4.0 OHV vs 4.0I6HO
#26
03-03-2009
well i would beg to differ, my OHV has been to hell and back... many times! and its still got plenty of *****, even with 3.50s on 35s it had more ***** then some cars out there.. 5.13s i can spin the tires just by hammering on it at a low RPM in first, I don't even need to dump the clutch..
#27
03-03-2009
Rich, here ya go, it's called a DYNO. In Ford's plot that I posed above, they used an engine dyno, and here is an example of a chassis dyno. Rich, please read up on SAE J1349, this might help you understand the differences, and relationship between torque and HP. Torque and HP are two separate entities!!
Last edited by Takeda; 03-03-2009 at 09:21 AM.
#28
03-03-2009
Now for those of you without blinders on, here are some links to truth about "horsepower".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepo...2horsepower.22
"History of the term "horsepower"
The development of the steam engine provided a reason to equate the output of horses with the engines that could replace them. In 1702, Thomas Savery wrote in The Miner's Friend: "So that an engine which will raise as much water as two horses, working together at one time in such a work, can do, and for which there must be constantly kept ten or twelve horses for doing the same. Then I say, such an engine may be made large enough to do the work required in employing eight, ten, fifteen, or twenty horses to be constantly maintained and kept for doing such a work..." The term "horsepower" was coined later by James Watt to help market his improved steam engine."
Rich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepo...2horsepower.22
"History of the term "horsepower"
The development of the steam engine provided a reason to equate the output of horses with the engines that could replace them. In 1702, Thomas Savery wrote in The Miner's Friend: "So that an engine which will raise as much water as two horses, working together at one time in such a work, can do, and for which there must be constantly kept ten or twelve horses for doing the same. Then I say, such an engine may be made large enough to do the work required in employing eight, ten, fifteen, or twenty horses to be constantly maintained and kept for doing such a work..." The term "horsepower" was coined later by James Watt to help market his improved steam engine."
Rich
Rich check this thread out, it should help you understand the differences between torque and HP:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...wer-and-torque
But this pretty much sums it up for you:
"Torque is a measure of the ability of an engine to do work. It's a component of, but not the same as, the (horse) power of the engine, which is the rate at which work can be done."
#29
03-03-2009
Gotcha old man. You not only insult those of us who value truth, but you display your arrogance heaped on top of ignorance for all to see.
A dyno measures TQ and calculates the "horsepower". Horsepower is a product of marketing. It's nothing more than a mathmatical calc. to help people of old to understand what a engine can do as compaired to something they were familiar with. Yet.. you deny historical truth.
Horsepower = torque X rpm / 5252
http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer...orsepower.html
"On modern day dynamometers horsepower is a calculated value. It's important to remember the dyno measures torque and rpm and then from these calculates horsepower."
A dyno measures TQ and calculates the "horsepower". Horsepower is a product of marketing. It's nothing more than a mathmatical calc. to help people of old to understand what a engine can do as compaired to something they were familiar with. Yet.. you deny historical truth.
Horsepower = torque X rpm / 5252
http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer...orsepower.html
"On modern day dynamometers horsepower is a calculated value. It's important to remember the dyno measures torque and rpm and then from these calculates horsepower."
Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 03-03-2009 at 09:49 AM.
#30
03-03-2009
#32
03-03-2009
Gotcha old man. You not only insult those of us who value truth, but you display your arrogance heaped on top of ignorance for all to see.
A dyno measures TQ and calculates the "horsepower". Horsepower is a product of marketing. It's nothing more than a mathmatical calc. to help people of old to understand what a engine can do as compaired to something they were familiar with. Yet.. you deny historical truth.
Horsepower = torque X rpm / 5252
http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer...orsepower.html
"On modern day dynamometers horsepower is a calculated value. It's important to remember the dyno measures torque and rpm and then from these calculates horsepower."
A dyno measures TQ and calculates the "horsepower". Horsepower is a product of marketing. It's nothing more than a mathmatical calc. to help people of old to understand what a engine can do as compaired to something they were familiar with. Yet.. you deny historical truth.
Horsepower = torque X rpm / 5252
http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer...orsepower.html
"On modern day dynamometers horsepower is a calculated value. It's important to remember the dyno measures torque and rpm and then from these calculates horsepower."
One more time Rich, and I'm DONE WITH YOU!!!!!! And you haven't looked up SAE J1349 like I told you to do!!!!
But this pretty much sums it up for you:
"Torque is a measure of the ability of an engine to do work. It's a component of, but not the same as, the (horse) power of the engine, which is the rate at which work can be done."
#33
03-03-2009
#34
03-03-2009
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#35
03-03-2009
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more time Rich, and I'm DONE WITH YOU!!!!!! And you haven't looked up SAE J1349 like I told you to do!!!!
But this pretty much sums it up for you:
"Torque is a measure of the ability of an engine to do work. It's a component of, but not the same as, the (horse) power of the engine, which is the rate at which work can be done."
But this pretty much sums it up for you:
"Torque is a measure of the ability of an engine to do work. It's a component of, but not the same as, the (horse) power of the engine, which is the rate at which work can be done."
SAE J1349 from what ive been reading just changed the brake horsepower to take into account the drag from friction, ie. the accessorries on a motor. and they slightly changed the corrected values for air pressure and temperature.
Bob why do you think F1 cars can make so much power on such a small motor? RPM. The more RPM you push for a given torque value the higher the Horsepower. Hence the equation rich posted. And typing in giant bold print doesnt help get your point across infact, it does quite the opposite.
#36
03-03-2009
Sorry about the OT direction it took.
Personally I really like inline 6cyl engines. They produce excellent low end TQ, tend to be quieter, and don't have to spin as high as a V6 does.
This is partly why they were so popular for so long. And.. it's why BMW has continued down that path. (the 3351 is simply AWSOME) It's only downfall is packaging length. It takes a long hood to make it fit.
Rich
Personally I really like inline 6cyl engines. They produce excellent low end TQ, tend to be quieter, and don't have to spin as high as a V6 does.
This is partly why they were so popular for so long. And.. it's why BMW has continued down that path. (the 3351 is simply AWSOME) It's only downfall is packaging length. It takes a long hood to make it fit.
Rich
#37
03-03-2009
Sorry about the OT direction it took.
Personally I really like inline 6cyl engines. They produce excellent low end TQ, tend to be quieter, and don't have to spin as high as a V6 does.
This is partly why they were so popular for so long. And.. it's why BMW has continued down that path. (the 3351 is simply AWSOME) It's only downfall is packaging length. It takes a long hood to make it fit.
Rich
Personally I really like inline 6cyl engines. They produce excellent low end TQ, tend to be quieter, and don't have to spin as high as a V6 does.
This is partly why they were so popular for so long. And.. it's why BMW has continued down that path. (the 3351 is simply AWSOME) It's only downfall is packaging length. It takes a long hood to make it fit.
Rich
#38
03-03-2009
SAE J1349 from what ive been reading just changed the brake horsepower to take into account the drag from friction, ie. the accessorries on a motor. and they slightly changed the corrected values for air pressure and temperature.
Bob why do you think F1 cars can make so much power on such a small motor? RPM. The more RPM you push for a given torque value the higher the Horsepower. Hence the equation rich posted. And typing in giant bold print doesnt help get your point across infact, it does quite the opposite.
Bob why do you think F1 cars can make so much power on such a small motor? RPM. The more RPM you push for a given torque value the higher the Horsepower. Hence the equation rich posted. And typing in giant bold print doesnt help get your point across infact, it does quite the opposite.
Andrew, I think you just proved my argument! HP isn't imaginary like Santa Claus, which Rich claims!!!
Santa clause is not real.. and neither is horsepower
#39
03-03-2009
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#40
03-03-2009
Horsepower and torque are separate metrics for an engine, and both are very REAL!!
If torque and horsepower were the same entity, they would both peak at the same RPM, which they don't usually do. F1 engines you mentioned are an example, and the Honda S2000 4 cylinder is another good example.
We do, however, agree on inline-6 engines....here are some photos taken at SEMA last November that are about the prettiest inline-6's I've ever seen:
Last edited by Takeda; 03-03-2009 at 01:22 PM.
#41
03-03-2009
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use the equation posted youll see, that is not the case. for example 300ft pounds at 2000 rpm is = 114 hp. now say torque drops down to 250 at 2500 ft pounds. That is equal to 119 hp. Horsepower is mearly a made up concept to relate to the times when the term "horsepower" first was coined.
#42
03-03-2009
#44
03-03-2009
Here is where you fell off out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. With your head no less!
Temp is measureable. Wind chill is not. Wind chill is a mathmatical calc. as a result of M-A-T-H
Temp is a "component" in the M-A-T-H used to derive:
Wind chill
Again with the stupid tree and gravity...
Again, TQ is real.. and is a measureable "entity". Yes I'll agree it's a "component" of the M-A-T-H called horsepower.
This is fun.. ain't it?
Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 03-03-2009 at 01:46 PM.
#45
03-03-2009
Thats true. You have claimed they are two seperate things.
That's an excellent analogy!
Here is where you fell off out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. With your head no less!
Temp is measureable. Wind chill is not. Wind chill is a mathmatical calc. as a result of M-A-T-H
Wind chill
Again with the stupid tree!
This is fun.. ain't it?
That's an excellent analogy!
Here is where you fell off out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. With your head no less!
Temp is measureable. Wind chill is not. Wind chill is a mathmatical calc. as a result of M-A-T-H
Wind chill
Again with the stupid tree!
This is fun.. ain't it?
Rich, but where you screwed up is saying horsepower is imaginary like Santa Claus!!!!!
And all of the torque and HP numbers from your tuner are imaginary also, eh???? They aren't measurements!!!!!
Horsepower, and windchill are both REAL, not IMAGINARY at all!!!!!!!!!
#46
03-03-2009
I offer you this... show in this thread how horsepower is measured.
No pretty pictures.. no links to a dyno.. show us how it's measured w/o a computer or math. Oh.. and no horses allowed either.
Pretty pics btw.
#47
03-03-2009
#48
03-03-2009
The TQ number it gives I think is indeed a calculation and not measured. That doesn't mean that "torque" is always derived by math. Torque is real and anyone who's rebuilt a engine has used a *torque wrench*. Ever hear of a horsepower wrench? Gee.. I wonder why not.
You still have not answered my question. Time to put up or shut up.
#49
03-03-2009
When I reported my "hp numbers" guess how I derived them. I took the TQ as data logged by the PCM and used excell (*math*) to chart it. Yes.. it's imaginary. Just like santa.
I offer you this... show in this thread how horsepower is measured.
No pretty pictures.. no links to a dyno.. show us how it's measured w/o a computer or math. Oh.. and no horses allowed either.
Pretty pics btw.
I offer you this... show in this thread how horsepower is measured.
No pretty pictures.. no links to a dyno.. show us how it's measured w/o a computer or math. Oh.. and no horses allowed either.
Pretty pics btw.
This link, however, seemed to be the best summary:
http://www.dyno-plot.co.uk/dyno/power-and-torque.htm
#50
03-03-2009
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Measuring Horsepower in an engine
Standard methods of measurement use a Dynamometer (or Dyno). This works by placing an engine under load and measuring it's output and this can be done either directly at the crank or by methods such as a rolling road. Measuring the amount of load that an engine can handle at given engine speeds gives us a torque figure. Torque being a product of power (as below) and can be converted to give us the benchmark power figure.
That link says what Rich and I have been saying the whole time. It says right there that a dyno measures torque then using an equation gives you horsepower.
Standard methods of measurement use a Dynamometer (or Dyno). This works by placing an engine under load and measuring it's output and this can be done either directly at the crank or by methods such as a rolling road. Measuring the amount of load that an engine can handle at given engine speeds gives us a torque figure. Torque being a product of power (as below) and can be converted to give us the benchmark power figure.
That link says what Rich and I have been saying the whole time. It says right there that a dyno measures torque then using an equation gives you horsepower.
