So is twohoos right in his analogy about packet sizes/rates? Cause after this issue has been sitting in the back of my head for a couple of days, I am seeing the light (at least what I think is the light):

The F20C produces a wheel torque of 136.5 ft-lbs 138 times a second at 8300 rpm.
The F20C produces a wheel torque of 146.0 ft-lbs 109 times a second at 6588 rpm.

Assuming these discrete "packets" of wheeltorque are additive to produce a cumulative acceleration effect, then the car will accelerate harder:

At peak TQ: 146.0 x 109 = 15914
At peak HP: 136.5 x 138 = 18850

So comparatively, per second, there is a much greater cumulative effect of acceleration even at the peak HP, even though the car may be producing the most physical acceleration at peak TQ. This means basically what people have been saying all along: "Torque is what you feel, but horsepower is how fast you are going". NOW it makes perfect sense.

Did I get it right? I can't believe after being such a smart aleck know-it-all that there was still more to learn about this stuff.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by johnnydev
[B]
Well since we're educating the masses here...Why does compression need to be reduced?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SteveUCI
[B]Tim... don't you mean... F x M = a?

 

Stage 6 Motorsports (904 777-3250) also makes a turbo kit for the S2000... in essence it's the same as the Speedcraft kit but a little cheaper.

 

Thanks Windscreen, my meager little mind is starting to understand. That's a really good idea in my case. Let's see if I understand...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Windscreen
[B]The bottom line reason why is to not make the engine overly detonation sensitive.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by johnnydev

[B]
Thanks Windscreen, my meager little mind is starting to understand.

 

Cool. Thanks again for the great explanations.

 

I think that the Mustang owner does not want to believe that a little Japanese 4 cylinder is equal to or better than his car.

Don't get me wrong, I have owned and still own american muscle cars, but the little Honda is a kick ass car to drive. I did have an issue with my engine grenading, but Honda made it all better by covering it under warranty. Honda replaced my whole engine.

Back to the issue, what people should remember is that the weight of the car plays a huge part in the acceleration department. The less weigth you have to accelerate, the less amount of torque required. You can have a shit load of torque, but if your carrying alot of weight, then your going to loose to a car with less weight and torqe.

Remember, the DRIVER still controls the car, if you can't squeeze every last ounce of performance out of your car, then it's possible that you can loose to a Camry.

 

OK, just resurrecting this thread to make it official [as if it wasn't before ]:

I am just a huge, fat, raging ass.

More to the point, I take (almost) all of it back: instantaneous acceleration *is* indeed directly proportional to engine torque in a given gear, and varies gear-to-gear for a given rpm. Torque, as the great man below said, rules, and hp is only important because it lets us take advantage of gearing.

As for that great man -- I also apologize to Bruce Auberlen (sp?). He is my hero and I will never again question anything he writes, says, or indirectly implies. Bruce, I can only hope someday to have the privilege of kissing the soles of your driving shoes.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to finish picking these ugly crow feathers from my teeth.

 

>>>instantaneous acceleration *is* indeed directly proportional to engine torque in a given gear<<<

This is easy to see if you use an in-car performance meter that records the car's movement. You quickly see that in any given gear, max acceleration tracks the torque curve. That is if you graphed "gs" versus RPMs you'd see that the curve is shaped just like the torque curve at lower speeds. As you speed up, drag from the air makes a larger and larger difference.

Stan