh just a minute now I know this one... Because its an Oldsmobile site. Not a racers edge site. No race tracks on the street .
Oh just a minute now I know this one... Because its an Oldsmobile site. Not a racers edge site. No race tracks on the street .
January 21st, 2016, 06:04 PM
#17
Connoisseur d'Junque
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Hudson Valley
Posts: 21,183
People who are actually driving their cars on the street want, can feel, and can use, torque that is RIGHT THERE, RIGHT NOW, wherever and whenever that may be.
Having large amounts of power at 5,000 RPM is of no use to someone who wants a bit more of a push to kick himself out of a turn on a winding road, at 2,500 RPM.
- Eric
January 22nd, 2016, 11:24 AM
#18
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,902
^^^ THIS!!!
The classic example of this is the original Honda S2000. 2 liters, 240 HP, normally aspirated. Of course, the horsepower was near zero until you hit 8,000 RPM, then peaked between 8 and 9.
Torque peak was something like 150 ft-lbs. Not my idea of a fun car to drive, but great numbers for bench racing...
Not surprisingly, after a couple of years, Honda increased displacement, widened the HP peak, lowered the RPM, and increased the torque.
January 22nd, 2016, 11:41 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 10,628
^^^ THIS!!!
The classic example of this is the original Honda S2000. 2 liters, 240 HP, normally aspirated. Of course, the horsepower was near zero until you hit 8,000 RPM, then peaked between 8 and 9.
Torque peak was something like 150 ft-lbs. Not my idea of a fun car to drive, but great numbers for bench racing...
Not surprisingly, after a couple of years, Honda increased displacement, widened the HP peak, lowered the RPM, and increased the torque.
The classic example of this is the original Honda S2000. 2 liters, 240 HP, normally aspirated. Of course, the horsepower was near zero until you hit 8,000 RPM, then peaked between 8 and 9.
Torque peak was something like 150 ft-lbs. Not my idea of a fun car to drive, but great numbers for bench racing...
Not surprisingly, after a couple of years, Honda increased displacement, widened the HP peak, lowered the RPM, and increased the torque.
January 22nd, 2016, 03:20 PM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 383
[QUOTE=76olds;888308]Then why build a car with HP. Why not build it with enough power to get it to move down the street. Obviously, there is a thirst for more power.
January 22nd, 2016, 04:14 PM
#22
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 383
And, because torque, at the speed that your engine is turning RIGHT NOW, DOES rule the roost.
People who are actually driving their cars on the street want, can feel, and can use, torque that is RIGHT THERE, RIGHT NOW, wherever and whenever that may be.
Having large amounts of power at 5,000 RPM is of no use to someone who wants a bit more of a push to kick himself out of a turn on a winding road, at 2,500 RPM.
- Eric
People who are actually driving their cars on the street want, can feel, and can use, torque that is RIGHT THERE, RIGHT NOW, wherever and whenever that may be.
Having large amounts of power at 5,000 RPM is of no use to someone who wants a bit more of a push to kick himself out of a turn on a winding road, at 2,500 RPM.
- Eric
I was really looking for an explanation like this.......something from the guy who just wants to cruise, and that's it. I am out of touch when it comes to street cars that don't see track time.
Luke made good points as well with the area under the curve.......and Koda brought out the big guns with the engineering explanation. All good posts in here.
Last edited by 80 Rocket; January 22nd, 2016 at 04:17 PM.
January 22nd, 2016, 04:29 PM
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 383
wheelsup_zpsd59dcdee.jpg
I got a dragster sitting around waiting for an Olds powerplant. I just got a motor plate a few days ago so I can start the process of fitment....but no timeline for completion yet. I am knee deep in flow bench testing with Olds stuff.
January 22nd, 2016, 05:25 PM
#28
Hookers under Hood
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,543
[QUOTE=80 Rocket;888030]Just curious why I see so many people get hung up on torque. Even if it is a street car, why do people think that torque rules the roost?
I do not have a street car anymore. I drive a 98 Chevy truck to and fro and does what I have it to do..........including hauling my race car that goes fast. I just don't understand the torque fascination.......they say that guys that brag about torque are the guys that can't make upper RPM horsepower.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I realize you stated your " Just Curious" but I have to ask why the curiosity on a forum where most guys just drive cars on the street that have no interest in drag strips ?
What part of the torque fascination don't you get ? Perhaps if you had or still have a street car rather than your 98 chev truck to get to a fro you would understand.
As you know, the kickoff you get when snapping the throttle in an Olds is somewhat exciting (torque) for the ones that can afford a nice street driven Olds . The unfortunate part or downfall is that Olds used torque to move heavy equipment around such as the boat I drive instead of adding big HP.
Engine question come up here all the time , Drag racing questions not so much.
Its human to always want more of anything including power, this is why the questions regarding "what can I do to get more " here on classic Olds are asked so much.
We aren't looking to sell our street cars and get into racing were only searching to get a little more out of our cars, torque happens to be the back bone of the Olds so we need to build around that .
I know I wouldn't give up my 76 Olds for a 98 chev truck to drive year round, just to hit the track once in a while or just a weekend to feel the huge HP you are feeling . Sorry just not on the same page here ill keep my summer ride and enjoy it daily being full of torque and under powered.
Eric
I do not have a street car anymore. I drive a 98 Chevy truck to and fro and does what I have it to do..........including hauling my race car that goes fast. I just don't understand the torque fascination.......they say that guys that brag about torque are the guys that can't make upper RPM horsepower.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I realize you stated your " Just Curious" but I have to ask why the curiosity on a forum where most guys just drive cars on the street that have no interest in drag strips ?
What part of the torque fascination don't you get ? Perhaps if you had or still have a street car rather than your 98 chev truck to get to a fro you would understand.
As you know, the kickoff you get when snapping the throttle in an Olds is somewhat exciting (torque) for the ones that can afford a nice street driven Olds . The unfortunate part or downfall is that Olds used torque to move heavy equipment around such as the boat I drive instead of adding big HP.
Engine question come up here all the time , Drag racing questions not so much.
Its human to always want more of anything including power, this is why the questions regarding "what can I do to get more " here on classic Olds are asked so much.
We aren't looking to sell our street cars and get into racing were only searching to get a little more out of our cars, torque happens to be the back bone of the Olds so we need to build around that .
I know I wouldn't give up my 76 Olds for a 98 chev truck to drive year round, just to hit the track once in a while or just a weekend to feel the huge HP you are feeling . Sorry just not on the same page here ill keep my summer ride and enjoy it daily being full of torque and under powered.
Eric
Last edited by 76olds; January 22nd, 2016 at 05:44 PM.
January 23rd, 2016, 06:05 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,607
[QUOTE=76olds;888585]
Good question!! This is what i was trying to get the MODS to correct! BUT NO falls on DEAF EARS!! To get the performance stuff and racing in the correct FORUM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The powers that are in charge do not separate high performance from stock. Eric will not add the engine builds for small block and big block to the racing forum. The Transmission and chassis . Instead this info is where ever it gets posted.
Just curious why I see so many people get hung up on torque. Even if it is a street car, why do people think that torque rules the roost?
I do not have a street car anymore. I drive a 98 Chevy truck to and fro and does what I have it to do..........including hauling my race car that goes fast. I just don't understand the torque fascination.......they say that guys that brag about torque are the guys that can't make upper RPM horsepower.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I realize you stated your " Just Curious" but I have to ask why the curiosity on a forum where most guys just drive cars on the street that have no interest in drag strips ?
What part of the torque fascination don't you get ? Perhaps if you had or still have a street car rather than your 98 chev truck to get to a fro you would understand.
As you know, the kickoff you get when snapping the throttle in an Olds is somewhat exciting (torque) for the ones that can afford a nice street driven Olds . The unfortunate part or downfall is that Olds used torque to move heavy equipment around such as the boat I drive instead of adding big HP.
Engine question come up here all the time , Drag racing questions not so much.
Its human to always want more of anything including power, this is why the questions regarding "what can I do to get more " here on classic Olds are asked so much.
We aren't looking to sell our street cars and get into racing were only searching to get a little more out of our cars, torque happens to be the back bone of the Olds so we need to build around that .
I know I wouldn't give up my 76 Olds for a 98 chev truck to drive year round, just to hit the track once in a while or just a weekend to feel the huge HP you are feeling . Sorry just not on the same page here ill keep my summer ride and enjoy it daily being full of torque and under powered.
Eric
I do not have a street car anymore. I drive a 98 Chevy truck to and fro and does what I have it to do..........including hauling my race car that goes fast. I just don't understand the torque fascination.......they say that guys that brag about torque are the guys that can't make upper RPM horsepower.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I realize you stated your " Just Curious" but I have to ask why the curiosity on a forum where most guys just drive cars on the street that have no interest in drag strips ?
What part of the torque fascination don't you get ? Perhaps if you had or still have a street car rather than your 98 chev truck to get to a fro you would understand.
As you know, the kickoff you get when snapping the throttle in an Olds is somewhat exciting (torque) for the ones that can afford a nice street driven Olds . The unfortunate part or downfall is that Olds used torque to move heavy equipment around such as the boat I drive instead of adding big HP.
Engine question come up here all the time , Drag racing questions not so much.
Its human to always want more of anything including power, this is why the questions regarding "what can I do to get more " here on classic Olds are asked so much.
We aren't looking to sell our street cars and get into racing were only searching to get a little more out of our cars, torque happens to be the back bone of the Olds so we need to build around that .
I know I wouldn't give up my 76 Olds for a 98 chev truck to drive year round, just to hit the track once in a while or just a weekend to feel the huge HP you are feeling . Sorry just not on the same page here ill keep my summer ride and enjoy it daily being full of torque and under powered.
Eric
January 23rd, 2016, 08:42 AM
#30
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 383
[QUOTE=76olds;888585]Because I am working on something very cool, and I am trying to gauge the market. This is the perfect forum to do so. Going to a more race oriented site like ROP would be silly. There are a lot of guys who like to cruise on here (and that's all) and I want to hear their thoughts. Since I don't do that, I need feedback.
January 23rd, 2016, 09:16 AM
#31
Hookers under Hood
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,543
[QUOTE=80 Rocket;888747]
Because I am working on something very cool, and I am trying to gauge the market. This is the perfect forum to do so. Going to a more race oriented site like ROP would be silly. There are a lot of guys who like to cruise on here (and that's all) and I want to hear their thoughts. Since I don't do that, I need feedback.
Don,
You have been working on things for a long time now. Have you finished off the engine your were going to put together ? You were going to try out some CNC'd heads etc. Unfortunately our dollar dropped quickly as you know that put me out of the price range for your engine, along with shipping issues when it came time for completion. I know you are busy with many things on the go, I would be interested to hear what " working on something cool " you have to offer and in what time line.
Good luck with your new project, I hope you launch it with prices so members know what they are getting and for a known price.
When you give many options for a product with prices in and out of the ball park, this may hurt sales in a forum such as this.
In my opinion set a price and stick to it and make sure the OP knows exactly what they are getting without up selling .
Example, an engine will need the intake milled to accommodate for heads, this intake will be married to this particular engine for life, along with the knowledge to set up an engine to the modifications being done when delivered.
Sales such as this may be great on ROP but I don't think so much here on Classic Olds, JMO. We drive our cars more than we have the ability to work on them, especially with a performance engine. Sell what will work out of the box without to many complications .
I believe something that is within a decent price range along with working out of the box will sell here on classic olds.
Wish you all the best ,
Eric
Because I am working on something very cool, and I am trying to gauge the market. This is the perfect forum to do so. Going to a more race oriented site like ROP would be silly. There are a lot of guys who like to cruise on here (and that's all) and I want to hear their thoughts. Since I don't do that, I need feedback.
You have been working on things for a long time now. Have you finished off the engine your were going to put together ? You were going to try out some CNC'd heads etc. Unfortunately our dollar dropped quickly as you know that put me out of the price range for your engine, along with shipping issues when it came time for completion. I know you are busy with many things on the go, I would be interested to hear what " working on something cool " you have to offer and in what time line.
Good luck with your new project, I hope you launch it with prices so members know what they are getting and for a known price.
When you give many options for a product with prices in and out of the ball park, this may hurt sales in a forum such as this.
In my opinion set a price and stick to it and make sure the OP knows exactly what they are getting without up selling .
Example, an engine will need the intake milled to accommodate for heads, this intake will be married to this particular engine for life, along with the knowledge to set up an engine to the modifications being done when delivered.
Sales such as this may be great on ROP but I don't think so much here on Classic Olds, JMO. We drive our cars more than we have the ability to work on them, especially with a performance engine. Sell what will work out of the box without to many complications .
I believe something that is within a decent price range along with working out of the box will sell here on classic olds.
Wish you all the best ,
Eric
Last edited by 76olds; January 23rd, 2016 at 09:26 AM.
January 23rd, 2016, 09:34 AM
#32
Hookers under Hood
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,543
[QUOTE=wr1970;888697]
What's the point in pushing for something that only a select few are interested in?
This site is more for the the hobby, pleasure driving , and showing.
Yes, some would like more power out of their Olds, I don't think they want to get into big numbers.
I also think that most would like an easy 300-350 HP and they would be happy with that along with a decent rear gear for the street.
I myself don't want to spend huge to get something I will only use once in a while, 300 hp would get used on the street much more than 500hp.
ROP is where to go IMO if guys want to sell performance parts and up sell to bigger numbers.
Eric
Good question!! This is what i was trying to get the MODS to correct! BUT NO falls on DEAF EARS!! To get the performance stuff and racing in the correct FORUM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The powers that are in charge do not separate high performance from stock. Eric will not add the engine builds for small block and big block to the racing forum. The Transmission and chassis . Instead this info is where ever it gets posted.
This site is more for the the hobby, pleasure driving , and showing.
Yes, some would like more power out of their Olds, I don't think they want to get into big numbers.
I also think that most would like an easy 300-350 HP and they would be happy with that along with a decent rear gear for the street.
I myself don't want to spend huge to get something I will only use once in a while, 300 hp would get used on the street much more than 500hp.
ROP is where to go IMO if guys want to sell performance parts and up sell to bigger numbers.
Eric
Last edited by 76olds; January 23rd, 2016 at 09:37 AM.
January 23rd, 2016, 09:54 AM
#33
Hookers under Hood
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,543
Don,
Why not take a poll on who would be interested in what ?
Such as ,
1) Who is happy with the current performance level of their Olds
2) Who would be interested with 300hp , 350hp , 400hp and up
This is what I would gauge my business upon before I proceed with proto typing.
Find out what members would like to spend with the stacked performance levels , then produce with those results.
Have a price set out for members that just pleasure drive that would like a little more power.
When you have to many "Irons" in the fire as you stated, you loose focus on the first thing you are trying to accomplish and sell,things get pushed back, guys move on.
Most people are impulse buyers in the world, Market it , price it , then deliver without changing to more options, have the options set out with prices .
The poll would dictate as to what to bring to the site.
Good luck
JMO
Eric
Why not take a poll on who would be interested in what ?
Such as ,
1) Who is happy with the current performance level of their Olds
2) Who would be interested with 300hp , 350hp , 400hp and up
This is what I would gauge my business upon before I proceed with proto typing.
Find out what members would like to spend with the stacked performance levels , then produce with those results.
Have a price set out for members that just pleasure drive that would like a little more power.
When you have to many "Irons" in the fire as you stated, you loose focus on the first thing you are trying to accomplish and sell,things get pushed back, guys move on.
Most people are impulse buyers in the world, Market it , price it , then deliver without changing to more options, have the options set out with prices .
The poll would dictate as to what to bring to the site.
Good luck
JMO
Eric
Last edited by 76olds; January 23rd, 2016 at 10:02 AM.
January 23rd, 2016, 11:46 AM
#34
Hookers under Hood
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,543
[QUOTE=80 Rocket;888562]I'm listening. I think people make better arguments when they get a little wound up, hence the wording of my post. I figured I would light a fuse in some and get some passionate answers with facts to back it up.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You mentioned you have something really cool in the works. Why do feel the need to get people wound up about your topic of Torque vs Hp ?
Is this some kind of business strategy when it comes to Olds power and sales?
Do you need to lite a fuse in some to get your product or products to market?
You gauged the market here back when you began the " head Thread " without prices. We all knew what your group of friends were working on Iron heads.
Is this the type of business strategy working for the group your involved with? Arguing with other builders over what is good in your opinion and what isn't to OP's
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++
I was really looking for an explanation like this.......something from the guy who just wants to cruise, and that's it. I am out of touch when it comes to street cars that don't see track time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++
If you get in touch with guys that are into just street driven cars that don't see track time then you should focus your business around that market wouldn't you?
Fact,
We would all like to have more at the fun pedal without a doubt, however it has to be priced within the market of people you will be serving.
So if you have something "cool" in the "works" , gauge interest with price points and be ready to deliver a good product in a decent time frame.
That would be my business plan rather than lighting fuses, putting something out in the market or forum without prices.
Another thing, I'm very "POOR" although one day in the near future Ill put money into a decent Olds build, It won't see track time, but will be fun and have just anuff .
Good luck man, HAHA you lite my fuse LOL.
Eric
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You mentioned you have something really cool in the works. Why do feel the need to get people wound up about your topic of Torque vs Hp ?
Is this some kind of business strategy when it comes to Olds power and sales?
Do you need to lite a fuse in some to get your product or products to market?
You gauged the market here back when you began the " head Thread " without prices. We all knew what your group of friends were working on Iron heads.
Is this the type of business strategy working for the group your involved with? Arguing with other builders over what is good in your opinion and what isn't to OP's
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++
I was really looking for an explanation like this.......something from the guy who just wants to cruise, and that's it. I am out of touch when it comes to street cars that don't see track time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++
If you get in touch with guys that are into just street driven cars that don't see track time then you should focus your business around that market wouldn't you?
Fact,
We would all like to have more at the fun pedal without a doubt, however it has to be priced within the market of people you will be serving.
So if you have something "cool" in the "works" , gauge interest with price points and be ready to deliver a good product in a decent time frame.
That would be my business plan rather than lighting fuses, putting something out in the market or forum without prices.
Another thing, I'm very "POOR" although one day in the near future Ill put money into a decent Olds build, It won't see track time, but will be fun and have just anuff .
Good luck man, HAHA you lite my fuse LOL.
Eric
Last edited by 76olds; January 23rd, 2016 at 12:06 PM.
January 23rd, 2016, 12:20 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rogues Island, USA
Posts: 3,613
If your interest is just about street driven vehicles then I have to disagree with you and say that torque rules on the street.
Most here know that gas engines make more horsepower than torque at higher rpms and vice versa at low rpms. I doubt anyone here is driving a streetable car and driving it to 4-6k around town just to make horsepower.
A well prepared BBO will make 500HP and 600TQ and never have to go over 5500rpm to do it. Can more be produced? Of course, but then the term streetable becomes a new debate.
A decent 12sec car is probably quicker than 90% of the cars on the road in any given town.
Most here know that gas engines make more horsepower than torque at higher rpms and vice versa at low rpms. I doubt anyone here is driving a streetable car and driving it to 4-6k around town just to make horsepower.
A well prepared BBO will make 500HP and 600TQ and never have to go over 5500rpm to do it. Can more be produced? Of course, but then the term streetable becomes a new debate.
A decent 12sec car is probably quicker than 90% of the cars on the road in any given town.
January 23rd, 2016, 05:41 PM
#36
I gauge my car's performance against modern cars. This past fall i ran neck and neck with my friends 2015 5.0 mustang stock with minor add ons . We both ran 12.62's for our best e/t of the day. Then his friends WRX was 12.70's. Now in terms of hp the mustang is making 435 hp and 400 tq. according to a quick look on car and driver. My car is a little lighter than the mustang and i dont think im anywhere near the hp of the stang. Realisticly im in the 370 hp range based on my track numbers. I didn't build my engine with hp/tq numbers in mind at all. I had an e/t i wanted to run and went faster than i thought the car was caplable of. The mustang weighs 3700 lbs only makes 400 lbs tq. and its a fun street car and runs 12's which is very respectable and out of all the "base" modern muscle its the fastest and lightest. A mild BBO can exceeded that with no issues. So why are guys hung up on that tq. number so much when to me the "fun" tq. range can effortlessly be achived.
January 23rd, 2016, 05:52 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,607
I gauge my car's performance against modern cars. This past fall i ran neck and neck with my friends 2015 5.0 mustang stock with minor add ons . We both ran 12.62's for our best e/t of the day. Then his friends WRX was 12.70's. Now in terms of hp the mustang is making 435 hp and 400 tq. according to a quick look on car and driver. My car is a little lighter than the mustang and i dont think im anywhere near the hp of the stang. Realisticly im in the 370 hp range based on my track numbers. I didn't build my engine with hp/tq numbers in mind at all. I had an e/t i wanted to run and went faster than i thought the car was caplable of. The mustang weighs 3700 lbs only makes 400 lbs tq. and its a fun street car and runs 12's which is very respectable and out of all the "base" modern muscle its the fastest and lightest. A mild BBO can exceeded that with no issues. So why are guys hung up on that tq. number so much when to me the "fun" tq. range can effortlessly be achived.
January 23rd, 2016, 06:01 PM
#38
Yes but thats not a base muscle car. You are talking roush mustangs which are supercharged , hell cat challengers those are specialty muscle cars. Im using the "base" muscle cars because its more common on the street than roush mustangs or hell cats etc etc. Its gotten out of hand with technology lol.
Base muscles cars fall under mustang gt , camaro ss , and srt challanger.
more special muscle cars fall under roush , hell cat , zl1 etc etc.
Base muscles cars fall under mustang gt , camaro ss , and srt challanger.
more special muscle cars fall under roush , hell cat , zl1 etc etc.
Last edited by coppercutlass; January 23rd, 2016 at 06:05 PM.
