that's why that kind of power is shared into supra or evo
not a bus or an 18-wheeler

Too bad it's inaccurate. Torque might help sell big domestic engines, but horsepower wins races.

Actually, it is correct. Torque IS what wins races. At least, drag races.

Torque is certainly an advantage in first gear, but after that the torquey-car would be losing it's lead. So if you are referring to a drag race where the racers only go through first gear, then torque will win. Otherwise (assuming the other car has higher horsepower), it will catch up during the end of first gear through all of the remaining gears and win a drag race like a 1/4 mi.

So ideally for a drag race, you would have a car with a strong bottom end torque AND high end horsepower. However, torque alone is not superior to horsepower in a drag race.

You are incorrect. Torque is used throughout the entire run. The shift points are determined by the torque of the engine. You shift when the gear you are in is at an RPM where it has less torque than the rpm of the next gear.
Read and learn:
http://www.newtiburon.com/forums/sho...t=shift+points

Plus, HP is just a calculated number based off torque.

So, Torque IS what wins races. HP numbers sell cars.

Ok, you've got a few problems here. The shift points are determined by the horsepower of the engine.

For example, under full throttle, a CVT will remain pinned at the RPMs of peak horsepower, NOT peak torque, why is that?

Secondly, short shifting to maximize your torque curve is a silly idea. First of all, you will not obtain maximum acceleration because you will shift out of your horsePOWER BAND. Also, both horsepower and torque are less powerful in a higher gear. In other words, 200 horsepower (or torque) in 2nd gear will accelerate you faster than 200 HP (or torque) in 3rd gear because of power multiplication.

And after all that, if you still think that torque wins races not horsepower, consider this example.

2006 Honda S2000
2005 Ford Mustang (V-6)

S2000 does the 1/4 mi in 14.0 (C&D) and the Mustang does it in 15.3 (C&D).

The S2000 has 237 hp and 162 ft-lbs of torque
The Mustang has 202 hp and 235 ft-lbs of torque

The S2000 does the 1/4 mi in 1.3 less seconds!! Yet the mustang has 145% of the horsepower of the S2k. Conversely, the S2k only has 17% higher horsepower. So why is such a torque-rich car much slower than the S2k? (Mainly) Horsepower.

*Note - there is a weight difference, 2855 vs. 3300, but that is not enough to make up for this huge disparity in performance.

Not enough of a weight difference?? Thats almost 500 lbs!! You're trying to compare 2 COMPLETELY different cars, that are designed for 2 completely different purposes....
you get the

award

Ok, how's this:
The mustang has a much higher Torque to weight ratio: 0.0712 vs. 0.0567 of the S2k.

The S2000 has a much higher HP to weight ratio: 0.083 vs 0.0612 of the Mustang.

So now that we've factored in weight, horsepower is still more dominant than torque.....

Right, and I would say if anything, the S2000 is not designed for short track drag racing.... especially not when compared to the mustang.

Grow up. We're civilly debating horsepower and torque, and you come in and act like a 12 year old. If you have something pertinent to contribute, then do so.

welcome to the internet.......

agreed. Continue to hold your own EricJ0n...

445 pounds is not enough to make up for this huge disparity in performance?! LOL!

You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think.

I'm glad I'm not the only one here that sees this....lol

Did you read the post about POWER to weight ratios? The mustang still has a much higher torque to weight ratio, and a much lower torque to weight ratio. If torque mattered EQUALLY to horsepower, the cars would be fairly evenly matched. I never said torque doesn't matter, but horsepower is more important.

wow, you just don't get it do you.....just by swapping gears in the rear end of a GT mustang you can knock a considerable amount of time off your 1/4....It's an all around package for the car, gearing, WHP, TQ......A tank makes 1000 hp and tops out at 40 mph... WHY? because of gearing and weight......

Once again, gearing.

Torque nor horsepower mean anything without gearing. Not to mention that the design of the V6 Mustang is absolute **** while the design of the S2000 is a autocrosser's dream.

an autocrossers dream, not a drag-strip king.

I never disagreed about the gearing point, it makes a huge difference. It helps to multiple the power hitting the ground and keep you in your power peak.

What about the S2000 gives it such wonderful gearing? Is it the ratios or the transmission losses? If anything, first is a little short for drag racing.

The biggest reason the S2k is such a formidable car (given it's lack of torque) is because of the ridiculous redline which maximizes horsepower*!

*and gearing helps - ok?

Thank you...

As Bruce Augenstein said: "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*."

Honestly you need all 3 in order to have a kickass car, drag or street.

I have a short first gear..... does that make my car not formidable for drag racing? No.......... Get your noob butt outta here.

lol ....

Wow.

Some of you guys really need to do your homework because you obviously have no idea what horsepower and torque are in reference to automobiles or mechanical engines.

Here's your basic conversion: Hp = (Tq * RPM)/5252
(5252 is generally where torque and horsepower should be equal)

Torque is what makes your car move. Torque is what makes the car go faster when you press on the accelerator. Torque is what makes a muscle car's tire's chirp when they down shift at 70 mph and hit the gas. When you get thrown back in your seat during acceleration, you are feeling torque.
But horsepower is just as important... because horsepower translates out to how long your car can pull. It also translates out to how fast a car can go.
Torque is really important at higher RPMs... which is where the single most important aspect of racing is concerned... gearing.

So if you want to get really technical, the quote should read like this: Horsepower + Torque + Gearing = Winning Races.

You don't have horsepower without torque. And you don't win races without proper gearing.

Umm, I think you assume too much. We were generalizing... I have a solid understanding of the relation of horsepower and torque, and the physics behind it. I was assuming that we were talking about 2 identical cars, one with slightly more horsepower and one with slightly more torque. If you want to get really technical, Horsepower + torque + gearing (but gearing makes torque less important) + FDR + drivetrain losses + traction + inverse of weight = winning races... and there are certainly more variables to be considered depending on how in depth you want to get.

Of course torque is important at higher RPMS, that's what horsepower is. And gearing takes advantage of peak horsepower to win races, not peak torque.

Carrol Shelby made the second one. I feel like if anyone has the right to coin such a phrase, he does, regardless of being a domestic owner.

what about an SRT-4? 230 whp 245 tq 1/4 mile 13.9@102 weight 3100 lbs......
and besides the V6 mustnag is not designed to be a performance car....the S2k is...Gearing plays a big factor in all this as well, you're not considering all the variables when you compare to completely different cars like this....it's apples to oranges....