Torque

GTE

At the risk of setting off a chain reaction of doom I was thinking about torque while I had my corn flakes this morning, then as I sipped my cuppa tea I remember reading at least twice something along the lines of this:
"It has a lot of torque, but that only means that you seem to be going faster then you are".

Im a bit confused at that statement. If acceleration has a large part to do with torque how can it be more of a subjective sensual thing rather then an objective contribution to faster acceleration times?

As I said I have read this a few times and Im curious to see if its a widespread opinion or even if it has some kind of truth to it.

Tefral

bbk wrote: »

At the risk of setting off a chain reaction of doom I was thinking about torque while I had my corn flakes this morning, then as I sipped my cuppa tea I remember reading at least twice something along the lines of this:
"It has a lot of torque, but that only means that you seem to be going faster then you are".

Im a bit confused at that statement. If acceleration has a large part to do with torque how can it be more of a subjective sensual thing rather then an objective contribution to faster acceleration times?

As I said I have read this a few times and Im curious to see if its a widespread opinion or even if it has some kind of truth to it.

Ill give you an example of what you just said really.

I once raced a 330bhp Skyline in my Integra Type R which is only 194bhp. The Torque of the Skyline was about 300 Lbs and my Teg is only 140. (well 139.9 to be exact).

When you sit in a Skyline and its going from 0-100km/hr flat you feel like something is sitting on your chest where as mine just sounds loud, no "pull" feel. Yet i beat the Skyline in the race.. so that backs up your theory.

If you were to attach a trailer to both cars and the trailer was the same weight he'd win....

-Chris-

I honestly don't believe this.

There must have been an issue with the Skyline driver's car, or they weren't giving it socks, but all the stats say it should murder the 'teg in a straight-up drag race.

What were the conditions of this race??

JHMEG

Wups. That's the kind of thing that gives Integra owners a name.

Atomic Pineapple

-Chris- wrote: »

I honestly don't believe this.

There must have been an issue with the Skyline driver's car, or they weren't giving it socks, but all the stats say it should murder the 'teg in a straight-up drag race.

What were the conditions of this race??

+1

more power, more torque, a skyline would wipe the floor with an ITR in a straight line.

The driver of it must have been useless

mickdw

Cronin j was racing the skyline but the skyline driver was most likely out for a sunday drive & wondered why this Integra was screaming behind him.

tossy

mickdw wrote: »

Cronin j was racing the skyline but the skyline driver was most likely out for a sunday drive & wondered why this Integra was screaming behind him.

Yes i think it was one of those type of races alright! :rolleyes:

DancingPriest

bbk wrote: »

At the risk of setting off a chain reaction of doom ....

:P:P:P

Tefral

ha ha i thought this would provoke something like this. The Skyline in question was driven by a very competitant driver who has done 1/4 mile drag races. There are also plenty of witnesses to this, some of who frequent this forum.

Also theres plenty of people that have wiped the floor with skylines in Type Rs in enniskillen.

Suppose its also worth mentioning that the skyline was a R32.

Atomic Pineapple

This might help explain it a bit

Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car.
Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall.
Torque is how far you take the wall with you.

Stainless_Steel

cronin_j wrote: »

ha ha i thought this would provoke something like this. The Skyline in question was driven by a very competitant driver who has done 1/4 mile drag races. There are also plenty of witnesses to this, some of who frequent this forum.

Also theres plenty of people that have wiped the floor with skylines in Type Rs in enniskillen.

Suppose its also worth mentioning that the skyline was a R32.

James watt would be turning in his grave.

Gary ITR

cronin_j wrote: »

ha ha i thought this would provoke something like this. The Skyline in question was driven by a very competitant driver who has done 1/4 mile drag races. There are also plenty of witnesses to this, some of who frequent this forum.

Also theres plenty of people that have wiped the floor with skylines in Type Rs in enniskillen.

Suppose its also worth mentioning that the skyline was a R32.

Are you familiar with the expression 'delusions of grandeur'

Your ITR is a quick car but it is never ever going to wipe the floor with an R32 Skyline that has twice the power and twice the torque

GTE

draffodx wrote: »

This might help explain it a bit

Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car.
Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall.
Torque is how far you take the wall with you.

Ive come to understand that torque gets you up to speed and horsepower gives you more top speed but it doesnt answer for me how torque can be a subjective thing.
Given the same car of the same weight, same gearing. Maybe even the same engine in different states of tuning I thought more torque can only mean quicker acceleration, definitively. Not some odd feeling that makes you think you are going faster then you really are.

Tefral

Onkle wrote: »

Are you familiar with the expression 'delusions of grandeur'

Your ITR is a quick car but it is never ever going to wipe the floor with an R32 Skyline that has twice the power and twice the torque

Didnt say i wiped the floor with him now did i?

Anyway isnt this taking this thread off topic? if you so wish shouldnt we start another thread were we could debate this, it may interest other people.

Stainless_Steel

bbk wrote: »

Ive come to understand that torque gets you up to speed and horsepower gives you more top speed but it doesnt answer for me how torque can be a subjective thing.
Given the same car of the same weight, same gearing. Maybe even the same engine in different states of tuning I thought more torque can only mean quicker acceleration, definitively. Not some odd feeling that makes you think you are going faster then you really are.

They are related mathematically. More torque equals more power. See my reference to james watt above. Google should provide you te equations you need.

tossy

Torque is something diesel drivers hark on about,i know i used to be one and i was always on about torque,and probably will again one day its good for going up hills and pulling livestock trailers basically.

BHP is something high powered petrol car drivers know about :cool:

rabbitinlights

Anyone who thinks they understands Torque, doesn't! (Or they're really, really smart)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

GTE

rabbitinlights wrote: »

Anyone who thinks they understands Torque, doesn't! (Or they're really, really smart)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

Yeah, I read that. Information overload.

I think Ill conclude that what those people say is wrong.
It is mathematically related to power and RPM so torque is torque and no way subjective.

Let the doom chain continue haha

conneem-TT

Here is a good little read on the subject

http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html

At the end of the day "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of gearing"

Zubeneschamali

bbk wrote: »

"It has a lot of torque, but that only means that you seem to be going faster then you are".

I think this is backwards. A car with lots of low-down torque is fast without obvious effort: you don't have to wring its neck in every gear to make progress.

A car of the same weight with less torque low down and more bhp further up the rev range really is faster if driven so that the revs are up around peak power all the time, but driven that way it feels even faster still, as the engine is howling and the driver is snatching gearchanges to keep the engine on the boil: it all feels very busy.

peasant

bbk wrote: »

"It has a lot of torque, but that only means that you seem to be going faster then you are".

Im a bit confused at that statement.

You have every right to be confused, because it's nonsense

cronin_j

cronin_j wrote: »

Ill give you an example of what you just said really.

I once raced a 330bhp Skyline in my Integra Type R which is only 194bhp. The Torque of the Skyline was about 300 Lbs and my Teg is only 140. (well 139.9 to be exact).

When you sit in a Skyline and its going from 0-100km/hr flat you feel like something is sitting on your chest where as mine just sounds loud, no "pull" feel. Yet i beat the Skyline in the race.. so that backs up your theory.

If you were to attach a trailer to both cars and the trailer was the same weight he'd win....

:rolleyes:

Stop your nonsense.

JHMEG

bbk wrote: »

"It has a lot of torque, but that only means that you seem to be going faster then you are".

That's the view from the caravan behind.

BigEejit

voxpop

Torque is turning power - so lots of torque mean the engine can turn the wheels easier and quicker. So easier to get the car moving, towing, etc. Its not subjective in any way.

EPM

cronin_j wrote: »

Didnt say i wiped the floor with him now did i?

Anyway isnt this taking this thread off topic? if you so wish shouldnt we start another thread were we could debate this, it may interest other people.

Please do - could be epic;)

biko

As I understand it in simple terms - the bigger the engine the bigger the torque.
For cars it's not as important as for trucks etc with large loads.

"It has a lot of torque, but that only means that you seem to be going faster than you are" doesn't make sense.

voxpop

Magnus wrote: »

"It has a lot of torque, but that only means that you seem to be going faster than you are" doesn't make sense.

I think whoever said that was reasoning that turbo diesel has loads of torque so its the torque that pushes me back in the seat and makes it feel fast, forgetting completely about the turbo .

ianobrien

I was once given this (rather simple) explination for power/torque

"Power determines your maximum speed, torque determines how fast you get to your max speed"

I think it sums it up nicely.....

vintagevrs

I used to drive a petrol car that had 268 lb/ft of torque that revved to 7.5k rpm.

Now I have a diesel with 340ish lb/ft of torque but it only revs to 4.5k rpm.

The Petrol car had 280bhp and the diesel roughly 210bhp.

Performance wise they both feel very similar in a straight line but I think that was because to get the performance from the petrol it had to be driven hard where as the diesel there is less noise and revs to get the same performance.

Would love to put them against each other as it feels like the diesel would give the petrol a run for the money although it is down on power and i think the petrol was slightly lighter.

Melodeon

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

James watt would be turning in his grave.

How much torque would he generate?

vintagevrs

Does it not work that two engines with the same power outputs but different torque outputs have different rev ranges.

What I mean is lots of torque, small rev range could easily give the same output as very little torque with a huge rev range.

Ie a motorbike with 150bhp versus a 2.0D engine found in a car

aidanodr

Without getting into formula's or technicals surely Torque or lack of same can be illustrated with two cars going up a hill. The lower the torque the bigger the struggle to get up the hill. Then one needs to go down to lower gears to get up that hill.

I - up to recently had a 1.8 MX5, my wife has a Honda ( new shape ) 1.4. From the flat approaching the hill while driving in the MX I could stay in 5th gear and climb the hill with still some more pull in fifth - I did not have to change down the gears. However if I tried the same thing with the Honda from the flat I would first have to speed up a bit on the flat as I approached the hill and half way up the hill might need to drop a gear or two to build up lagging speed as one went up the hill. Now I realise one engine is a 1.8 and the other a 1.4 BUT Torque plays a part all the same?? I would say that either the Mazda 3 or the Renault Mergane 1.5/1.6 diesel below would climb that hill comfortably also ..

This torque thing is interesting in alot of the new "frugal" 1.5 / 1.6 DIESEL engines in new cars like the Renault Megane ( 1.5 ) and the Mazda 3 ( 1.6 ). Both have a BHP of 110-ish and reasonable Torque across the gears - Mazda 3 240nm at 1750rpm, Renault Megane 200nm at 1750rpm. Probably similar levels of NM ( Newton meters ) that one would traditionally find in a 2.0L Diesel???

https://www.mazda.co.uk/brochurerequest/?moi=new+mazda3 - ( Page 10 )
http://www.irishscrappage.ie/cars/meganecoupe/equipmentandspecifications.html - Page 2 - scroll to right )

Whats interesting is the release on the Irish market of diesel engines in the 1.5 range. Apparently this has been common in Europe for years, low sized diesel engines were more popular than petrol I am told? It took this whole emissions thing and increase in costs of driving for us to get cars with diesel engines of this size. Of course technology has advanced too.

I reckon people are taking more notice of torque now in cars OR it may be a by product of the fact that we are getting "torquey-er" low / mid range engines on the market. People will definitely notice its effect particularly in hilly areas and that a "torquey-er" engine delivers a more "comfortable" drive in certain driving conditions.

The jump of BHP in both those cars above is another interesting feature. I think, here in Ireland, cars around 1.4 standard traditionally had BHP of 70-80?

Finally in the world of petrol successfully combining torque at the lower end and BHP in one small engine has been done by VW in there 1.4 TSI engine. Contraversially for some however?? This engine has both a supercharger and a turbocharger added. I think the supercharger is for the enhanced BHP?? 200nm or so and the Turbocharger is for enhanced BHP?? 140, 170 depending on the model.

No doubt their are people here with far more technical savvy than I who might correct me with respect to some of the above BUT I am trying to keep it "Dummies Guide", simple for us drivers who have reasonable or minimum knowledge.

Aidan

Mr.David

Its worth noting that when talking about torque figures (or indeed power output), that quoted figures are always the peak generated maximum. So, you would need to consider the curve as opposed to just the peak to understand the whole picture.

Also, the gearing will have a big influence. Two cars with the same amount of torque that have different gear ratios will perform very differently.

JHMEG

ianobrien wrote: »

"Power determines your maximum speed, torque determines how fast you get to your max speed"

That's not accurate, and if anything it's backways.

ShiresV2

vintagevrs wrote: »

I used to drive a petrol car that had 268 lb/ft of torque that revved to 7.5k rpm.

Now I have a diesel with 340ish lb/ft of torque but it only revs to 4.5k rpm.

The Petrol car had 280bhp and the diesel roughly 210bhp.

Performance wise they both feel very similar in a straight line but I think that was because to get the performance from the petrol it had to be driven hard where as the diesel there is less noise and revs to get the same performance.

The diesel's extra flywheel torque doesn't matter a jot because of GEARING.

Example, the old BMW 5 series E39. The 530d (diesel) had much higher torque figures than the 530i (petrol). Very impressive stuff and great for willy waving about. But being a diesel the 530d didn't rev highly and so had much longer gearing. Take the gearbox and differential ratios, take the peak torque figures, do the math, and it turns out that the petrol car put down more torque at the rear wheels.

There is also much confusion between "torque" and "torque curves" *. Have a look at the graphs here to see how power delivery affects what you feel: http://www.rri.se/?DN=29

EDIT: * expressed another way the change in the rate of acceleration the units of which are "jerks" or "jolts".

vintagevrs

Is this not roughly right though....

Its the way I think of it in my head anyway...

Car 1
200 Bhp
150 lb/ft torque
revs to 8k

Car 2
200 Bhp
300 lb/ft torque
revs to 4k

Car 2 has longer gearing and this is what gives both cars equal bhp outputs and therefore similar if not identical performance? The longer gears mean the torque at the wheels is the same?

Car 1 will rev twice as fast on full throttle as it has shorter gears but needs to rev faster as it has a higher peak rev to reach in the same time as car 2 needs to reach its peak rpm.


Is that making sense?

Pique

Power for show, Torque for go.
Power wins admirers, Torque wins races.

BHP is basically the potential of the engine, Torque enables the engine to reach that potential.

voxpop

Pique wrote: »

Power for show, Torque for go.
Power wins admirers, Torque wins races.

BHP is basically the potential of the engine, Torque enables the engine to reach that potential.

Dont know about that - dont F1 engine produce ~700bhp but the torque figures are the same as a standard 2.5ltr petrol engine, i.e. ~ 250Nm

JHMEG

Pique wrote: »

Power for show, Torque for go.
Power wins admirers, Torque wins races.

BHP is basically the potential of the engine, Torque enables the engine to reach that potential.

You drive a diesel then! A mighty TDI perhaps?

conneem-TT

Pique wrote: »

Power for show, Torque for go.
Power wins admirers, Torque wins races.

BHP is basically the potential of the engine, Torque enables the engine to reach that potential.

Is it not that torque is the potential of the engine and put that through the gearing system to get the power to get the work done at the wheels in a specific amount of time.

Here is an example where the engine torque is compared to the torque delivered to the wheels due to gearing, it also highlight the importance of the torque curve rather than a peak torque number

http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html

Scruff

Torque is something i've been wondering about lately, particularly since i will be getting a diesel car in the next couple of weeks that apparently has all the torque in the lower revs and long gearing.
My main concern is how this effects overtaking manoeuvres. Currently in my 1.4 petrol car i'd drop a gear to get the power in the high revs in a lower gear to execute the manoeuvre as fast and safely as i can. So what should i do in the diesel? Obviously will try to get a feel for the car on a motorway 1st without the risk of being mushed in a head on but some pointers would be handy! (I might have torque and power arseways here though)
I'd hate to "feel" like i was overtaking fast when in fact i'm not. I'm sure the person i was overtaking and anyone coming in the opposite direction would feel the same...

peasant

Scruff wrote: »

Torque is something i've been wondering about lately, particularly since i will be getting a diesel car in the next couple of weeks that apparently has all the torque in the lower revs and long gearing.
My main concern is how this effects overtaking manoeuvres. Currently in my 1.4 petrol car i'd drop a gear to get the power in the high revs in a lower gear to execute the manoeuvre as fast and safely as i can. So what should i do in the diesel? Obviously will try to get a feel for the car on a motorway 1st without the risk of being mushed in a head on but some pointers would be handy!
I'd hate to "feel" like i was overtaking fast when in fact i'm not. I'm sure the person i was overtaking and anyone coming in the opposite direction would feel the same...

as most diesels only rev to about 4000 or so the problem solves itself ...there are no high revs

Tea 1000

Pique wrote: »

Power for show, Torque for go.
Power wins admirers, Torque wins races.

BHP is basically the potential of the engine, Torque enables the engine to reach that potential.

Don't be silly!! That's just generalising too much.
I'd say yer man who wrote that was writing about a diesel. What he meant was the power delivery of a diesel where the peak torque comes in very low down in the rev range (where the turbo spools up) made the car feel like it was accelerating quickly.
Mr. David is exactly right when he says you need to consider the power and torque curves and gearing. They make more difference than the raw figures.
I used own a petrol car with 140bhp and 127 lb ft of torque. Now I have a diesel with 136bhp and almost twice that torque figure. The way the diesel delivers its power with 98% of its maximum torque coming in at around 2,000 revs gives the impression that it's much quicker. In reality the petrol was quicker. The key difference though was how you had to drive the petrol in order to get the most out of it compared to how you have to drive the diesel to get the most out of that.
If you drive the petrol at 50% effort you get only 50% return, where as the diesel driving it at 50% effort you get 90% return. Wringing the neck of the petrol will return all it has, wringing the neck of a diesel is kind of fruitless, the last 10% is all you'll get. Crude example, but it's the best I can do!
But no doubt the petrol was quicker. (much to the surprise and disgust of more than one 130bhp GT TDI Golf owners!!:D)
If you have a particular car, lets say you have a BMW 330i. Lets say it has 250bhp and 200 lb/ft of torque at a given engine speed. Now lets say BMW revise this engine, leaving the rest of the car and drive train the same, and boost the torque figure to 220lb/ft and adjust the characteristics of the engine to the torque curve is more spread instead of just being at the top end, and leave the bhp the same or maybe only 2 or 3bhp more, then the newer car will be quicker.
But to say diesel is quicker than petrol is just wrong.

BlackWizard

Mr.David wrote: »

Its worth noting that when talking about torque figures (or indeed power output), that quoted figures are always the peak generated maximum. So, you would need to consider the curve as opposed to just the peak to understand the whole picture.

Also, the gearing will have a big influence. Two cars with the same amount of torque that have different gear ratios will perform very differently.

This is really it. It all comes down to the curve, gearing ratios and torque.

Horse power is just really a measurement like pints and litres. We really shouldn't use it to be honest. But I don't think many people would like to see torque graphs and acceleration times on their car instead of a single HP number

E39MSport

peasant wrote: »

as most diesels only rev to about 4000 or so the problem solves itself ...there are no high revs

yup... at about 3k revs just floor it in top gear and your past in a flash ! I drive a 530d from time to time and it's an awesome machine.

Pique

voxpop wrote: »

Dont know about that - dont F1 engine produce ~700bhp but the torque figures are the same as a standard 2.5ltr petrol engine, i.e. ~ 250Nm

Yup, but I'd like to see them exiting the Loews Hairpin in 4th Gear ! They pull vast amounts of RPM and keep within the powerband. It's not necessary for much torque at that point.

Pique

JHMEG wrote: »

You drive a diesel then! A mighty TDI perhaps?

Nope. 2L Turbo Petrol.

You think that because I said that Torque wins races, I'm a diesel fanboy ? :rolleyes:

voxpop

Pique wrote: »

Yup, but I'd like to see them exiting the Loews Hairpin in 4th Gear ! They pull vast amounts of RPM and keep within the powerband. It's not necessary for much torque at that point.

Well if you are saying that in a car with 1 gear - torque wins races - then you might have a point, but for cars with more than 1 gear it seems that bhp is more important than torque.

JHMEG

Pique wrote: »

You think that because I said that Torque wins races, I'm a diesel fanboy ? :rolleyes:

Yup. That's the kind of statement the owner of a 1.9TDI Ferrari-killer has come out with on here before.

voxpop

*ahem* nothing wrong with TDI owners