i know i am right(i may be wrong)

Discussion in '2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra' started by 94octainemotorsports, Jan 17, 2003.

  1. im guessing this because i think it is true i think.
    i am like the biggest ford fan in my whole family but there is a problem i also like dodge cars and trucks i dont know why but i do. i also hate chevy their cars are crappy their trucks cant comapre with ford and their suvs are pos thats all i have to say. . no more
  2. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    BAHAHAHAHAHA... That was the worst post I've ever read..
  3. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    Actually, for the most part he's right, GM's SUV's and trucks aren't very good....for the most part.

    And Torque doesn't always win, in fact there are many instances in which the higher torque vehicle hasn't won, torque just makes winning possible for the idiot who can't drive.
  4. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    Remember this quote," HP sells cars, torque wins races". It's really that simple.
  5. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    but not entirely true.
  6. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    You are 100% right...and password it is true.
  7. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    Ok, then explain why F1 Cars are so fast, or why the S2000 with a mere 150lbft torque will do 0-100 faster than the SRT-4 Neon (don't say because it's lighter, because even if that's true, that's not all it can be attributed to) with 255lbft torque.

    Torque helps you get off the line faster true, and it will help with acceleration in low rpms, however, in high rpms hp wins far more races than torque. I.E. LeMans, GT, F1, etc.

    He didn't mean that quote to be taken that literally.
  8. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    1. Its lighter.
    2. It's rwd.
    3. It's not faster then the SRT-4.
    5. They both run around the same times.

  9. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    I assume you're only referring to the S2000

    1) Wow, the S2000 weighs 2756 lbs while the SRT-4 weighs 2870lbs, I'm sure the entire 114 lbs is really going to make up for the 100lbft torque difference

    2) Even with racing slicks on (as SCC tested it), the SRT-4 could only muster a "pathetic" 5.8 seconds, the FWD had nothing to do with the slower time

    3) the SRT-4 does 0-100km/h in 5.8 seconds, while the S2000 does it in 5.5 seconds, I'd say that's faster.

    4) They don't run around the same times (.3 sec. is still a notable difference), and yet the only real performance differences are the hp and torque, the SRT-4 has 100 more lbft torque, but 27 less hp.

    Sorry, but with the slight weight difference, and different drivetrains added to the extra hp, it all made up for the difference in acceleration, if the S2000 only had 223 hp (as the SRT-4 has measured at the wheels) the S2000 would have been slower. Hell, with the 9000rpm redline, I'd consider it a safe bet to say that the S2000 could reach 100km/h just as quickly in reverse (effectively making it FWD, even worse in fact since all the heavy stuff would be in the "rear").

    so let's sum up:

    1.it's not light enough to make a difference.
    2.rwd doesn't make a large enough difference.
    3.it IS faster than the SRT-4.
    ? - you missed 4 doofus.
    5.The S2000 is faster.

  10. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    1.It's still lighter.
    2.RWD DOES MAKE that much of a difference. The s2000 has 2 wheels gripping the pavement, the fwd neon only has 1.
    3.The s2000 is faster (although for an extra $16,000 it better be).
    4.I could really care less moron which car is faster in reverse...?
    5.Quarter mile times they are almost the same.
  11. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    It's philosophy, not fact. High torque a fast car does not make. I don't see anybody using regeared diesels for racing..........
  12. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    The Rate of acceleration is dependant on HP.

    Again...you can have all the torque in the world, with no HP, you're not moving.....

    As for your attempt at Thermodynamics....

    Peak Torque is dependant on maximum volumetric efficiency (the point at which you have stuffed the most air into your engine you can while using the maximum percentage of that air for combustion). Peak Horsepower is the point where the maximum amount of air flows through the engine. You get more power, but it is not as efficient (ie instead of using 83 percent of the 100 oxygen molecules present, you use 76 percent of the 150 molecules present....... you use more molecules in number even though the process is less efficient)

    If it had to do with engine friction and intertia then each engine would have a different crossover point in the Torque/HP relationship.

    ...AND there is another useful formula you might want to know
    Power (HP)= Force*Velocity

    rearrange and you get

    Force= Power/velocity What does that mean? The maximum force pushing your car forward is DIRECTLY related to your Power output at any given velocity. The more power you have, the more force you have pushing the car forward.

    This is precisely why you shift at max power, not at max torque....
  13. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    to tourque wins
    my post is true in every way im saying that chevy cant compare with ford at all ford can whip any chevy any day and its true damn true
  14. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    You bring up the point of the redline, but the reason they have so much hp is because of the high redline.
  15. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    1. it's just barely lighter
    2. RWD only makes a notable difference in situations in which you have a lot of hp, in which the RWD is just slightly less likely to spin the tires, with less than 300hp the drivetrain is of little consequence. and WTF r u on about?? are you one of those fools that believe that myth about FWD's only using one wheel to drive? got news for you, FWD uses 2 wheels to grip the pavement...putz.
    3. Don't go using the cost argument, this is strictly a hp vs. torque debate, cost has nothing to do with it.
    4. doesn't matter whether or not you care about reverse, with the S2000 going in reverse against the Neon going forward would be effectively two FWD's racing against each other (not quite because there would be little weight on the driving wheels of the S2000, but the S2000 would still hit 100km/h faster)
    5. the SRT-4 is geared for the 1/4 check out acceleration times after they hit the 1/4 mile mark.
  16. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    You're a f^cking retard, but you already know that. Gearing alone wouldn't allow the s2000 to go faster then the srt-4 in reverse dumbass.
    FWD might use two wheels to grip, but when taking off only one wheel is spinning moron, its not a posi front end dipshit.
  17. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    dipshit....ooh, now that's clever.

    Did I use the words gearing and reverse in the same point? No, I didn't.

    ok, I thought you were claiming that all FWD's use just one wheel to drive, perhaps you're not as dumb as you've indicated in numerous past posts.

    LOL, many FWD's put equal power to the ground with both tires, as can be viewed by the dual rubber marks left behind after spinning the tires in a FWD.

    Posi-traction huh? are you still living in the 70's? Posi-traction is an obsolete term now, numbnuts.
  18. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    The new neon does not have a "limited slip diff" like some other fwd cars have. Posi is just easier to write.
    No you said nothing of gearing, but don't be a dipshit kid, theres no way a s2000 would out run anything in reverse when the other car is going forward.
  19. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    my point is that they're fast in part because they have so much horsepower, not torque, they have so much horsepower because they have such a high redline. You don't need to tell me why F1 cars are so fast, I already know, I was just bringing it up so that you might realize that torque is no more important than horsepower.

    You just said it yourself, so don't try to go back on what you said and claim that low end Torque is more important than high end horsepower.
  20. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    Well, your close to the truth (IMHO - and others), though I'd be more inclined to say that they are both equally important neither more, one can make up for the lack of the other, but where the difference of importance lies is that low end torque is more important for drag racing whereas high end horsepower is good for road racing conditions (and rally racing, though with more torque, you do have more control on corners)

    Tell me, now that we're near agreement, do you sincerely believe that the S2000 could get to 100km/h in 5.5 if it had more torque at 160 and less power at 170? of course not. anyway, wouldn't a fast 1/4 with low speed indicate more that there's enough torque, but not a lot of power? Since it would indicate that the car got off the line quickly, but didn't accelerate very fast after that.
  21. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    Exactly wrong. It it had more torque with the same HP, it wouldn't be AT ALL faster. It would accelerate in exactly the same manner. I have trying to explain this point to you for two days....but you just aren't getting it.
  22. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    No, my statement is correct. You can increase the torque to whatever you want. If the HP profile remains the same (and it can assuming you adjust your available RPMs) you will accelerate NO FASTER than if you had the original torque curve.

    Even if it was relative.....as in an average HP of 150 ft-lbs and a peak torque of 400 would accelerate NO FASTER than a car with an average HP of 150 and 100 ft-lbs of torque. This is physics. Your HP under the curve between the shift points ALONE (in terms of power/torque) determines your acceleration.

    When you increase airflow...your torque AND average HP go up. That doesn`t change the fact your increase in HP increased your acceleration....

    Of course I didn`t mean that literally....anymore than you meant "Without torque there is no HP". Because both statements are equally misleading.

    By the way, Gas Turbines in aircraft produce thrust and HP, but no Torque. The Engines we use in the Armed Forces are all High HP rel low Torque.....
    Torque is absolutely unnecessary if you have adequate gearing....which is exactly what the Torque/HP relationship states.
  23. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    If you increase Torque, you would decrease your RPM`s to maintain constant power. A perfect CVT is an excellent example of this. And you would notice, CVT`s (in a high acceleration mode) keep the engine at peak POWER outputs....rather than peak torque outputs. For peak fuel efficiency, a CVT would maintain at the engine`s peak Torque (Constant acceleration in the direction opposite of wind and mechanical resistance at peak efficiency). This is why most manufacturers gear Overdrive on their cars to run at peak torque at 65. (55 in the seventies and eighties).
    You don`t need squat for torque getting off the line either. If you can get off the line at High RPM`s with low torque, you`ll be just as well off as high torque at low RPM`s. HP is the determining factor for acceleration PERIOD. This includes from a dead stop. Your available HP is going to determine your acceleration. No exceptions.

    If you`re talking about a single car, with no other changes than in the engine, you can`t change HP without changing Torque....or change Torque without changing HP.
  24. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    Fords suck balls. They are over-rated pieces of crap. They're are built for the masses and are built in a assembly line that's made up of crap. They fall apart faster than Japcrap does. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/PnutSpecial.gif"></A>
  25. Re: i know i am right(i may be wrong)

    Name ONE unreliable Japanese car.

    What percent of 1970's Corolla's are still on the road? approx. 65%

    What percent of 1970's Mustangs are still on the road? approx 34%

Share This Page