Kris said:
interesting write up: tq v. HP
Good link Kris. Yes BUT...Depends on what you want to do with your vehicle. There are a lot of people you wouldn't want to tell
that (
better to have max torque at higher rpms) to.
Want to talk about ability to do work? Well lets just say you wouldn't want to grind flour, plow a field, heavy haul/tow, or off road with a Honda VVLTi, which is an amazing engine in the S2000 that develops max torque at very high rpms. For these apps you WANT max torque at low rpms, like a diesal.
And I don't want to start the LS versus Cobra debate here.
But don't tell
that to the SVT guys that develop a butt load of torque just off of idle.
And I don't remember the specifics, but a lb of mass reduction is something like getting a 10HP boost. For rotating mass though, the affect is non-linear and results in even greater HP. So losing 1lb of rotating mass might be like gaining 20HP. Don't remember the numbers exactly but the overall effect. Basically a lighter rotating mass engine will accelerate faster than an engine with heavier rotating mass and more HP. So don't tell
that to the motorcycle gurus like esemes.
To me, the key is in the area under the curve. In a race car, you want a torque curve that is very narrow and very peaky. A narrow but awesome power band, best left to the track. It may have the same area under the curve as a tractor engine that comes on strong at low rpms. For a fun sports car for the average enthusiast to get across town in, you want a curve similar to this one for the VQ, even though it may have the same area under the curve as a tractor or race car engine.
Match any of these profiles (peak low, peak middle, peak high) that have the same area under the curve to a CVT that can handle them and the point is somewhat moot. I do agree the key is in the gearing, tanks are a perfect example of that.
As was stated, the profile of the VQ is good for a daily driver and a fun sports car...as if we needed the curves and physics to tell us that.
