4x4ord wrote:
Bruce Brown wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
Torque just seems to confuse people. Torque without rpm is useless and torque with rpm is power. Like you mentioned: my example of the lower torque engine putting more torque to the rear axle wasn't fair because the lower torque engine was more powerful.....that is the point power is what matters.
The peak torque figure in conjunction with rpm (which equates to power) and peak Hp describe an engine's pulling and driving characteristics.
Torque doesn't confuse me even a little. Part of my real job is spec'ing in motors and gear boxes for industrial applications. Make a mistake on a $40,000 gearbox and shut a plant down that charges off downtime by the minute and I'd better have my information straight.
As far as the "torque without rpm" statement, that's where a diesel shines. It doesn't have much of a torque curve, it's more of a torque line. A N/A gasser may make decent peak torque, but get even a few 100 RPMs away from that peak and watch it drop to it's knees.
The new generation of boosted gassers (Ford's Ecoboost, for example) do offer a very wide torque band at a very low RPM, kind of diesel like, actually.
The point is that an engine that produces 400 lbft of torque may or may not be capable of pulling anything. 400 lb ft of torque means absolutely nothing without knowing an rpm.
An engine that makes 400 rear wheel HP can be geared to move a 22,000 lb rv up an 8% grade at about 60 mph. It doesn't matter whether that HP is coming from diesel, gasoline or krypton.
After reading this hp vs torque argument for years you point makes total sense.
My 1 inch impact gun can produce 1000 lbs of torque. So can a Briggs and Stratton geared properly. Neither one will move a motorhome. I would agree tourque without rpm is useless. There is more to it then just a number.
