Wow a lot of people here are pretty clueless about torque and hp.

Actually Campo is correct at some points, Horsepower is what wins races and makes a car fast. Read below.

If torque wins races, then I guess we should all be racing diesels and such, take for example a dodge ram 3500 cummins diesel truck with 600ft lbs of torque stock. If you say torque wins races that truck would cream Ferraris ect.

Horsepower IS torque, multiplied by RPMs. You can make a lot torque but if the car doesn't rev high enough to multiply it into a good amount of HP, then your car will still be slow. People race in their average peak hp curve, not torque curve. Thread starter said the RSX-S and Si doesn't "stand a chance" against a 2.4 SS because they are low on torque, please lay down the crack pipe.

Correct, RSX-S and Si does produce a low amount of torque because the engine is small displacement that is designed to rev so high, its setup as a high rpm powerhouse. Only ~150ft lbs of peak torque, but they rev to 8400 stock, at those rpms, the torque is being multiplied to create hp...and folks...HORSEPOWER is what makes a car fast. For that guy who said that VTEC engines have to "wait" for their power to kick in, yeah that would only happen if the car had a 4 speed transmission with super wide gearing. What you think RSX-S/Si owners start races at 3-4k rpms?? No, they start right at the beginning of their peak power curve, which is probably 6k. Thats when gearing comes into the equation, there isn't any lag, none of this having to wait for power... The RSX-S and Si have close ratio 6spd, with gearing perfectly setup to have the car fall back into its "peak power starting point" on every upshift. There is no waiting, you just gotta keep the car in the correct gear when starting a race, then shift at redline and the car will fall right back to the start of its highest average power curve and keep accelerating like crazy. Need to pass someone, because of the high-end horsepower of these engines, just downshift to a gear that will keep the rpms as close to the peak hp as possible, it will accelerate harder than the other car regardless if the other car has more torque just as long as the other car has less hp and the weights are similar.

If you still aren't convinced, I'll give you an example below.

Honda S2000
240HP and 153ft lbs of torque. Curb Weight. 2809 lbs.

VW Jetta TDI (Turbo Diesel)
100HP and 177ft lbs of torque. Curb Weight. 3197 lbs.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
Okay lets do some torque/weight calculations.

S2000 2809/153 = 18.35 lbs per 1ft lb of torque.
Jetta TDI 3197/177 = 18.06 lbs per 1ft of lb torque.

So it looks like the JETTA TDI beats the S2000 with a BETTER weight/torque ratio. Lets look at the acceleration numbers now.

S2000
0-60 in 5.2
1/4 in 13.8@100mph

Jetta TDI
0-60 in 11.66
1/4 in 18.6 @ 76mph

Now looking at those numbers...tell me again...what makes a car fast? Purely torque #'s or horsepower #'s?
Thats about 2 city block difference between the two in a race, The Jetta makes more torque, produces it a lot earlier and has a better torque/weight ratio. You wonder why the Jetta is slow as ***** compared to the S2000 even though it has the torque advantage? Its because it has less HP... simple as that, and once again folks...Horsepower and how well a car is geared to use it that wins races. The Jetta TDI only redlines at 4500, sure it makes an abundance of low end torque but it doesn't like to rev, and without a lot of RPMs, the good amount of torque won't be multiplied into a good amount of HP. Unlike the S2000, which redlines at 9000, even with its low torque numbers, all that rpm translate into a lot more Horsepower. Understand??

You'll always run into these old fashion V8 guys claiming yeah well you need all this torque to win races....ummm duh because those big ol V8's don't rev high at all, so in order to be fast, they need to produce A LOT of torque to multiply into Horsepower. Lets say a Big block V8 builder wants 400hp out of his big V8, but lets say hypothetically the thing only revs to 4500rpms. Okay... This V8 needs to produce a **** load of torque to make 400 hp when it only revs to 4500 rpm. The V8 needs to have 500ft lbs of torque @ 4500 rpms in order to make slightly over 400hp.

Formula goes Torque x RPM / 5252 = hp

500ft lbs of torque x 4500 rpms / 5252 = 428hp.

LOL, this should be sticky.

 

you are right in some aspects, but you are wrong in thinking the hp is the only number you need to look at. You need to look at hp and torque. ALWAYS. Lets look at it this way, my car weighs 3400 lbs. Your rsx-s weighs about 2800 lbs. We both have 210 crank hp, you have more aggressive gearing, and a six speed as opposed to my five speed. Yet, my car runs almost exactly the same 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Huh...thats interesting if torque doesnt mean anything. I have 240 ft lbs to your...150 i think? A high revving smaller displacement engine saves alot of weight, but cant produce the torque of a larger displacement engine. It works for very small compact cars, and they will use high revving smaller engines in f1 cars etc because they need to save as much weight as possible for the best handling possible, but if torque doesnt matter, and an engine with higher torque than hp will be quicker, than why is it that all top fuel drag cars are huge displacement s/c v8's with fairly low redlines making around the same torque as hp, if not more torque. That's interesting to me to think that you know more about cars than all the top fuel drag teams in the world.

 

I don't know much about the 05-06 Mustangs but if in fact it does the same 0-60 and 1/4 as an 05 RSX-S, 6.2 and 14.9 respectively, with more weight and same hp, you have to attribute that to your RWD platform. Just like an EVO 9 with only 286 hp running low 13s, same time as a 400hp GTO. Its down to traciton. Now we are going off subject here, this discussion wasn't about FWD/AWD/RWD traction, it was about hp and torque.

Horsepower is a rating of torque @ a certain RPM. You are right about small displacement engines not being able to produce a lot of torque, and if it wasn't able to rev very high then it won't produce a lot of horsepower and thus being VERY SLOW. But, you take that small engine with 150 peak torque and let rev to a high enough RPM, it will produce A LOT of horsepower, you gear that car to use its peak power and it will be just as fast as V6 or V8 producing the same amount of HP but TWICE the torque at low rpms. Another example.

00 Mustang GT, 260hp, 302ft lbs of torque.
00 S2000, 240hp, 153ft lbs of torque.

Both are RWD so that evens the traction issue, The Mustang as twice the amount of torque as the S2000, and has a HUGE torque/weight advantage over the S2k but how come they run similar 0-60 and 1/4 times? Mid 5s and high 13s-low 14s.


These small Honda engines get Horsepower by RPM, thats why they rev so high. Big V6 and V8's don't need to rev high to get HP because they have large displacement engines, which translates to a lot of torque @ lower RPMs which equals a lot of HP at lower RPMS get it?

Those S/C V8 dragsters make huge amount of torque at low RPMS because they have F/I and huge displacements, therefore they DON'T NEED TO REV VERY HIGH to get HP. They can rev to 5000 rpms, make 550ft lbs of torque, and at 5000 rpms they are already making 523hp!

550x5000/5252 = 523hp, and since they produce so much hp in the low end with such a wide curve, they can gear their cars very wide(which usually are automatic 3 spds), add slicks to the mix + low end torque/hp, you see why they are so fast in the 1/4 but their traps aren't that fast compared to other Higher HP cars with less traction. Say.... a 600hp civic, which will trap about 140 mph in the 1/4, you can tell that thing just flys but their ET's won't be as good because they can't put the power down as effeciently as a RWD car.

 

im confused

 

you are right about the gt having a better torque/weight ratio but you need to think more pal. the gt has a 5 speed. S2k has a 6. Gt has less aggressive gearing on top of that. Throw some 4.1's on that which ar much closer to what the s2k has and it will DESTROY an s2k. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about because you think top fuel dragsters make 550ft lbs...try multiplying that by 7 and you will be about right. HORSEPOWER IS LITERALLY A MEASUREMENT OF TORQUE. ONE HORSEPOWER = 33,000 FT LBS PER MINUTE. you know what that means? horsepower is a measurement of torque, over a period of time. Ask any of the vendors on this sight, ask any of the extremely knowledgable people on this site, and they will tell you the exact same thing. Don't argue when you don't know what you are talking about. BOTH TORQUE AND HORSEPOWER ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT.

 

Umm you keep on repeating what I've been explaining to you, just rewording it.

I already stated that HP is a measurement of Torque at a certain RPM(or in other words over a period of time, how you like to use it), did you not read what I've been typing at ALL? Horsepower and how broad the hp curve + how the car is geared to USE that hp curve is what determines how fast a car is. You can have a lot of torque, but if you don't have enough RPMs you won't be making a lot of hp. I was giving an EXAMPLE about the S/C V8 drag racers, I used a lower number to try to get my point across without confusing people too much with huge numbers.

You wanna see how torque without enough RPMS works? Okay here's a drastic example, say you have a car with 4 liters of displacement, 400ft lbs of torque, but it redlines at 1500rpms.
400x1500/5252 = only 114 hp. Okay 114hp BUT 400ft lbs of peak torque @ 1500rpms, lets say you have a 5spd, in order for you to actually drive a car that redlines at 1500rpms, you would have to gear that 5spd SOOOOO WIDE that the car will be slow, even with 400ft lbs of torque. You take another engine, half the displacement, half the torque...2 Liters, 200ft lbs, but it has twice the RPMs, redlining at 3000. 200x3000/5252 = 114 hp, see how you can get HP through RPMS even with half the torque and half the displacement? So now the car redlines at 3000, you can afford to gear that 5spd with much closer ratios since it redlines twice as high. In the end if both cars weighed equally, they would be equally fast as long as both cars stay in their overall highest power curve, even though one car has twice as much torque but half the rpms. Now do you understand how horsepower and gearing plays the important role in determining how fast a car is?

The S2000 NEEDS a close ratio 6spd because it has a more narrow hp band at the higher end of the rpm range, from 6000-9000 rpm, thats why it has 6 close ratio gears and a pretty high final drive, its geared that way to stay close to that sweet spot. The GT has less aggressive gearing because IT MAKES MORE HP over a broader range and LOWER in the powerband, therefore it only needs a 5spd with wider more relaxed ratios Like I said, it makes MORE torque lower due to its big displacement, therefore at lower rpms its making good hp, it doesn't need to rev high to get hp because it has lots of torque at lower rpms . You say upgrading to a higher final drive in the GT and it will smoke a stock S2000, well duh, add 4.77 FD to the S2000 and it will smoke a stock GT. Gears are torque multipliers, the more aggressive the gearing is, the more torque is turning the wheels. I can gear a Hyundai with sky high gear ratios and it will accelerate much harder, but then it will top out at 70mph on the freeway. So yeah, you can gear any car more aggressively for more acceleration, but at the expense of gas mileage, freeway drivability and top speed. The factory "tunes" these gear ratios according to the nature of the engine, with acceleration, driveablility, and effeciency in mind.

Also when the hell did I say torque wasn't important, haven't I been preaching for the last 2 days that hp is a measurement of torque? And finally my RSX-S runs 13.69@102.8MPH w/2.054 60ft, mods are CAI/RaceHeader/Exhaust/Hondata Intake Gasket/Hondata Reflash and Hoosier Drag Radials. I make 214.9whp and 159ft lbs of torque SAE DynoJet. Now tell me, how am I running those times with such low torque numbers if torque was the only "number" that matters.

 

sheesh, it's that 3rd gear yo!!!

Really that 'hp sells cars....' quote gets used out of context. Back then w/ the heavy ass cars they used to race w/o a lot of torque the car wasn't going anywhere fast. Imagine the s2000 w/ it's 240hp and 150 (?)lb-ft and the car weighing 3500+lbs.

 

exactly.

 

Well of course its gonna slow it down if the S2000 packed on an additional 700lbs since the S2000 has a low torque number and high rpms, it has a more narrow powerband. 6-9k rpms, below 6000 the 700 additional pounds would slow it down considerably since at those low rpms, the low torque doesn't translate to a lot of hp. The loose general rule of thumb in the racing world is that for every 100lbs, thats 1 tenth added to your 1/4 times. Add 700lbs to the S2000, add 7 tenths to its 1/4 mile. So instead of low 14s, it would probably run high 14s, low 15s if it weighed 3500lbs as long as it stays close to its peak hp, which is 6-9k.

Hmmmm...that sounds familar, what else weighs 3500lbs and has 240hp? Lets see... oh I know, lets try a 2001 Grand Prix GT-P, roughly 3500lbs, 240hp...BUT 280ft lbs of torque. It runs approximately flat 15 in the 1/4. Now how is it that that the GT-P has the same hp, same weight has our hypothetical 3500lb S2000, but almost twice the peak torque and yet it would be similarly fast?

You see, if the hypothetical S2000 and Grand Prix GT-P both weighed 3500lbs, although the GT-P has twice as much torque, it has less rpm, which means less hp. The hypothetical S2000 weighed 3500lbs, has half as much torque but a lot more RPM for a higher HP number. In the end, they would both be producing 240hp, the S2000 probably would be doing it at twice the RPM, but if they are geared to stay in that power curve, and both weighed the same, then they would be equally fast although the GTP has twice the torque.

Now if they were both out of their overall highest power curve and accelerating, the GT-P would smoke the S2k because it makes more torque, over a broader curve, which means more hp over a broader curve. The 700lbs would effect the S2k a great deal in the lower-mid range because before 6k, its producing very little torque, and at ~6k rpms, thats not a lot of hp. But, since the S2000 is geared to stay above 6k always when accelerating, it will stay near its peak 240hp and accelerate just as hard as the 240hp GT-P near its peak, even if the S2k has half the torque, as long as they weighed 3500lbs.

 

What heavy cars are you talking about? If those "heavy" cars were racing without a lot of torque and weren't going fast, it has to be 1 of 3 things.

Not enough RPM's (which means they don't rev high) and if a car with low torque that doesn't rev high enough, it won't translate to a lot of hp. Which makes it slow.

Now if it DID rev high, say 7-8k, but were still slow.....then it has to do with the gearing the car used. Low torque, high rpms translates to a narrow powerband, if the car is geared too wide and falls way out of its powerband during shifts, then it will be butt slow until it gets near its peak hp curve.
Low torque, high revving high hp engines live or die by its gearing. Why do you think all the Honda Performance cars use extremely close ratio 5 or 6spd with sky high final drives? They are tuned with ratios perfectly spaced so it will fall right into its sweet spot on the powerband every shift.

Lastly it could be a combination of both, low torque, low revving and wide gear ratios. = Economy car acceleration.

On a final note, lets go back to our Diesel examples. If strictly torque numbers determined how fast a car is, how come Diesels are soo slow? Diesels make way more torque than gasoline cars, and they make it over a lower and broader range. I'll tell you why, its because they DON'T REV HIGH enough to translate into a lot of HP. A typical Diesel will produce an abundance of low-mid range torque, but they don't typically have a lot of hp.