True....but Gross vs. Net ratings weren't the only factor either. After 1970, de-tuning of the engines for emissions also took out a lot of power. By 1975, most American engines had become a joke, even with the then-new catalytic converters.

 

I have been saying this for a while. The most important factors on the cars would be Torque and Weight.

 

It was a factor, but also not as significant as some make it out to be. Even if we chop off 20% after the emissions standards kicked in, put that 20% back and many of the mid 70's engines would still be a pathetic excuse for power given their displacement. But they did still have decent enough torque so around town the cars didn't feel completely gutless.

Speaking of torque and hybrids, a good example of this is the Highlander. Instead of going for all out efficiency Toyota basically matched the horsepower rating of the non hybrid engine. But the torque is another story, the Highlander hybrid is VERY responsive around town and even at freeway speeds. Stomp the pedal and you can blow by cars like nothing. That's torque for you.

I have not driven a Tesla S but I can imagine it is an amazing experience, the torque curve is completely flat.

 

Tesla S is nice, and I would love High Performance Hybrid. You will not run out of Juice. Unlike the Tesla S, you will run out of Juice. Beside, what if every one tap into the Grid ?

 

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

 

Not enough emoticons. Needs 4 more

 

No! HP, torque, gearing, drive train loss and weight all matter

 

Agreed. HP vs Torque won't be resolved here.

 

I would love nothing more than to have my dad's old 67 Firebird. That 400 cubic inch engine from Pontiac is a torque monster. I recall reading that it offered superior performance in a 68 test by C&D in the pony car segment, including against its cousin, the Camaro...being that Chevy engines were high revvers and didn't have as much low-end torque as the old indian.

 

Yeah, but so far we've been seeing a bunch of priceless commentary from some of the experts.

 

Most cars have a good balance of HP & torque.

Drive a diesel they have so much low end torque but then they just run out of breath.

Here's the performance curve of the Audi 2.0L TDI

 

But outright acceleration is all about HP to weight ratio. Take the diesel 330d as it has roughly the same torque to weight ratio as an F1 car. Yet it doesn't accelerates no where near an F1 car

 

Firebirds are very rare here, never been brought in officially by GM (they have a plant here since before the great depression). Once knew a guy who had a collection on his plot which will send the guys on American Pickers in a spin. Had a Firebird there which was turbocharged. Guy sweared that it was factory fitted. To thicken the plot, it had a moniker on the rear deck to denote this fact (but it could've been aftermarket). Was it an option or a special production run?
How would that influence the already massive torque? Also interesting to look in general how turbo
charging influence torque (meaning torque curve etc).

 

Even last year's V8 F1 cars were 642kg and produced around 300Nm, so quite a bit higher torque to weight than the 330d, which weighs 1500kg+ and peaks around 550Nm. (And obviously the new turbo F1 engines produce way more torque - well more than enough to offset the increased weight, so an even higher torque-to-weight.)

In any case, your conclusion is nevertheless correct. The reason is that gearing can keep the engine in the rpm range of peak hp, which makes torque largely irrelevant.

 

Any idea what year or generation that Firebird was? As far as I know, the only year they offered a factory turbo was in 89 on the GTA model, which was actually a Buick V6 engine.