750 BHP with NO boost

This is a general discussion forum, open to all participants

750 BHP with NO boost

Postby rhys » September 22nd, 2010, 11:23 pm

Ok so to be fair this is coming from an Aston Martin 7.3L V12. But it is pushing out 750 BHP which is a decent effort when you consider the original Bugatti Veyron 8.0L Quad Turbo Intercooled W16 engine only produced 1001 HP (764 KW).

See the link for a vid:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/asto ... 2010-10-21
Last edited by rhys on September 23rd, 2010, 1:28 am, edited 3 times in total.
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

Re: 560 RWKW with NO boost

Postby krisisdog » September 22nd, 2010, 11:27 pm

BHP is not rear wheel power, its still measured at the motor.
>>> EF Futura Turbo <<<
Now rolling in a tuned turbo Forester as a daily
User avatar
krisisdog
Breaking Intake Welds
 
Posts: 4115
Joined: August 1st, 2007, 10:03 pm
Location: Grafton
Has Liked: 17 times
Been Liked: 56 times

1995 Ford Falcon

Re: 560 RWKW with NO boost

Postby rhys » September 22nd, 2010, 11:28 pm

Brake horsepower
Brake horsepower (bhp) is the measure of an engine's horsepower without the loss in power caused by the gearbox, alternator, differential, water pump, and other auxiliary components such as power steering pump, muffled exhaust system, etc. Brake refers to a device which was used to load an engine and hold it at a desired RPM. During testing, the output torque and rotational speed were measured to determine the brake horsepower. Horsepower was originally measured and calculated by use of the indicator (a James Watt invention of the late 18th century), and later by means of a De Prony brake connected to the engine's output shaft. More recently, an engine dynamometer is used instead of a De Prony brake. The output delivered to the driving wheels is less than that obtainable at the engine's crankshaft.

Ok so i did not know this, I was a bit misled there I guess. But none the less still one hell of an effort!
Last edited by rhys on September 22nd, 2010, 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

Re: 560 RWKW with NO boost

Postby Steady » September 22nd, 2010, 11:30 pm

brake horse power doesn't mean "at the brakes" :lol:
User avatar
Steady
Breaking Intake Welds
 
Posts: 4505
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 4:10 pm
Location: Melburn, where crackpipes burn speed
Has Liked: 1 time
Been Liked: 10 times

1993 Ford XR8 Sprint

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby rhys » September 22nd, 2010, 11:37 pm

Steady wrote:brake horse power doesn't mean "at the brakes" :lol:


Yes because when I hear brake horse power i automatically think it wont be at the brakes. Also misleading that they said it was measured on a dyno / rolling road.

Doesnt matter, its still the most powerful NA motor ever put into production.
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby krisisdog » September 22nd, 2010, 11:57 pm

Whoever wrote the 'article' fucked up, and probably thinks the same as you.
>>> EF Futura Turbo <<<
Now rolling in a tuned turbo Forester as a daily
User avatar
krisisdog
Breaking Intake Welds
 
Posts: 4115
Joined: August 1st, 2007, 10:03 pm
Location: Grafton
Has Liked: 17 times
Been Liked: 56 times

1995 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby rhys » September 23rd, 2010, 12:04 am

krisisdog wrote: probably thinks the same as you used to.


fixed. lol :grin:
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby Troutman » September 23rd, 2010, 12:56 am

Just FYI the Veyron has merely 16 cylinders.
'98 Crown Victoria + '07 Caprice
User avatar
Troutman
Cruising
 
Posts: 450
Joined: January 18th, 2009, 9:18 pm
Has Liked: 13 times
Been Liked: 46 times

2007 Holden Caprice

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby sdoylie » September 23rd, 2010, 5:02 am

Troutman wrote:Just FYI the Veyron has merely 16 cylinders.


and its 4wd. and it can do over 400kms an hr. and its got 22inch run flats. and it rocks.

but the aston is still a pretty good effort.

on the subject of powerful engines. does anyone know if the s2000 still has the most power to capacity out there?
nstg8a wrote:lol, im thinking teabagging has a different meaning here in oz compared to nz? cos thats the last thing id be thinking of doing to someone that sideswiped my car...
User avatar
sdoylie
Spooling Up
 
Posts: 534
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 12:05 pm
Location: Muswellbrook, NSW
Has Liked: 15 times
Been Liked: 6 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby krisisdog » September 23rd, 2010, 11:46 am

# Petrol (naturally-aspirated) piston engine - 93.13 kW (124.9 hp) per litre - 2009 Ferrari 458 Italia 419 kW (562 hp) 4.499 L V8
# Petrol (forced-induction) piston engine - 151.2 kW (203 hp) per litre - 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII FQ400 302 kW (405 hp) 2.0 L I4
S2000 is 92.1kw (123.5hp) per litre, the Ferrari only came out this year
>>> EF Futura Turbo <<<
Now rolling in a tuned turbo Forester as a daily
User avatar
krisisdog
Breaking Intake Welds
 
Posts: 4115
Joined: August 1st, 2007, 10:03 pm
Location: Grafton
Has Liked: 17 times
Been Liked: 56 times

1995 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby sdoylie » September 23rd, 2010, 5:17 pm

wow. still not bad for a honda though aye. go the evo.
nstg8a wrote:lol, im thinking teabagging has a different meaning here in oz compared to nz? cos thats the last thing id be thinking of doing to someone that sideswiped my car...
User avatar
sdoylie
Spooling Up
 
Posts: 534
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 12:05 pm
Location: Muswellbrook, NSW
Has Liked: 15 times
Been Liked: 6 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby Rollin » September 23rd, 2010, 6:47 pm

I think in england they just say bhp out of habit, without actually knowing why they are saying it. I've noticed on Top Gear they say bhp for EVERYTHING, even when they measure a car on the dyno, like "It's got 123 brake horsepower at the wheels" and I'm sitting there just going SIGH.
Image

Look at your car. Now back to mine. Now back to yours. Now back to mine. Sadly, yours isn't mine. But if you stopped buying dodgy cars and bought an ED, yours could be like mine. Look down. Back up. Where are you? ...You're on BoostedFalcon, reading the signature your signature could be like! Anything is possible when your car looks like my car... I'm on a computer.
User avatar
Rollin
Melting Pistons
 
Posts: 7933
Joined: July 15th, 2007, 4:35 pm
Location: Brisbane - Driving around in a metal and glass case of emotion!
Has Liked: 327 times
Been Liked: 751 times

1994 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby Steady » September 23rd, 2010, 6:50 pm

kw/l is a wank.
User avatar
Steady
Breaking Intake Welds
 
Posts: 4505
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 4:10 pm
Location: Melburn, where crackpipes burn speed
Has Liked: 1 time
Been Liked: 10 times

1993 Ford XR8 Sprint

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby rhys » September 23rd, 2010, 9:23 pm

Aston Martin wrote:6 speed Automated Manual Transmission with Auto Shift Manual /
Select Shift Manual (ASM/SSM) electro-hydraulic control system


What a name for their gearbox!

http://www.astonmartin.com/eng/thecars/ ... cification
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby sdoylie » September 24th, 2010, 5:22 pm

Steady wrote:kw/l is a wank.


why?
its damn impressive.
try working out your own cars' power/litre.
most falcons would be dismal.
nstg8a wrote:lol, im thinking teabagging has a different meaning here in oz compared to nz? cos thats the last thing id be thinking of doing to someone that sideswiped my car...
User avatar
sdoylie
Spooling Up
 
Posts: 534
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 12:05 pm
Location: Muswellbrook, NSW
Has Liked: 15 times
Been Liked: 6 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby Troutman » September 24th, 2010, 11:17 pm

sdoylie wrote:
Steady wrote:kw/l is a wank.


why?
its damn impressive.
try working out your own cars' power/litre.
most falcons would be dismal.


I'm obliged to side with Steady on this one, especially as a GM LS series driver. :grin: If a motor has good power output, reasonable efficiency, low weight, relatively small external dimensions and easy upgradability, why would anyone care if its engine capacity is a bit higher than average? A given engine might also be dismal in kW-per-cylinder, or kW-per-valve, or kW-to-oil-sump-ratio, but a good motor is a good motor to my mind.

Argument #2, there is a thing called torque, and it isn't the S2000's specialty. I regard the Falcon six as a better motor than the Commodore 3.0 for this very reason, even if the latter is far superior in 'kW/L'.

That said, I admire those kW/L figures from an engineering perspective, even if the big 'BHP' numbers often come at the expense of real-world drivability.

Cheers.
'98 Crown Victoria + '07 Caprice
User avatar
Troutman
Cruising
 
Posts: 450
Joined: January 18th, 2009, 9:18 pm
Has Liked: 13 times
Been Liked: 46 times

2007 Holden Caprice

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby Rollin » September 25th, 2010, 12:45 am

I'm with Steady also - kw/L is for waking over in brochures and nothing else,

What you're looking for is packaging. A 300kw LS2 is a SHITLOAD better than a 300kw 5.4L even though it makes less power per litre, because the 5.4 is a physically massive engine that doesn't really fit in anything apart from a falcon, whereas an LSx motor is comparatively tiny and so can be used in many different types of vehicle. It also has a much better center of gravity and more headroom for power increases.

An RB20DET with a tune, bigger fuel pump, intercooler and 3" exhaust will make 160rwkw, but an ED 4 litre with a cam, tune and exhaust will make the same and take up less physical space doing it, again, with more headroom for power increases.
Image

Look at your car. Now back to mine. Now back to yours. Now back to mine. Sadly, yours isn't mine. But if you stopped buying dodgy cars and bought an ED, yours could be like mine. Look down. Back up. Where are you? ...You're on BoostedFalcon, reading the signature your signature could be like! Anything is possible when your car looks like my car... I'm on a computer.
User avatar
Rollin
Melting Pistons
 
Posts: 7933
Joined: July 15th, 2007, 4:35 pm
Location: Brisbane - Driving around in a metal and glass case of emotion!
Has Liked: 327 times
Been Liked: 751 times

1994 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby sdoylie » September 25th, 2010, 5:09 am

you make a good point Rollin.

in the end capacity usually wins out in the maximum power an engine can push out. any v8 lovin neanderthal will tell you that.
nstg8a wrote:lol, im thinking teabagging has a different meaning here in oz compared to nz? cos thats the last thing id be thinking of doing to someone that sideswiped my car...
User avatar
sdoylie
Spooling Up
 
Posts: 534
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 12:05 pm
Location: Muswellbrook, NSW
Has Liked: 15 times
Been Liked: 6 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby reinaldo » August 18th, 2011, 10:55 am

Brake horsepower (bhp) is the measure of the engine's horsepower. I thought it has something to do with the brakes. By the way, I bought newaston martin parts to improve the horsepower of my car and bhp as well.
reinaldo
Banned
 
Posts: 4
Joined: August 4th, 2011, 7:37 pm
Has Liked: 0 time
Been Liked: 0 time

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby brad_m » August 18th, 2011, 11:23 am

Troutman wrote:
sdoylie wrote:
Steady wrote:kw/l is a wank.


why?
its damn impressive.
try working out your own cars' power/litre.
most falcons would be dismal.


I'm obliged to side with Steady on this one, especially as a GM LS series driver. :grin: If a motor has good power output, reasonable efficiency, low weight, relatively small external dimensions and easy upgradability, why would anyone care if its engine capacity is a bit higher than average? A given engine might also be dismal in kW-per-cylinder, or kW-per-valve, or kW-to-oil-sump-ratio, but a good motor is a good motor to my mind.

Argument #2, there is a thing called torque, and it isn't the S2000's specialty. I regard the Falcon six as a better motor than the Commodore 3.0 for this very reason, even if the latter is far superior in 'kW/L'.

That said, I admire those kW/L figures from an engineering perspective, even if the big 'BHP' numbers often come at the expense of real-world drivability.

Cheers.



The S2000 engine does alright for it self considering it's operating RPM is 1000rpm to 9000rpm.
Peak power and torque spread on that engine is awsome and it's torque is still above average for a 2L engine.

It's like a 4L falcon engine making about 490hp and being sedate enough that your nana could drive it to the shops.

Saying an LS engine is better because it makes more torque is like having a wank over the hot chick from next door, It might be fun but you still just having a wank.
If you follow this advice and 'the dyno' can't 'give you what you wanted'. Remember one thing, I don't give a shit what 'the dyno' says.
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first ensure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by arseholes!
User avatar
brad_m
Cruising
 
Posts: 417
Joined: January 19th, 2011, 8:14 pm
Location: Townsville
Has Liked: 9 times
Been Liked: 56 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby Duffman » August 18th, 2011, 11:41 am

you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?
Duffman
Breaking Traction
 
Posts: 1382
Joined: December 29th, 2009, 3:45 pm
Has Liked: 15 times
Been Liked: 41 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby NUT347 » August 18th, 2011, 12:14 pm

you people realise this thread is almost a year old?

Looks like old mate got banned for bumping it also.
NUT347
Melting Pistons
 
Posts: 7553
Joined: June 22nd, 2008, 7:09 pm
Location: Brisbane
Has Liked: 911 times
Been Liked: 1254 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby iCER » August 18th, 2011, 2:03 pm

isnt BHP like saying F(ly)W(heel)KW?
Dyno-Mite Performance Tuned
+480RWKW on ~24psi 140+MPH CLUB
Current Fastest time: 10.05 @ 136mph on 275 ET streets.

Mod list: http://www.boostedfalcon.net/garage_vehicle.php?mode=view_vehicle&VID=138
User avatar
iCER
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: April 21st, 2010, 11:24 am
Has Liked: 58 times
Been Liked: 57 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby rhys » August 18th, 2011, 3:11 pm

yes that was established at the start of the thread. Term not usually used here.
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby iCER » August 18th, 2011, 6:50 pm

Just get a BA spend 40k and have 750 bhp :P Half the cyl and half the LTR capacity! Run 10s and save hundreds of thousands! WIN :D
Dyno-Mite Performance Tuned
+480RWKW on ~24psi 140+MPH CLUB
Current Fastest time: 10.05 @ 136mph on 275 ET streets.

Mod list: http://www.boostedfalcon.net/garage_vehicle.php?mode=view_vehicle&VID=138
User avatar
iCER
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: April 21st, 2010, 11:24 am
Has Liked: 58 times
Been Liked: 57 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby AaronEF8 » August 18th, 2011, 7:01 pm : AdamF Likes this post

thanks for confirming yet again that you are mentally retarded.
220rwkw SR20 > your car, according to you.
Commando wrote:seriously, this thread is now a complete cyber skip bin filled with all kinds of waste from the internet...
AaronEF8
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2675
Joined: July 20th, 2007, 11:40 pm
Location: Melbourne East
Has Liked: 55 times
Been Liked: 245 times

1997 Ford Fairmont

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby bentls » August 18th, 2011, 7:39 pm

axeman83 wrote:you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?

lol.
it amazes me how many people have misguided views on torque and hp.
Image
94 soarer
01 senator signature 5.7
96 k11 micra
User avatar
bentls
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: July 16th, 2007, 10:10 pm
Has Liked: 277 times
Been Liked: 158 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby rhys » August 18th, 2011, 8:37 pm

bentls wrote:
axeman83 wrote:you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?

lol.
it amazes me how many people have misguided views on torque and hp.


Of course, what do you expect when thats how so many cars are advertised?

Diesels always claiming their torque figures and petrol claiming their KW figures. Leads to laypeople thinking they are different entities.
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby InfernalTyrant » August 18th, 2011, 9:05 pm

They ARE different.
Ban low performance drivers, not high performance cars.
User avatar
InfernalTyrant
Breaking Traction
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: May 15th, 2010, 12:38 pm
Location: Thorpdale
Has Liked: 31 times
Been Liked: 39 times

1989 Ford S Pack

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby rhys » August 18th, 2011, 9:09 pm

No they arent:

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_te ... torque.htm

one is derived from the other.

The ARE useful though as they show where the power is in range. Due to the formula being (HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252) if you have lots of power down low it will produce a high torque figure. But if your making all your power up top and have a lazy low range power then the torque figure will be lower.

Here are some examples from the website:

Example 1: How much TORQUE is required to produce 300 HP at 2700 RPM?
since HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252
then by rearranging the equation:
TORQUE = HP x 5252 ÷ RPM
Answer: TORQUE = 300 x 5252 ÷ 2700 = 584 lb-ft.

Example 2: How much TORQUE is required to produce 300 HP at 4600 RPM?
Answer: TORQUE = 300 x 5252 ÷ 4600 = 343 lb-ft.

Example 3: How much TORQUE is required to produce 300 HP at 8000 RPM?
Answer: TORQUE = 300 x 5252 ÷ 8000 = 197 lb-ft.

Example 4: How much TORQUE does the 41,000 RPM turbine section of a 300 HP gas turbine engine produce?
Answer: TORQUE = 300 x 5252 ÷ 41,000 = 38.4 lb-ft.
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby Dansedgli » August 18th, 2011, 9:15 pm

They are different but they are directly related. You cant have one without the other.
User avatar
Dansedgli
Melting Pistons
 
Posts: 9734
Joined: July 13th, 2007, 11:35 am
Location: Melbourne
Has Liked: 75 times
Been Liked: 542 times

2001 Ford Falcon Ute

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby AaronEF8 » August 18th, 2011, 9:25 pm

And Carrol Shelby said the perfect quote regarding it in the mid 60s.

Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.
Commando wrote:seriously, this thread is now a complete cyber skip bin filled with all kinds of waste from the internet...
AaronEF8
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2675
Joined: July 20th, 2007, 11:40 pm
Location: Melbourne East
Has Liked: 55 times
Been Liked: 245 times

1997 Ford Fairmont

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby brad_m » August 18th, 2011, 9:30 pm

axeman83 wrote:you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?



In a round a bout kind of way yeah it's the same.
Torque is the actual rotational force, HP is the work done over time. Being that they in fact different, it's perfectly acceptable to talk about them the way it has been.
If you follow this advice and 'the dyno' can't 'give you what you wanted'. Remember one thing, I don't give a shit what 'the dyno' says.
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first ensure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by arseholes!
User avatar
brad_m
Cruising
 
Posts: 417
Joined: January 19th, 2011, 8:14 pm
Location: Townsville
Has Liked: 9 times
Been Liked: 56 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby rhys » August 18th, 2011, 9:30 pm

Maybe back then :?

F1 cars make less than 300 NM, as a comparison an EA makes 311 NM.

That website explains it perfectly. Look at the graphs down the bottom.

HP is simply a calculation from the measured force of torque when given the RPM.
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

750 BHP with NO boost

Postby wombi90 » August 18th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Are u really comparing a ea to a f1?
User avatar
wombi90
Breaking Traction
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: April 20th, 2011, 5:05 pm
Has Liked: 138 times
Been Liked: 69 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby AaronEF8 » August 18th, 2011, 10:35 pm

Basically, yes.
A 4.0 doing 7,000rpm also has a higher piston speed than a V8 F1 engine doing 18,000rpm.

Does anyone think an EA motor is better than an F1 motor though? I really hope not.
He's just showing that random facts don't mean shit in the real world.
Commando wrote:seriously, this thread is now a complete cyber skip bin filled with all kinds of waste from the internet...
AaronEF8
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2675
Joined: July 20th, 2007, 11:40 pm
Location: Melbourne East
Has Liked: 55 times
Been Liked: 245 times

1997 Ford Fairmont

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby XR_Lightning » August 18th, 2011, 10:42 pm

NUT347 wrote:you people realise this thread is almost a year old?

Looks like old mate got banned for bumping it also.


or for saying he has bought Aston Martin parts for his car :lol:
ED XR6 - T5 - 1521a@112 - 3.9's - 170.2rwkw - POWERED BY METALLICA
User avatar
XR_Lightning
Hitting N2O
 
Posts: 3716
Joined: July 23rd, 2007, 6:48 pm
Location: Dandenong North
Has Liked: 1076 times
Been Liked: 487 times

1993 Ford ED Falcon XR6

750 BHP with NO boost

Postby wicksy » August 18th, 2011, 10:46 pm

What happened to steady
User avatar
wicksy
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2068
Joined: February 16th, 2008, 9:17 pm
Location: mackay
Has Liked: 137 times
Been Liked: 55 times

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby rhys » August 18th, 2011, 10:53 pm

AaronEF8 wrote:He's just showing that random facts don't mean shit in the real world.


Im glad someone is able to interpret a basic argument on the internet.

Yes I was comparing them - directly. Because the obscene comparison shows that the statement of 'torque winning races' is not at all correct. But in saying that with cars in the mid 60's being very low revving hence having high torque compared with HP, that statement was pretty darn spot on at the time.
1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 - 5 spd manual - 33" mud tyres - BBQ gas - Slower than your nannas corolla - Goes anywhere you point it

AU Falcon - Sold
Tickford 4L - Pod - XR6 Turbo snorkel - Custom Stainless Intake - SS Inductions T/B - Ph4480's - 3" 200CPSI Hi flow cat - Custom Exhaust - T5 - Exedy HD clutch - SVI LPG - Premium sound - T3 TE50 kit - Bollé Tint - Full XR8 interior
User avatar
rhys
Full Boost
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: Upper Gully, Vic
Has Liked: 7 times
Been Liked: 8 times

1998 Ford Falcon

Re: 750 BHP with NO boost

Postby brad_m » August 19th, 2011, 10:29 am

rhys375 wrote:
AaronEF8 wrote:He's just showing that random facts don't mean shit in the real world.


Im glad someone is able to interpret a basic argument on the internet.

Yes I was comparing them - directly. Because the obscene comparison shows that the statement of 'torque winning races' is not at all correct. But in saying that with cars in the mid 60's being very low revving hence having high torque compared with HP, that statement was pretty darn spot on at the time.



You could probably clarify a statement like that but saying Torque a the aplicable RPM wins races.

Say you have two F1 engine that operate between 10 000rpm and 18 000 rpm they both produce a nice flat torque curve. only one has on average 20nm more torque. In the end the extra torque will mean a faster car.
BUT
As the world goes at that RPM we tend to refer to HP, so you can see where this is leading.

HP power wins races, and good marketing sells cars.
If you follow this advice and 'the dyno' can't 'give you what you wanted'. Remember one thing, I don't give a shit what 'the dyno' says.
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first ensure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by arseholes!
User avatar
brad_m
Cruising
 
Posts: 417
Joined: January 19th, 2011, 8:14 pm
Location: Townsville
Has Liked: 9 times
Been Liked: 56 times

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron