Yes, just like I said but explained much better. And Theo, don't you
have a torque motor, not a screamer.
The bottom line is you must decide what you want ot do with your car. I
want low rpm grunt, and that is an engine that develops torque at low
rpm, as opposed to high hp at high rpm. Simple explanation, but it
works for me.
Larry
Theo Smit wrote:
> I'll try and beat Bob off the line here... it's rear-wheel torque that
> pulls you off the line, and engine power, not engine torque alone,
> actually determines how much rear-wheel torque you can generate. If
> you have 1800 engine RPM and you're putting it through a total
> reduction of say 6:1, you'll get 300 rear-wheel RPM, which you can
> translate to a given speed. The 313 foot-pounds of torque at the
> engine translates to 1878 foot-pounds at the rear axle (neglecting for
> the moment the drivetrain losses). The same 313 foot pounds of
> flywheel torque at 3600 RPM, which amounts to double the power, can be
> run through a 12:1 gear reduction to give you 300 rear-wheel RPM and
> 3756 foot-pounds at the rear axle. Double the power equals double the
> torque available at the rear axle.
>
> Being able to use the engine's torque curve to advantage still
> applies. If you're mostly doing street driving, you want an engine
> that's not tuned to operate efficiently over just a very narrow
> powerband, which is what you've done, but for outright acceleration,
> generating the most power for the longest amount of time is what you
> need.
>
> Best regards,
> Theo
|