Don't be swayed by HP figures....Torque is what really counts.
04-27-14, 07:31 AM
#31
First you need to calm down. Secondly that statement "Horsepower wins the Show, Torque wins the Race" is a blanket statement. Spurred by Carroll Shelby once saying: "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." There are also variations such as "Horsepower steals the show, torque wins the races." These are common terms that are nebulous and merely related not factual to the thread. So lighten up. Perhaps I need to add more emoticons so you'll be able to tell the difference when someone is being factual or making light of something 
04-27-14, 07:53 AM
#32
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
Nah they had it in the very early 80s with a small block 301 turbo as well on the TA turbo. It was still a dog of a motor with 210 hp during the height of the emissions era. It was badged turbo and had an offset hood hump vs the standard trans am shaker hood
04-27-14, 08:33 AM
#33
Lexus Test Driver
Sent from my Nexus 4 using IB AutoGroup
04-27-14, 10:36 AM
#34
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
That blown 301 certainly didn't do the T/A's reputation any good. An Oldsmobile-sourced 403 was also used around that time, but most T/A collectors, today, look for the Pontiac-sourced 400.
04-27-14, 10:47 AM
#35
Lexus Test Driver
Sent from my Nexus 4 using IB AutoGroup
04-27-14, 11:36 AM
#36
Lead Lap
A lot can be said against the classic American muscle car, like it doesn't handle like a BMW M5, it is not really as fast as one would expect it to be, but funny enough it sort of outlived its critics and the
reason is simply that it is the closest you can get to what a car really should be: one hell of a ball of
fun stripped of any logic. Anyone saying that an American muscle car and an Italian car don't speak a very special language, is not a car enthusiast.
Oh yes the subject is torque. Well Audi marketed the V12 Diesel Q7 here, rated to develop about a1000Nm. Ought to help you move your back actor around, if the drive train can really handle all the torque.
04-27-14, 12:16 PM
#37
Originally Posted by Hoovey2411
First you need to calm down. Secondly that statement "Horsepower wins the Show, Torque wins the Race" is a blanket statement. Spurred by Carroll Shelby once saying: "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." There are also variations such as "Horsepower steals the show, torque wins the races."
Shelby was a Road Racer, one of the best in the world until he retired due to heart problems. Road racing has lots of sharp turns & few long straightaways, torque wins the race accelerating out of those turns.
First you need to calm down. Secondly that statement "Horsepower wins the Show, Torque wins the Race" is a blanket statement. Spurred by Carroll Shelby once saying: "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." There are also variations such as "Horsepower steals the show, torque wins the races."
Shelby was a Road Racer, one of the best in the world until he retired due to heart problems. Road racing has lots of sharp turns & few long straightaways, torque wins the race accelerating out of those turns.
Last edited by lobuxracer; 04-28-14 at 07:22 AM.
04-27-14, 12:32 PM
#38
In 1979 Firebirds with the WS6 suspension option & manual transmission got the remaining Pontiac 400ci engines making 220 HP.
In 1980&1981 Firebirds had either the 231ci Buick V6 or the new Pontiac 301ci V8. T/A came with Turbo 301.
04-27-14, 12:56 PM
#39
When Pontiac introduced the 455ci engine in 1970 basically the only change to the engine was the crankshaft. Stroke was increased .25" & main bearing journal diameter was increased .25". Therefore crankshafts are not interchangeable although aftermarket Steel cranks are available to accomplish the same stroke increase. Why did Pontiac make this change? The next year GM required engine compression ratios to be limited to 8.5 to 1 & that required milder camshafts. The most reliable way to maintain or even increase acceleration abilities is to increase crankshaft stroke & therefore low rpm TORQUE.
04-27-14, 01:09 PM
#40
Don't forget one extremely important fact. The old ratings (pre-1972) cannot be compared to horsepower ratings today. For example: Quote:
The ambiguity of gross horsepower ratings means that many pre-1972 American cars were actually a lot less powerful than the advertised figures would suggest. While the late sixties were a golden age of horsepower compared to the late seventies or early eighties, the differences weren’t quite as vast as they appear at first blush. For example, a 1967 Chevrolet Impala with the 396 cu. in. (6,488 cc) V8, rated at 325 gross horsepower (242 kW), probably had something like 220 net horsepower (164 kW) in pure stock form.
So when people look back fondly at the muscle car era and wax poetic about 400+ HP engines, if they were tested today in stock form then would not be putting down near those numbers. Not to mention those engines got 15mpg is you were lucky.
The ambiguity of gross horsepower ratings means that many pre-1972 American cars were actually a lot less powerful than the advertised figures would suggest. While the late sixties were a golden age of horsepower compared to the late seventies or early eighties, the differences weren’t quite as vast as they appear at first blush. For example, a 1967 Chevrolet Impala with the 396 cu. in. (6,488 cc) V8, rated at 325 gross horsepower (242 kW), probably had something like 220 net horsepower (164 kW) in pure stock form.
So when people look back fondly at the muscle car era and wax poetic about 400+ HP engines, if they were tested today in stock form then would not be putting down near those numbers. Not to mention those engines got 15mpg is you were lucky.
04-27-14, 02:48 PM
#41
HP is most important, because it describes the rate at which torque is being generated. (ft lbs PER SECOND). (Torque still matters, though, because we do need some force to accelerate a mass... and more is generally better.)
Simple way to think about it - if you are turning a crank to lift a bucket from, say, a water well, and the 1 gallon bucket weighs 10 lbs (8.34 lbs of water + the weight of the bucket), and the crank handle shaft is 1 ft long, you'll need to apply 10 lbs of force to the crank to lift the bucket. You'll need to apply 10 lbs of force just to keep the bucket from dropping. You'll need to apply 10 lbs of force to lift the bucket as fast as you possible can.
But turning a crank as fast as you can is obviously going to require a lot more WORK than just keeping the bucket from falling. This measure of work is horsepower, and it's all that really matter in regards to how fast that bucket can be lifted. We can always adjust the torque applied by simpling changing the length of the crank's handle. If we make it 2 ft long, we only need 1/2 the force to lift the bucket, and then we could, using the same amount of WORK, then turn the crank twice as fast.
Engine torque doesn't accelerate a car, only torque at the wheels does, and we can use a transmission to change the amount of torque applied at the wheels, infinitely variable. No matter what gearing we use, though, it will always apply same amount of HP to the wheels.
Simple way to think about it - if you are turning a crank to lift a bucket from, say, a water well, and the 1 gallon bucket weighs 10 lbs (8.34 lbs of water + the weight of the bucket), and the crank handle shaft is 1 ft long, you'll need to apply 10 lbs of force to the crank to lift the bucket. You'll need to apply 10 lbs of force just to keep the bucket from dropping. You'll need to apply 10 lbs of force to lift the bucket as fast as you possible can.
But turning a crank as fast as you can is obviously going to require a lot more WORK than just keeping the bucket from falling. This measure of work is horsepower, and it's all that really matter in regards to how fast that bucket can be lifted. We can always adjust the torque applied by simpling changing the length of the crank's handle. If we make it 2 ft long, we only need 1/2 the force to lift the bucket, and then we could, using the same amount of WORK, then turn the crank twice as fast.
Engine torque doesn't accelerate a car, only torque at the wheels does, and we can use a transmission to change the amount of torque applied at the wheels, infinitely variable. No matter what gearing we use, though, it will always apply same amount of HP to the wheels.
Last edited by Infra; 04-27-14 at 02:52 PM.
04-27-14, 05:58 PM
#42
Lexus Test Driver
Pontiac ended production of all V8 engines except the new lighter weight 301ci in 1978.
In 1979 Firebirds with the WS6 suspension option & manual transmission got the remaining Pontiac 400ci engines making 220 HP.
In 1980&1981 Firebirds had either the 231ci Buick V6 or the new Pontiac 301ci V8. T/A came with Turbo 301.
In 1979 Firebirds with the WS6 suspension option & manual transmission got the remaining Pontiac 400ci engines making 220 HP.
In 1980&1981 Firebirds had either the 231ci Buick V6 or the new Pontiac 301ci V8. T/A came with Turbo 301.
If restoring my dad's 67 Firebird doesn't ever pan out, I would love to buy another 89 like what I had(minus the 2.8 V6), and swap in a hopped up 400. Combined with proper suspension upgrades, that should be a hell of a fun car.
04-28-14, 07:32 AM
#45
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
HP is most important, because it describes the rate at which torque is being generated. (ft lbs PER SECOND). (Torque still matters, though, because we do need some force to accelerate a mass... and more is generally better.)
Engine torque doesn't accelerate a car, only torque at the wheels does, and we can use a transmission to change the amount of torque applied at the wheels, infinitely variable. No matter what gearing we use, though, it will always apply same amount of HP to the wheels.
Engine torque doesn't accelerate a car, only torque at the wheels does, and we can use a transmission to change the amount of torque applied at the wheels, infinitely variable. No matter what gearing we use, though, it will always apply same amount of HP to the wheels.
GEARING is why engine torque is irrelevant, but the thing I have not seen here that truly is MOST important is peak numbers for torque AND horsepower are meaningless. What Shelby really meant is "(peak) horsepower sells cars, (a flat) torque (curve) wins races."
The perfect example of this is F1's transition from turbo to non-turbo engines. The engineers saw boost going away, which meant they could only use atmospheric pressure. They had a POWER (not torque) to weight ratio they needed to match to be competitive. So what happened? Overnight we saw F1 engine redlines going from 10k to 18k. Why? Simple - as long as the torque curve is wide enough for the available number of gearbox ratios, we can keep our ability to accelerate despite having our engine torque cut in half by nearly doubling the rpm. At the end of the day, F1 still maintained the speeds they previously attained and did it with half the torque they made in the turbo engines.
It's all math and engineering. Pretty simple math at that!
Sorry Mike, but the whole "torque is king" argument is fundamentally flawed and definitely wrong.