Crower Billet Crankshaft?
- Thread starter SIKDMAX
- Start date
Horsepower-A unit that is used to measure the power of engines and motors. One unit of horsepower is equal to the power needed to lift 550 pounds one foot in one second.
Torque-the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis
Which one has to do with time?
Torque-the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis
Which one has to do with time?
As of right now everyone that i know of who runs the stroker kit has gained little if any HP, but they claim much faster spool up....
I think it's a great idea, but what looks good on paper is not always good in the real world!
List them.
I can't list the trucks I work with because of confidentiality. If one of my tuning customers wants to post their results, they are welcome to, but that's their choice. But you don't have that limitation, so let's hear it.
So far, most of what you posted in here has been based on private conversations you've had with others, myself included.
If you really have worked with increasing displacement in a supercharged engine, I'm puzzled why after a few days you've made no mention of it.
If you don't list sources (which you already have done) to back up your claims, you're probably just making them up. But why? There must be a reason.
I want this to be a tech thread, but I also want those who are presenting "facts" to back them up with something. If it's theory, fine. But claims of imaginary trucks that verify your "tech" is plain silly, and doesn't belong in a tech thread.
That's not my statement. That's the dictionary definition of horsepower and torque. In no way is time associated with torque. How can you claim that torque will play a role in your 1/4 mile time when torque has nothing to do with time? The only way torque plays into 1/4 mile performance is because it is directly related to horsepower.
if tq means little to nothing in 1/4 times why is a 300hp I4 slower then a 300 V8 which is slower then a 300hp diesel. when the vehicles weigh the same...
that question still has not been answered.
HP vs TQ really belongs in comedy. 
2,000ftlb at 0 rpm doesn't do anything. Torque only works with RPM - we call that HP, and when you increase the RPM that the torque happens at, that's what defines a HP increase, not a torque increase, and it's what makes us go faster.
2,000ftlb at 0 rpm doesn't do anything. Torque only works with RPM - we call that HP, and when you increase the RPM that the torque happens at, that's what defines a HP increase, not a torque increase, and it's what makes us go faster.
HP vs TQ really belongs in comedy.
2,000ftlb at 0 rpm doesn't do anything. Torque only works with RPM - we call that HP, and when you increase the RPM that the torque happens at, that's what defines a HP increase, not a torque increase, and it's what makes us go faster.
Exactly! If you have 0 tq and 550 hp, guess what your not goin anywhere on wheels!
Take a Ford Lightning with 360HP and run it against a 360HP LBZ and watch what happens. The difference in MPH will line up with the weight difference between the two trucks. ET's on Lightnings suffer due to traction.
HP vs TQ really belongs in comedy.
2,000ftlb at 0 rpm doesn't do anything. Torque only works with RPM - we call that HP, and when you increase the RPM that the torque happens at, that's what defines a HP increase, not a torque increase, and it's what makes us go faster.
so if i understand that...
the i4 shoudl be faster then the three example cause it spins faster then other two right? but it dont.
that doesnt work lighting is 1-2,000lb lighter...
put balast inthe lighting to weight hte same as the LBZ and see what happends.
if you have a vehilce @ 7000lb and two differnet engines both with same hp but the other has ~2x the torque who will be faster?
Basically tq is what brings you out of the hole. The more tq the crank applies to the wheels = more power to the ground (linear) accelerating the vehicle, then its up to hp to carry the load.
I would bet the diesel leaves the I4 at the start, proving my point.
I would bet the diesel leaves the I4 at the start, proving my point.
The one with more tq will get to the finish line first. Cause it got the jump early on. I dont now about the speed, prolly be the same.
Silly rabbits, it's all about torque. Torque at the rear wheels that is. The drive line modifies the engines torque as it shifts through the gears. To maximize the torque at the rear wheels as you go down the track, you want spin the motor faster so you can stay in lower gears. That is, till the torque at the rear wheels drops below what you would make in the next gear at that speed.
Using your dyno chart, you would be looking at the torque numbers for the pre and post shift RPMs to see where you should be shifting.
But what do I know.
Using your dyno chart, you would be looking at the torque numbers for the pre and post shift RPMs to see where you should be shifting.
But what do I know.
Jeez-o-pete! All the chest thumping about TQ vs. HP is entertaining. Is anyone listening to anyone else, or have personalities gotten in the way and turned this (already way off topic thread) into a "my dix bigger than yours" contest?
There's nothing to argue about. TQ and HP are first cousins. HP is only a mathematical derivative of torque and RPM. No TQ=no HP (or no RPM=no HP too, just to be fair.). As an engine builder, all you have to decide is where in the RPM band you want the torque optimized.
Typically, if a builder wants tons of grunt (a high peak torque number), you will see peak numbers appear in a lower portion of the RPM spectrum. Volumetric efficiency is somewhat simpler to optimize at lower RPM, so peak torque numbers are higher than what you'd see in a similarly prepared high HP engine. GENERALLY speaking these engines lose VE, and thus torque at higher RPM, resulting in ho-hum (relatively speaking) HP numbers. It's a little cliche, but yes, "torque gets it moving".
For the "HP is everything" crowd, well, sure it is. But remember, to get that high HP, you design your build to optimize VE and thus torque at a higher RPM. So in effect, your still building for torque, but at a higher RPM. Now the torque peak numbers you see in these builds is typically less than peak in a grunt motor, because it's tougher to achieve decent VE at higher RPMs. So even though you're not building for bragging rights torque numbers in a high HP build, you are still trying to maintain as high a torque number as possible through a higher, broader portion of the RPM band. To say that torque doesn't matter in a high HP engine is silly. You couldn't show off those high HP dyno sheets without high, sustained torque numbers.
That's why you hear talk about a broad, flat torque curve. Best of both worlds: provide better acceleration from lower vehicle and engine speeds to maximizing vehicle speed (MPH). Any engine which has significant, narrow peaks of either condition (low RPM torque or high RPM horsepower) is gonna be a one trick pony and not fun to drive. Unless of course that's what you want.
There's nothing to argue about. TQ and HP are first cousins. HP is only a mathematical derivative of torque and RPM. No TQ=no HP (or no RPM=no HP too, just to be fair.
). As an engine builder, all you have to decide is where in the RPM band you want the torque optimized.Typically, if a builder wants tons of grunt (a high peak torque number), you will see peak numbers appear in a lower portion of the RPM spectrum. Volumetric efficiency is somewhat simpler to optimize at lower RPM, so peak torque numbers are higher than what you'd see in a similarly prepared high HP engine. GENERALLY speaking these engines lose VE, and thus torque at higher RPM, resulting in ho-hum (relatively speaking) HP numbers. It's a little cliche, but yes, "torque gets it moving".
For the "HP is everything" crowd, well, sure it is. But remember, to get that high HP, you design your build to optimize VE and thus torque at a higher RPM. So in effect, your still building for torque, but at a higher RPM. Now the torque peak numbers you see in these builds is typically less than peak in a grunt motor, because it's tougher to achieve decent VE at higher RPMs. So even though you're not building for bragging rights torque numbers in a high HP build, you are still trying to maintain as high a torque number as possible through a higher, broader portion of the RPM band. To say that torque doesn't matter in a high HP engine is silly. You couldn't show off those high HP dyno sheets without high, sustained torque numbers.
That's why you hear talk about a broad, flat torque curve. Best of both worlds: provide better acceleration from lower vehicle and engine speeds to maximizing vehicle speed (MPH). Any engine which has significant, narrow peaks of either condition (low RPM torque or high RPM horsepower) is gonna be a one trick pony and not fun to drive. Unless of course that's what you want.
Jeez-o-pete! All the chest thumping about TQ vs. HP is entertaining. Is anyone listening to anyone else, or have personalities gotten in the way and turned this (already way off topic thread) into a "my dix bigger than yours" contest?
There's nothing to argue about. TQ and HP are first cousins. HP is only a mathematical derivative of torque and RPM. No TQ=no HP (or no RPM=no HP too, just to be fair.
Typically, if a builder wants tons of grunt (a high peak torque number), you will see peak numbers appear in a lower portion of the RPM spectrum. Volumetric efficiency is somewhat simpler to optimize at lower RPM, so peak torque numbers are higher than what you'd see in a similarly prepared high HP engine. GENERALLY speaking these engines lose VE, and thus torque at higher RPM, resulting in ho-hum (relatively speaking) HP numbers. It's a little cliche, but yes, "torque gets it moving".
For the "HP is everything" crowd, well, sure it is. But remember, to get that high HP, you design your build to optimize VE and thus torque at a higher RPM. So in effect, your still building for torque, but at a higher RPM. Now the torque peak numbers you see in these builds is typically less than peak in a grunt motor, because it's tougher to achieve decent VE at higher RPMs. So even though you're not building for bragging rights torque numbers in a high HP build, you are still trying to maintain as high a torque number as possible through a higher, broader portion of the RPM band. To say that torque doesn't matter in a high HP engine is silly. You couldn't show off those high HP dyno sheets without high, sustained torque numbers.
That's why you hear talk about a broad, flat torque curve. Best of both worlds: provide better acceleration from lower vehicle and engine speeds to maximizing vehicle speed (MPH). Any engine which has significant, narrow peaks of either condition (low RPM torque or high RPM horsepower) is gonna be a one trick pony and not fun to drive. Unless of course that's what you want.
:thankyou:
Jeez-o-pete! All the chest thumping about TQ vs. HP is entertaining. Is anyone listening to anyone else, or have personalities gotten in the way and turned this (already way off topic thread) into a "my dix bigger than yours" contest?
There's nothing to argue about. TQ and HP are first cousins. HP is only a mathematical derivative of torque and RPM. No TQ=no HP (or no RPM=no HP too, just to be fair.
Typically, if a builder wants tons of grunt (a high peak torque number), you will see peak numbers appear in a lower portion of the RPM spectrum. Volumetric efficiency is somewhat simpler to optimize at lower RPM, so peak torque numbers are higher than what you'd see in a similarly prepared high HP engine. GENERALLY speaking these engines lose VE, and thus torque at higher RPM, resulting in ho-hum (relatively speaking) HP numbers. It's a little cliche, but yes, "torque gets it moving".
For the "HP is everything" crowd, well, sure it is. But remember, to get that high HP, you design your build to optimize VE and thus torque at a higher RPM. So in effect, your still building for torque, but at a higher RPM. Now the torque peak numbers you see in these builds is typically less than peak in a grunt motor, because it's tougher to achieve decent VE at higher RPMs. So even though you're not building for bragging rights torque numbers in a high HP build, you are still trying to maintain as high a torque number as possible through a higher, broader portion of the RPM band. To say that torque doesn't matter in a high HP engine is silly. You couldn't show off those high HP dyno sheets without high, sustained torque numbers.
That's why you hear talk about a broad, flat torque curve. Best of both worlds: provide better acceleration from lower vehicle and engine speeds to maximizing vehicle speed (MPH). Any engine which has significant, narrow peaks of either condition (low RPM torque or high RPM horsepower) is gonna be a one trick pony and not fun to drive. Unless of course that's what you want.
great explanation .
Last edited: