I think this forum is as good as any to discuss this topic considering it's where people chat about car comparisons. If it's not the best place, please feel free to move it to a more appropriate location.

My friend Vintage and I discuss cars at work nearly every day. We're car freeks - YOUNG car freeks, and more importantly, YOUNG MUSTANG freeks. Still, we love all cars and often debate anything automotive.

Today's topic relates to something I have had on my mind for about a month and change now: the power of Torque. I feel that torque is a completely underestimated force in the automotive world, and up until recently I hadn't done my homework enough to understand WHY I felt this way.

Yesterday and today, things came to a head as Vintage and I opened the forum on Torque, and before I spiral off and lay this topic out on a bunch of close minded ricers... I thought I'd toss it out here first with the coolest and most open-minded bunch of cats I know.

Ok, here's my story - and bear with me... it's a long one (as usual for me. LOL)

First, Vintage and I decided to get a good book definition of Torque and it's automotive application. We went to howstuffworks.com for a nice visual and some really good info on torque. I especially enjoy the section that shows horsepower and torque as compared by a catapilar truck and a mustang. Great visual and some solid info that I didn't previously know (most importantly - changing your gear ratios increases your TORQUE).

So equiped with the knowledge of what torque is and how it applies to automobiles, we took a look at horsepower. Under horsepower, they describe power:weight ratios. A total no-brainer. They showed how maximum power:minimum weight is the ideal. Cool. Something still bothered me though....

Torque is the ability to overcome gravity right? I mean... that's why a big rig can pull a trailer that weighs upteen tons. It's purely torque (as they demonstrated). So my question was this: If torque is the ability to overcome inertia, then would torque essentially nullify the power to weight difference between 2 cars?

We both really felt that it was indeed the case, but had no evidence to prove this case, so we consulted a friend who just so happens to be a physicist (how convenient!).

We presented him with the following scenarios and asked which car would accelerate better. Cast your minds for a moment and operate in hypathetical land:

Car 1 - Weight: 3000 Lbs HP: 300 Torque: 190 Ft/Lbs
Car 2 - Weight: 3400 Lbs HP: 300 Torque: 300 Ft/Lbs

Given those 2 cars, which would win? Well, he said that this is a very complicated question because there are too many physical variables in order to calculate a victor based soley off of this info. Variables like wind resistance would play a role into things.

We simplified and said imagine both cars are identical save for the differences in the listed specifications. He returned and said essentially what you need is the TORQUE:WEIGHT RATIO. Sweet Shangrila! Divide the Weight by the torque, and you magically aquire a new number for your consideration! In our experiment, the ratios would be:

Car 1 - HP:Weight - 10 Torque:Weight - 15.79
Car 2 - HP:Weight - 11.33 Torque:Weight - 11.33

The lower the numbers (closer to 1:1) the better. So... We see that car 2 has a HUGE advantage in torque:weight. He said that the torquier car would dominate the less torque producing car even if the power to weight ratio was better. See - more torque means you have a better ability to overcome inertia - in other words - You can accelerate faster.

Vintage and I set out to scour the web and compare some cars. We made an excel sheet which we have at work. I'll upload a graphic of it tomorrow at work to show the results. They're startling!

It all makes so much sense now. 4 cyl guys love to rag the V8's for having too much weight, but in all actuality... it doesn't matter. We can overcome our weight more effectively thereby essentially nullifying the additional LBS. The best setup is a high torque engine. You start with torque and you can easilly add HP.

I know I have Volumes more on this topic, but I have to run for now. I'd be interrested to see what you guys think of this. I know it changed my perspective and explained something huge to me - I have a classic 1966 stang w/ a 302. How is it that the stock HP rating can be so dismal and yet the car will blow the doors off of anything that comes near it?

TORQUE! That's the answer, and I think our friend torque has been overlooked for way too long. Look at Dyno's for instance. they measure torque and using it and the RPM's they calculate HP. TURQUE is THE MOST IMPORTANT automotive force, and I think it's time we all start giving it more credit.

So from now on when someone tells you how much HP something has... say: "That's nice, but how much TORQUE does it have?"

 

Here's a JPG of the excel sheet we made up:

 

tip: next time make your excel a 2 color gif file instead of jpg

 

You didn't get into rpm, right. So you are just talking about maximum torque, correct? Just curious. I enjoy reading about science and cars. Thanks for the read.

 

cool, I think you are right, a lot of people don't seem to care about torque as much as hp.

I think it was carol shelby that said "hp sells cars, but torque wins races" which I think is true, there are probably a lot of salesman that couldn't tell you what the torque of the mustang GT is but could spit out 300 hp as soon as you asked.

Edit: crap altoid already said the shelby part

 

It is under estimated. It's is an essential compliment to HP.
With torque: get the power you have quick
Little torque: eventually get the power you have.

 

i car emore about torque then HP, their is a F-350 in town with 800hp and over 1200 ft-lbs

 

wow, I gotta brush up on my physics and dynamics.

 

this is the reason a Kenworth diesel only has 500hp but 1,800 lb.ft. of torque. It requires that kind of torque to get a tractor trailer moving.

 

Anyone know what an average cargo train does?
I'll search, but post if you know

 

locomotives are a bit of a different deal
the diesel powers a generator which in turn powers traction motors which drive the steel wheels. The diesel motors aren't sunjected to to the forces of moving the locomotive. The reason they use diesel is fuel economy and low RPMs and robustness. How ever the traction motors deliver a boat load of thrust. wich is a bit different than torque something on the order of 64,000 pounds of thrust.

think slot cars just on a monster scale

 

wow, interesting info. didnt know that. hehe, more stuff to brag about...wait, i dont got a stang yet

 

that's me right here, 64,000 pounds of thrust

 

I am on the same page as you, as soon as I first found out what torque was I wondered why nobody ever meantioned it. Thanks for putting that out there for everybody to see.

 

What would happen if the the scenario was more like this

Car 1 - Weight: 3000 Lbs HP: 300 Torque: 190 Ft/Lbs
Car 2 - Weight: 3000 Lbs HP: 190 Torque: 300 Ft/Lbs

I know it is a little exageration. But my point is if the HP is way higher in the lower tq car, how (if at all) would that effect the outcome.

I guess it would also matter how long the track was. I think I heard that the HP would win in the long run, but the TQ would win in a short run.