And the entire tq curve would be higher up creating more area "under the curve". Plus in relation to the hp curve look beefier.

 

seems odd they scaled the curves different. I'm going to guess because if it were the same scale the torque curve wouldn't look as flat and muscle car guys aren't used to the curves of a high reving na engine.

 

I too found it odd


Doesn't seem right if you ask me


Like something Chevy would do

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by typesredline

And the entire tq curve would be higher up creating more area "under the curve". Plus in relation to the hp curve look beefier.

Typesredline-

“And the entire tq curvewould be higher up creating more area "under the curve".” Is this suppose to be good? By choosing the y-axis units (scale) for a given x-axis (in this case engine rpm) you can “position” the curve on the x-y area anywhere you want to put the curve. The “area under the curve” has no real significance unless you are trying to compare two different engine torque curves each plotted to the same scale. And besides the actual “area” in rpm*ft-lbf units (the two scales) is the same no matter what numeric units you choose for the y-axis (torque).

“Plus in relation to the hp curve lookbeefier.” What does a “beefier” curve look like or mean??? The curve merely represents the functional relationship between engine rpm and torque. It is what it is….

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight

seems odd they scaled the curves different. .

Knight, it really is not. The torque/rpm relationship can be plotted to ANY scale you want to choose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight

I'm going to guess because if it were the same scale the torque curve wouldn't look as flat and muscle car guys aren't used to the curves of a high reving na engine.

Gee, the scales are really almost the same guys- Shp = 0-600 in 50 hp increments; Torque = 0-550 in 50 ft-lbf increments. And if the torque data had been plotted to the same 0-600 scale used for horsepower the torque curve would have “appeared” flatter (not less flat you speculate).Think, it would really be a flat curve if the selected scale was 0-3000 units. Actually I would have thought Ford might have used a scale like 0-400 say which would have covered all the data values and showed a bit more curviness to the relationship. But for whatever graphical reason they chose two different, but similar scales for the horsepower and torque relationships.

“muscle car guys aren't used to the curves of a high reving na engine.” I have no idea what you are trying to say here….????

 

Yes,.....thank you. I'm glad someone else sees it the same way.
(I have to say this. I do like the car,...just because I criticize it doesn't mean I don't like it.)

 

To you and I who are keen on the mathematical relationships of hp and torque you are correct that it means nothing from a fact perspective.


But you have to agree there is a large percentage of buyers that buy purely on an emotional level. If they were just trying to show the facts of the engine they would have scaled them identical. But being off even if it is slightly is a sign of trying to skew perspective. I'm not accusing them of lying or saying the numbers aren't good. The reason the curve would less flat is that if you plot it correctly the peak torque would have been higher on the chart but the torque at 8000 rpm would have been lower so you'd have a greater dip using the hp scale. Again, nothing wrong with that for us that understand the relationships.


For the many years ive been on car forums I have always heard peoples arguments when seeing high reving imports, well who cares it has X hp its torque that wins races only to ignore the fact that the rpm allows a beefier gearing which makes up for the torque deficiency. If they had a chart also showed gear ratios with hp/torque that would have mean something to people like us again but the general public would have no idea what they are looking at and for them they'd rather just see engine dyno curves.

 

I am thrilled the Ford engineers did not go with direct injection on the 5.2 FPC engine. As a result, we will be able to increase the horsepower more easily and at lower cost.