Horse Power and Torque
- Thread starter Lextreme II
- Start date
The 1UZFE EGR Delete Kit is available for sale here.
Probably the closest you will get to 1:1 on a stock petrol vehicle is a 1993 F Body with its 0.62:1 top gear and 2.73:1 Final drive, but even that supplies a total ratio of 1.69:1
OZ, NZ, and UK shows what happens when politicians interfere with engineering.
BTW what size are the wheels on your car ??????
haha good point.
just amagine though, one set of tools, all values are instantly obvious which is bigger/smaller than the next, no need for fractions etc.
i can see however, how the advent of SI units would be just as annoying for someone in a country not using them as the primary unit.
This may have been answer already, but I'll give it my shot (even though it is a thread revival and I didn't re-read the whole thing)
When the 1uz makes more torque then horsepower, it means that engines peak VE is below 5252 rpms. This can be affected by modifications, torque converter and transmission.
An n/a vs fi will definitely have different ratios, forced induction cars almost always create maximum hp 500 to 1000 rpms before redline (with properly sized and properly working components), and on most cars this is after 5252rpms, I would imagine on most f/i 1uz's, the redline would be equal to or higher then 6500rpms anyway.
A supercharged vehicle (there are 3 types of superchargers, will stick with the one most similar to the turbocharger, the centrifugal supercharger) will be different then a turbocharged vehicle. Since a turbochargers boost is not limited by crankshaft revolution speed, it can make much more midrange torque through the midrange area of the rpm cycle ... a turbocharger is also more efficent in compressing the air, then even a centrifugal supercharger.
Hopefully that makes sense ...
When the 1uz makes more torque then horsepower, it means that engines peak VE is below 5252 rpms. This can be affected by modifications, torque converter and transmission.
An n/a vs fi will definitely have different ratios, forced induction cars almost always create maximum hp 500 to 1000 rpms before redline (with properly sized and properly working components), and on most cars this is after 5252rpms, I would imagine on most f/i 1uz's, the redline would be equal to or higher then 6500rpms anyway.
A supercharged vehicle (there are 3 types of superchargers, will stick with the one most similar to the turbocharger, the centrifugal supercharger) will be different then a turbocharged vehicle. Since a turbochargers boost is not limited by crankshaft revolution speed, it can make much more midrange torque through the midrange area of the rpm cycle ... a turbocharger is also more efficent in compressing the air, then even a centrifugal supercharger.
Hopefully that makes sense ...
So then Torque ratings on a dyno test can be changed thru the stall rate change of a torque converter and or transmission, differential gearing mod's?
If that is the case then going from a stock SC400/Soarer torque converter stall rate to let's say a stall rate T.C. of 2200 will increase the torque numbers and decrease the whp's numbers on a before and after dyno test.. Is that right? Same as let's say a lower rearend differential gearing change, I would assume...
Same dyno numbers with different curves or different dyno numbers with different curves with those changes?
That was really the most recent question asked on this thread
If that is the case then going from a stock SC400/Soarer torque converter stall rate to let's say a stall rate T.C. of 2200 will increase the torque numbers and decrease the whp's numbers on a before and after dyno test.. Is that right? Same as let's say a lower rearend differential gearing change, I would assume...
Same dyno numbers with different curves or different dyno numbers with different curves with those changes?
That was really the most recent question asked on this thread
The problem with an auto is that it will downshift, but lets say you could lock it in gear and not have it downshift
If the rpms artificially increase from the torque converter slipping, it's not going to be accurate until it locks
If the converter was less efficient, then it would decrease overall numbers
I think I am understanding your question, if not let me know and try asking a different way?
If the rpms artificially increase from the torque converter slipping, it's not going to be accurate until it locks
If the converter was less efficient, then it would decrease overall numbers
I think I am understanding your question, if not let me know and try asking a different way?
Probably the closest you will get to 1:1 on a stock petrol vehicle is a 1993 F Body with its 0.62:1 top gear and 2.73:1 Final drive, but even that supplies a total ratio of 1.69:1
I hope because this thread is relatively recent, I won't get shot in or about my face area for posting in it, but for the question of power and torque peaks, the answer is relatively simple. With a higher power peak than torque peak, what is going on is that the engine can breathe well above 5252 rpms and so the torque doesn't drop off so much after said RPM. This, through the wonderful arena of math, allows for more power to be developed at a higher rpm because the horsepower formula leans indicates 'more torque at higher rpm equals more power' i.e. 'a '95 1UZ makes 234 lb-ft of torque at 5600 rpm, making for the rated power peak of 260 hp. If we could some how make that same 234 lb-ft of torque at, let's say, 7500 rpm (oh goodness) the power peak at that rpm would now be be 334 hp, just from extending the engine's band of efficient breathing.
Now, for the more torque than power, it's the opposite, the engine just doesn't breathe that well over 5252 rpm, limiting the extension of the torque band, thus limiting horsepower. As for different forms of forced induction, all of them will give you more torque than horsepower out of the 1UZ unless you free up the breathing of the engine above 5252 rpm, which I guess is what some of those people from that link in the 7th post did. Mk, well that's my piece and my first post as well.
Now, for the more torque than power, it's the opposite, the engine just doesn't breathe that well over 5252 rpm, limiting the extension of the torque band, thus limiting horsepower. As for different forms of forced induction, all of them will give you more torque than horsepower out of the 1UZ unless you free up the breathing of the engine above 5252 rpm, which I guess is what some of those people from that link in the 7th post did. Mk, well that's my piece and my first post as well.
How does one free up the breathing on an 1uz-fe to increase the horsepower and torque at higher rpm's? I would say Intake, heads, exhaust, and cam mods takes care of the motor... Gearing too has alot to do with higher rpm power when the car is in motion especially if it is equiped with an automatic tranny...Differential gearing and Torque Converter stall rates are big....
Nice articles in AutoSpeed recently on the Torque vs HP debate:
Part 1: http://autospeed.com/cms/A_108647/article.html
Part 2: http://autospeed.com/cms/A_108648/article.html
Unfortunately you need a paid subscription to get past the first page, but subscriptions are cheap and Julian's a good guy.....
Part 1: http://autospeed.com/cms/A_108647/article.html
Part 2: http://autospeed.com/cms/A_108648/article.html
Unfortunately you need a paid subscription to get past the first page, but subscriptions are cheap and Julian's a good guy.....
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
OZ, NZ, and UK shows what happens when politicians interfere with engineering.
BTW what size are the wheels on your car ??????
Pro
New Member
there's nothing wrong with imperial measurements - it's just that decimal measurements are more refined for more precise work. you can manufacture something a nanometer across, but try tooling a laser cutter for a quarter of one thousandth of an inch...
most of the nuts and bolts on the kingswood are 9/16, 3/8 and a #2 phillips. it's held together for 30odd years - metric equivelant is 14mm and 11mm.
what's the problem?
most of the nuts and bolts on the kingswood are 9/16, 3/8 and a #2 phillips. it's held together for 30odd years - metric equivelant is 14mm and 11mm.
what's the problem?
haha good point.
just amagine though, one set of tools, all values are instantly obvious which is bigger/smaller than the next, no need for fractions etc. i can see however, how the advent of SI units would be just as annoying for someone in a country not using them as the primary unit.
This is how the world reads your post:
This is how American's read your post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures
As long as NCAA Division 1-A football (highest college division) reigns supreme on that board (37mill in 2006), the US will never go metric. (NFL is 14-17mill normally)
haha good point.
i can see however, how the advent of SI units would be just as annoying for someone in a country not using them as the primary unit.
This is how American's read your post:
The simply truth is that a football field is 100 yards, not 91.44 meters. 91.44 meters = extremely non heterosexual playing field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures
As long as NCAA Division 1-A football (highest college division) reigns supreme on that board (37mill in 2006), the US will never go metric. (NFL is 14-17mill normally)
