Is Torque Overrated ?

alexthecheese said:
"I just don't see how pressing a pedal with your foot whilst moving a stick with your hand is so hard."

To be fair, if you drive a lot, not having to change gear regularly is a huge bonus.
Click to expand...

That's a matter of preference, not fact.

I enjoy driving, of any kind. Not having to change gear because of circumstance is not a bonus for me :p
 
NickXX said:
The whole point was that the 330d would get through 40-70 in one gear whereas the 330i would require changing from 2nd to 3rd. I.e. the diesel would be the outright quickest at accelerating.
Click to expand...

So why is the 40-70 time of the diesel slower than that of the petrol?

I can do 40-70 in 1 gear, 3rd and if I'm in a hurry I can start in 2nd and make a gear change. I can perform this manevour quicker than the equivilent diesel can in any gear, let alone if it stays in 4th.

I like changing gear, its something I enjoy about driving.
 
alexthecheese said:
Exactly. You're not really comparing like for like, are you fox. Most people are in the sub-2.0 litre range, and the difference in 'lazy motorway pulling power' at those capacities in diesel/petrol are significant.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm comparing like with like. I don't think I've ever said 'a Golf diesel sux cos my 3 litre car is faster lol'.

I've even said that in lower capacity engines, I'd prefer a diesel. I'd have a diesel if I was buying a 4 cylinder BMW or Ford, for example.

I've nothing against diesel, just the rather bizarre arguments the diesel owners come out with.
 
Maybe I missed this, but bhp and torque that an engine produces is almost totally irrelevant on it's own. Gearing and drivetrain produce at the wheels figures. This is what actually matters.

Looking at your graph I'm not shocked it's not much quicker. Your gains are low down where you won't be if your hooning.

Best real world I was there etc example I can give to prove those numbers mean nothing in isolation is the 1km back straight at Bedford. Coming out of the corner onto it in my lol no torque and 243 bhp s2000 on the bumper of silent bobs 270 bhp + leon cupra r ... Initially from the 5/6000 rpm I was at exiting the corner he pulled away, halfway down the straight and I was pulling him back in. At the 'performance' rpm the car is designed to excel at 30bhp qnd probably 100 lb/ft down on him I was quicker. Why ? Almost certainly in the main due to gearing.

Bare in mind also peak figures can't just be looked at, it's power throughout the revrange that matters
 
Last edited:
Well I just nailed a 3.0 tdi A4 cab off a roundabout from a 15mph rolling start up to erm 70.
I used 1st gear which is about 2.5k rpm at 15mph and then red lined it through the gears, I gained a good 20 meters before I backed off to let him passed to see what it was.
I think that engine would have double the torque and more power than my petrol car and it didn't help.
 
Last edited:
MrLOL said:
As others have concluded in these threads, i am now also of the oppinion that torque is overrated. And its really all about the BHP, despite what the diesel fanatics say.
Click to expand...

Im of the opinion that with a statement like that you dont really understand what you are talking about?

Your 0-60 is on the limit of a FWD platform, particularly a heavy one with no LSD, the tractive effort you are applying is bounded by the tyre friction you have.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Im of the opinion that with a statement like that you dont really understand what you are talking about?

Your 0-60 is on the limit of a FWD platform, particularly a heavy one with no LSD, the tractive effort you are applying is bounded by the tyre friction you have.
Click to expand...

If it was the case that adding extra power in a front wheel drive car is pointless

why the difference in 0-60 times with a 220bhp Mondeo ST220 compared with my 280bhp Vectra ?

surely if its the limits of the front wheel drive platform, there would be no difference at all.

Equally, by the same reasoning the Focus RS wouldnt be any quicker than the Focus ST.

Theres always going to be an improvement.
 
I thought we were discussing you being unhappy with the difference of the 0-60 expecting more?

Lets see, the ST220 isnt hovering on the 6 second mark for a start. Its the law of diminishing returns when you get to 6 and you are TRACTION LIMITED and no longer POWER limited.

Focus RS, more power, better suspension, larger tyres and an LSD? Why would you expect anything other than a faster 0-60?

Torque against power... well by that statement the torque must be influencing the output of the engine at a point that doesn't influence its power. Although the power at low rpm increase is much better the PEAK doesnt change. As as most people unfortunatley dont consider the PEAK as being a rev point that is reached by the engine less than 1% of its life threads like that crop up.

By the same margin cars with a big dollop of power added at the top end but no increase in PEAK torque have only gained that power by the torque production being extended into a higher portion of the rev range, the tractive effort is therefore applied at a higher rate and you see a increase in the work done, ergo power.

Neither torque or power are exclusive attributes, they are mutuality related characteritics of an engine where its strongest influence is the speed the engine is running at.

Funnily enough diesel just happens to be the rev point you use in day to day driving and petrol is when you press on and exploit at higher rpm with no concern to the engine life, economy and NVH concessions that prevent you driving to work at 6,000 rpm. Hence diesels are nice for people going to work who have a left hand that is alergic to leather. :P

Your performance benchamarks need to consider the rev range exploited by the test and how that relates to where your increase in torque has been found. Power is just high rate torque that lets you use a shorter gearbox ratio and get more effort to the tyre.
 
Last edited:
i'm sure in amongst all that ******** is a point

I'm damned if i can find one though.

The 0-60 tests and 30-70 tests use the entire rev range in approx 2 gears for each test. Whats your point ?
 
Thanks for that :confused:

Ill summarise.

Looking at a peak number is ******. Why are you doing it?

You asked a question, then dissed one of the better (IMO) answers. Why are you doing it?

You have a rev counter on your dash you must be ignoring. Why are you doing it?

You are failing to read through several paragraphs to form you own point. Why are you doing it?


On your 0-60 you do no change to 2nd and meet 2,000 rpm, there for the tests DO NOT use 'the entire rev range' Infact for a proper start in a FWD with good clutch control Id be suprised if the car even gos below 4,000 rpm. For 30-70 im suprised you even change gear?

Therefore anything you gain below 4,000 really adds nothing to your performance figures?

Add torque at 6k and you get a totally different answer to the question you have posed. Thats the point I have already made.
 
Last edited:
MrLOL said:
right so if you dont want to look at the peak number

what do you want to be looking at.
Click to expand...

Area under your torque curve. It tells the story rather than showing a page of it.

You could look at the rpms you do in 30-70, take points every 500rpm of that, see the torque increase at each one and get an average. You could probably use that % increase as a guide to the % decrease in the 30-70 time.

Is torque overratted? Or is is it just misread?
 
Last edited:
ok so:

at 3000 rpm - approx 75 lb/ft

at 3500 rpm - approx 90 lb/ft

at 4000 rpm - approx 90 lb/ft

at 4500 rpm - approx 75 lb/ft

at 5000 rpm - approx 30 lb/ft

at 5500 rpm - approx 10 lb/ft

at 6000 rpm - approx 0

So the mean of all those is approx 50 lb/ft increase

50lbft increase from 300 lb/ft is 16% increase. Compared with a 6 % improvement in 30-70 acceleration


I now see what you're getting at. That the biggest improvement in my torque curve is between 3 to 4,500 revs, which you may not spend most time in. You spend more time in the 4,500 revs to 6000 revs area, which has much smaller to no gains at all - hence explaining the apparent lack of improvement.
 
Last edited:
Just pulled off some more figures

Prior to my remap

40-50 was taking 1.12 seconds

now it takes 0.86 seconds

thats an improvement of 0.26 seconds. As a percentage of 1.12 seconds thats 23 % improvement, much more like the 30% improvement in torque.

Makes sense now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom