*High* power cars -- Why

1 view
Skip to first unread message

bill fuhrmann

unread,
Feb 27, 1994, 4:01:40 AM2/27/94
to
C[]When I read messages on American Cars, I see you write of cars
C[]with hundreds of HPs.

C[]I'm very satisfied of my Fiat Tempra 1.6, 55kW (75HP), also
C[]at 130 km/h in highway.

C[]I'm never been in USA: could youy expalin me why you like so
C[]*high* power cars?

Philosophy and the size of the country. Americans HATE being limited
in any way. We also live in a country with many very large open areas.
I live roughly in the middle of the northern edge of the country.
Driving 1000 miles (1600 K) will not get me to either the east or
west coasts.

We have national speed limits (which are very unpopular) of 88 km/h in
metropolitan areas and 105 km/h in non-metro areas. Minnesota (state where
I live) pretty much doesn't care about people who drive 8-24 km/h
above the limit. Depending on the highway and time of day, I generally
travel between 96-112 km/h when traveling across the metro area I live in.
That includes going through the heart of the city, and I may be above the
average, but not all that obviously faster. I generally don't drive much
faster than 112 when out of the city so that I don't draw too much
attention to myself. Most of the highways (major ones) that I use when
traveling would easily be safe at 160km/h. If I had an area to drive in
where it was legal/allowed to travel at higher speeds, I would go much
closer to the limit (200 km/h) of my car (Pontiac Fiero, 135hp 2.8 liter
v6 engine).

Before the the national speed limit was created (in the fuel crisis in the
late 70's), some states had speed limits in the 120 km/h range. Montana
(more than 800 km across) had "reasonable and prudent" as it's highest
limit. On a state that is very flat and almost no people (2.2 people /
square km) this can be just about whatever your car can safely do.
There are quite a few states that are this open.


When seeing the hp ratings of cars, remember the hp needed is roughly
proportional to speed raised to the third power.

* QMPro 1.0 41-6621 * #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#

David

unread,
Feb 27, 1994, 5:18:01 PM2/27/94
to
BILL.F...@tstation.mn.org (bill fuhrmann) writes:

Another reason for high-horsepower cars is, "It's not how fast, but how quick."

Many on-ramps to America's interstate system don't allow enough room to merge
with traffic traveling 60-70 mph. A high-horsepower car, with the right gear
ratio, allows you to attain highway speeds in a very short distance. That's
why
we're so keen on how many seconds it takes to get from 0-60 mph.

David Liberman
America Online, Inc.
"Remember, Altitude is your Friend"

ERKKI MYLLYNEN (MATEK)

unread,
Feb 28, 1994, 8:31:52 AM2/28/94
to
In article <2kr66p$i...@rmg01.prod.aol.net> da...@aol.com (David) writes:

>Another reason for high-horsepower cars is, "It's not how fast, but how quick."

>Many on-ramps to America's interstate system don't allow enough room to merge
>with traffic traveling 60-70 mph. A high-horsepower car, with the right gear
>ratio, allows you to attain highway speeds in a very short distance. That's
>why
>we're so keen on how many seconds it takes to get from 0-60 mph.

My first and most lasting impression of American highways was amazement
about the amount of space used for intersections and ramps. I agree that
sufficient power makes it a lot easier and safer to join the traffic flow,
but I don't think that American interstates have shorter ramps than their
Italian or (this one i am goddamn sure of) Finnish counterparts.

Engine power is addictive and fun. That's what it is about.

Erkki

Kirk Lindstrom

unread,
Feb 28, 1994, 1:13:15 PM2/28/94
to
>C[]When I read messages on American Cars, I see you write of cars
>C[]with hundreds of HPs.
>
>C[]I'm very satisfied of my Fiat Tempra 1.6, 55kW (75HP), also
>C[]at 130 km/h in highway.
>
>C[]I'm never been in USA: could youy expalin me why you like so
>C[]*high* power cars?
>
>Philosophy and the size of the country. Americans HATE being limited
>in any way. We also live in a country with many very large open areas.
>I live roughly in the middle of the northern edge of the country.
>Driving 1000 miles (1600 K) will not get me to either the east or
>west coasts.
>
> * QMPro 1.0 41-6621 * #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
----------

Hmmmm. Interesting. I have a '79 Fiat X1/9 (it is for sale if you live
in the SF Bay Area) and I have a '94 Corvette. Here we are comparing
1.5L/80HP with 5.7L/300 HP. The Fiat is alot of fun to drive, but having
all that power on demand is something else. For performance driving, the
extra HP can allow you to do alot of things on mtn roads that I just
couldn't do with the Fiat (like go fast around U-turns on a steep uphill
(switch-back)).

Having both cars, I'd say I'd go for the extra HP. The 'vette actually
gets better MPG on the HWY, but really eats gas in city driving so I
imagine that is why Europeans go for smaller engines since there just
isn't as much highway driving.

Kirk Lindstrom
=> "We are what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kirk Lindstrom - OCD Product R & D | Hewlett-Packard Co. M/S: 91UA |
| Engineer/Scientist, Hardware | |
|------------------------------------| Optical Communication Division |
| kirk_li...@sj.hp.com | |
| Kirk Lindstrom / HP0100/UX | 370 W. Trimble Rd. |
| ph 408 435 6404 | fax 408 435 6286 | San Jose, CA 95131-1096 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

S.P Fooey

unread,
Mar 1, 1994, 6:38:15 PM3/1/94
to
da...@aol.com (David) writes:

>BILL.F...@tstation.mn.org (bill fuhrmann) writes:


>Another reason for high-horsepower cars is, "It's not how fast, but how quick."

>Many on-ramps to America's interstate system don't allow enough room to merge
>with traffic traveling 60-70 mph. A high-horsepower car, with the right gear
>ratio, allows you to attain highway speeds in a very short distance. That's
>why
>we're so keen on how many seconds it takes to get from 0-60 mph.

Hang on... doesn't acceleration have to do with torque and not horsepower?!
I guess in some way they are kinda related... aren't they??


--
Another Message from "Pseudo Muso" Foo......a caring human being!
Cyclone: going for a bike ride by yourself.....

pse...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au

Joshua Paul Kinsley

unread,
Mar 1, 1994, 8:01:37 PM3/1/94
to
ins...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (S.P Fooey) writes:

>da...@aol.com (David) writes:

>>BILL.F...@tstation.mn.org (bill fuhrmann) writes:

> pse...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au

Ouch.... And what do you think horsepower "has to do with"? I don
don't know about you, but my 200 horses get me to 60 pretty quick.

Unknown

unread,
Mar 2, 1994, 10:54:15 AM3/2/94
to
In article <2l0jl7$1...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, ins...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (S.P Fooey) writes:
|> da...@aol.com (David) writes:
|>
|> >BILL.F...@tstation.mn.org (bill fuhrmann) writes:
|>
|>
|> >Another reason for high-horsepower cars is, "It's not how fast, but how quick."
|>
|> >Many on-ramps to America's interstate system don't allow enough room to merge
|> >with traffic traveling 60-70 mph. A high-horsepower car, with the right gear
|> >ratio, allows you to attain highway speeds in a very short distance. That's
|> >why
|> >we're so keen on how many seconds it takes to get from 0-60 mph.
|>
|> Hang on... doesn't acceleration have to do with torque and not horsepower?!
|> I guess in some way they are kinda related... aren't they??
|>

Torque is what accelerates your car. Torque is the ability to do work,
Horsepower is torque related to rpm (time). Obviously the more work you perform
in a unit of time means more power. The more work you perform in a unit of
time (more power generated) the quicker you can accelerate nearly 2 tons of steel
to 60 mph. 200 horsepower at 2,500 rpm and 200 horsepower at 5,000 rpm will
provide identical acceleration. You probably can already see that the amount of
work per time is much higher at 2500 vs 5000 rpm. In fact the work is double
at 2500 rpm since there is half the time available to perform it.

*note* rpm isn't really time, its angular speed related to time, but you get the
point.

So, 200hp is 200hp right? Which engine do I want in my car?
If all I am only interested in is 0 - 60 mph accelerations (yeah right!) the
engine that produced 200 hp at 2500 rpm will run circles around the one that
makes 200 hp at 5000. why? How long will each engine take to reach the peak
power rpm? The 2500 rpm engine will just about be there from the start.
In addition at its peak it would be pumping out ~420 lb-ft Tq and nearly as much
before and after 2500 rpm. The 5000 rpm pk engine might producing 100 hp at 2500.

Of course all this is pointless since once you got to sixty the low rever would
be tapped out and the high rever would continue accelerating.
In order to keep things exciting the cars in question would need to be equipped
with vastly different transmission gearing selections to match the power output
of the engine.

The low rever would have to get by with a wide ratio tranny (this implies fewer
gears available) and a tall final ratio to keep the rpms down. The high rever
would be best suited to a close ratio transmission with more gears available and
a low final ratio. Suffices to say that the gearing selection will alter the
torque delivered to the wheels. The low rever would lose leverage and the high
rever would gain more mechanical advantage. Plus, with more forward gears
available the high rever could hit the peak power output for each gear, thus
bringing the actual acceleration curve closer to the theoretical acceleration
curve. The point is you can have acceleration in any combination speed and torque
you want. The high rever will have the better setup.

For the real world? 300hp @ 5000rpm and and a close ratio six speed manual
with a 3.42 positraction should be enough to get anyone's
attention. (^8

To sum up : torque accelerates your, this is work. The work done in relation to
time is measured as power.

As to why? its FUN! (^B

$0.03
EricY


Dwight Wilbur Johanson Zywikie

unread,
Mar 3, 1994, 10:35:59 AM3/3/94
to

It's nice to see that at least one American is comfortable using SI (i.e.,
metric) units. Just out of curiosity, when is the US of A going to join
the rest of the world (except the UK) and adopt SI units?

In Ontario, divided highways have a speed limit of 100 km/h (62 mph) whether
they're in urban areas or not. Undivided highways have speed limits of
either 80 or 90 km/h, depending upon how many hills and curves there are.
Only the province of Alberta has highways with speed limits of 110 km/h.

In Ottawa (where I live) there are three lanes on the one divided highway.
The middle lane is always the slowest with people driving anywhere between
60 km/h and 120 km/h. The left lane is always the "fast" lane. It's not
uncommon to see people driving 130 to 150 km/h although the average speed is
usually 120 km/h. The right lane is usually quite empty, so that's where I
drive (usually at 125 to 130 km/h).

In Toronto, highway 401 (the busiest highway in North American (yep, even
busier than those famous highways in southern California)) has three or four
"express" lanes (in each direction) with entrances and exits every 3 to 5 km
to the three "collector" lanes. Traffic in the express lanes travels at
130 km/h (when it's not a parking lot (for 10 hours a day)) and 100 to 120
km/h in the collector lanes.

David Crooke

unread,
Mar 3, 1994, 11:36:51 AM3/3/94
to
In article <2l0ohh$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, jkin...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Joshua Paul Kinsley) writes:

> >da...@aol.com (David) writes:

> > Hang on... doesn't acceleration have to do with torque and not horsepower?!
> >I guess in some way they are kinda related... aren't they??

From the definition of Newtonian mechanics, at any given instant,

Power = Torque x Angular Velocity


so, power (W) = torque (Nm) x w (rad/s) SI Units

power (kW) = torque (Nm) x w (rpm) x 0.0001047 Metric

power (bhp) = torque (lb.ft) x w (rpm) x 0.0001929 Imperial


This is why peak torque and peak power are quoted with engine speeds, e.g. my
car has a peak torque of 177 lb.ft at 3000 rpm, and peak power of 155 bhp at
5500rpm. A quick calculation reveals that at 3000 rpm it is only producing 102
bhp with all that torque, but at 5500 rpm the torque has fallen off to 146
lb.ft. After this point the torque drops sharply, and there is *less* power as
the engine speed increases further.

Although it is torque (when suitably multiplied through the gearbox and final
drive) which determines acceleration, but power (and gearing) which limits top
speed, a very powerful car must, by the above formula, have a lot of torque
*somewhere* in the rev range.

The design of an engine determines how much torque it can produce at each speed,
and the graph of torque vs. rpm can have surprisingly sharp variations, peaks
and troughs. The "power curve" (power vs. rpm) is of course much smoother.
However, a car with a better spread of torque low down the rev range (and hence
a "fatter" power curve) will accelerate and climb hills better than one which is
very "peaky", where both have the same ratio of maximum bhp to weight.

Engine's for large lorries ("rigs" in USA) develop *lots* of torque from very
low down the rev range, but fairly modest amounts of power (as little as 300 bhp
is adequate for the largest 18 wheeler).

Dave
--
David Crooke, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
Janet d...@ed.dcs : Internet d...@dcs.ed.ac.uk : IP talk d...@129.215.160.2
Work: JCMB Rm 1408, King's Bldgs, W Mains Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JZ. 031 650 5164
Home: 12 (GFR) West Savile Tr, Edinburgh, SCOTLAND EH9 3DZ. 031 667 4854

Robert W. Hall

unread,
Mar 3, 1994, 12:40:03 PM3/3/94
to

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

MORE POWER! MORE POWER! MORE POWER!
is a standard phrase of mine in auto showrooms.

My '88 Mustang GT is stock, but after grad. school I may add a Vortech
supercharger or some other goodies. (or buy a Saleen SSC or Firebird Firehawk).

Rob :-)


--
Where am I? In the Village. Whose side are you on? That would be telling.
We want .. information. You won't get it! By hook or by crook, we will.
Who are you? The new number two. Who is number one? You are number six.
I am not a number! I am a free man! [insane laughter]


Joshua Paul Kinsley

unread,
Mar 3, 1994, 1:14:25 PM3/3/94
to
d...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (David Crooke) writes:

>> >da...@aol.com (David) writes:

Watch yer quoting - none of that was mine.

mike stegbauer

unread,
Mar 3, 1994, 5:28:41 PM3/3/94
to
In article <2l57dj$m...@usenet.mcs.kent.edu>, rh...@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (Robert W. Hall) writes:
|>
|>
|> "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
|>
|> MORE POWER! MORE POWER! MORE POWER!
|> is a standard phrase of mine in auto showrooms.
|>
|> My '88 Mustang GT is stock, but after grad. school I may add a Vortech
|> supercharger or some other goodies. (or buy a Saleen SSC or Firebird Firehawk).
|>
|> Rob :-)
|>

Just a suggestion Rob, but you may want to work on your bargaining technique,
especially if you're going to buy a Firehawk.
(I'd go for the Saleen in the old body style myself)

MORE BOOST! MORE BOOST! MORE BOOST!

|>
|> --
|> Where am I? In the Village. Whose side are you on? That would be telling.
|> We want .. information. You won't get it! By hook or by crook, we will.
|> Who are you? The new number two. Who is number one? You are number six.
|> I am not a number! I am a free man! [insane laughter]
|>
|>

Constantly working on becoming more corrupted.....

mike

Don Jackson

unread,
Mar 3, 1994, 5:47:00 PM3/3/94
to
To:fu...@sissa.it
writes:

>When I read messages on American Cars, I see you write of cars
>with hundreds of HPs.

>I'm very satisfied of my Fiat Tempra 1.6, 55kW (75HP), also

>at 130 km/h in highway.

>I'm never been in USA: could youy expalin me why you like so
>*high* power cars?

How can you ever have too much horsepower???
This is the American way! We don't get taxed to death on fuel, so we can
afford more powerful cars. I too have a Fiat... A 1980 X-1/9, the car
has only 75 hp as in your car and it is very peppy. But I cannot reason
why you would be so satisfied with your small amount of HP. I love my 75
hp X-1/9 and it is a blast to drive...but I will always want more
power... it just means more fun!!! (remember more HP=more fun) When I
had my 1972 Chevy Camaro with a 5.7 liter, it was VERY peppy! But I
still wished for more power. Everyone has to make tradeoffs as to fuel
economy/durability vs. power/speed, but I don't know anyone who would
not want more power in their car if all other considerations remained
equal. Would you want a 75 hp Ferrari TR? Of course not!


----
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Atlanta Windows BBS (404)516-0048 9 high-speed USR nodes |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Karl Hansell

unread,
Mar 4, 1994, 4:58:10 AM3/4/94
to
In article 1...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au, ins...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (S.P Fooey) writes:
[...]

>
> Hang on... doesn't acceleration have to do with torque and not horsepower?!
>I guess in some way they are kinda related... aren't they??
>

F=m*a

<=>

a=F/m

where a is acceleration, m is mass, F is power (like in horsepower).
Concl: Acceleration is dependent on power, not torque.

Torque is sort of "power per engine rev", in itself a very
unintresting spec, but it can together with power spec give you
a rough estimation of the power graph for the enines rev range.

Formula for power-torque relation (were power and torque is at revs "rev")
power = torque * rev * constant

best regards
-Karl Hansell

Holger Spielmann

unread,
Mar 4, 1994, 8:47:57 AM3/4/94
to
In article <10307.6...@atlwin.com>, don.j...@atlwin.com
(Don Jackson) wrote:

>How can you ever have too much horsepower???
>This is the American way! We don't get taxed to death on fuel, so we can
>afford more powerful cars. I too have a Fiat... A 1980 X-1/9, the car
>has only 75 hp as in your car and it is very peppy. But I cannot reason
>why you would be so satisfied with your small amount of HP. I love my 75
>hp X-1/9 and it is a blast to drive...but I will always want more
>power... it just means more fun!!! (remember more HP=more fun) When I
>had my 1972 Chevy Camaro with a 5.7 liter, it was VERY peppy! But I
>still wished for more power. Everyone has to make tradeoffs as to fuel
>economy/durability vs. power/speed, but I don't know anyone who would
>not want more power in their car if all other considerations remained
>equal. Would you want a 75 hp Ferrari TR? Of course not!

The question should be: Would you want a Ferrari TR? Of course not!

You are definitely right that more hp means more fun (we Germans like
driving fast ;) ) but please don't forget that (for most of us) there
is a life OUTSIDE the car. And there, more pollution means less fun!!
Therefore, we must find a compromise.
With more than 75hp :)
But with engines with less than 5.7l!!
A good example that such a compromise can be made is the new version of
the Porsche 911 Carrera. 272hp and mileage values around 19mpg (normal
Porsche driving style assumed!), that's a compromise for both sides. And
for those of us with less $$$, one of the BMW 3-series or MB C class should
satisfy all needs.
Many american car designers (and buyers) don't make (buy) cars with good
fuel economy because of low taxes (yes, yes, I will get flames about that;
but a big engine ever need more fuel than a smaller one, that's a fact!).
Why does the Camaro still have this old 5.7l engine?
A modern engine can produce the same hp level with 3.0l !
Perhaps new cars like the Chrysler Neon change this behaviour.
Think about that!

Holger Spielmann <spie...@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>

conrad.f.matter

unread,
Mar 4, 1994, 9:21:37 AM3/4/94
to
In article <2l7e6d$c...@fbi-news.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> spie...@dusty.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Holger Spielmann) writes:

[Deleted]

>You are definitely right that more hp means more fun (we Germans like
>driving fast ;) ) but please don't forget that (for most of us) there
>is a life OUTSIDE the car. And there, more pollution means less fun!!
>Therefore, we must find a compromise.
>With more than 75hp :)
>But with engines with less than 5.7l!!
>A good example that such a compromise can be made is the new version of
>the Porsche 911 Carrera. 272hp and mileage values around 19mpg (normal
>Porsche driving style assumed!), that's a compromise for both sides. And
>for those of us with less $$$, one of the BMW 3-series or MB C class should
>satisfy all needs.
>Many american car designers (and buyers) don't make (buy) cars with good
>fuel economy because of low taxes (yes, yes, I will get flames about that;
>but a big engine ever need more fuel than a smaller one, that's a fact!).
>Why does the Camaro still have this old 5.7l engine?
>A modern engine can produce the same hp level with 3.0l !
>Perhaps new cars like the Chrysler Neon change this behaviour.
>Think about that!

The Camaro has the LT-1 engine that is also in the Corvette. It is not
really that old of an engine. Unless you are referring to turbo or
supercharged engines, you have to pay a fairly high price to get
275 or 300 HP out of a 3.0L engine! The Porsche 911 engine is larger
than 3.0L isn't it? I thought it is now 3.6L. I think you are also
forgeting about all those BMW's and MB's that have engines with
LARGER displacement than 5.7L !!! Why do you single out the Camaro?

Robert J. Wade

unread,
Mar 4, 1994, 9:55:44 AM3/4/94
to
cut cut..

>Many american car designers (and buyers) don't make (buy) cars with good
>fuel economy because of low taxes (yes, yes, I will get flames about that;
>but a big engine ever need more fuel than a smaller one, that's a fact!).
>Why does the Camaro still have this old 5.7l engine?
>A modern engine can produce the same hp level with 3.0l !
>Perhaps new cars like the Chrysler Neon change this behaviour.
>Think about that!
>Holger Spielmann <spie...@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>

tag hoger!
here in america we are free and have choice. some of us do indeed buy the
new camaro and firebird and enjoy the roar of that nice v8 under the hood.
however, many many many people do indeed buy all sorts of econo-boxes that
get mileage well in the 30mpg range. 'low-taxes' is all relative, ours may
be low by *your* standards, but they are plenty high by ours. you see, the
government here does not spend our money wisely or efficiently ,so it's best
to let the citizens keep as much as possible and let the free-market decide
the best way to allocate resources for goods-n-services, it may not be perfect,
but it is the *best* system that has ever existed. that's why we have such
a better standard of living than most of the rest of the world. also, many
of our larger engine cars still get excellent highway mileage, all the while
meeting our tough E.P.A. emissions regulations. our air quality has improved
dramatically over the past 20 years. and back to the engine choices...it all
evens out...maybe joe-camaro burns a little more gas in his life than
billy-geo-metro(assuming billy lives to see 40), but perhaps jo-camaro sets his
thermostat at home lower and doesn't use up as much electricity/gas/whatever.
we're only here a short while, we all have a right to burn a little gas, drink
a little booze and breath some clean air!!!!!
ah...there's nothing like the roar of an internal combustion engine!

>
>


Michael J. Finn

unread,
Mar 4, 1994, 11:32:01 AM3/4/94
to
In article <1994Mar4.0...@ericsson.se> etx...@eogss.ericsson.se writes:
>In article 1...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au, ins...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (S.P Fooey) writes:
>[...]
>>
>> Hang on... doesn't acceleration have to do with torque and not horsepower?!
>>I guess in some way they are kinda related... aren't they??
>>
>F=m*a
><=>
>a=F/m

>where a is acceleration, m is mass, F is power (like in horsepower).

F is really force, which can be converted to power given that you know
all the necessary info (i.e. the distance and time it acts over) but
that's nitpicking I guess.

>Concl: Acceleration is dependent on power, not torque.

Maybe I am missing the point here, so I'll put on my asbestos suit first....

Power is dependent on torque as well, since we are talking about an
essentially rotational system powering the vehicle, not just a
translational force. Power and torque are coupled properties.

i.e. How does this force get to the wheels? By rotational motion, torque.
The total power is the sum of translational power and rotational power.
Since rotational power/motion depends on torque, I would presume that
acceleration does depend on torque.


>Torque is sort of "power per engine rev"

??

>Formula for power-torque relation (were power and torque is at revs "rev")
>power = torque * rev * constant

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>best regards
>-Karl Hansell
>


Kumaravel Natarajan

unread,
Mar 4, 1994, 12:05:53 PM3/4/94
to
etx...@eogss.ericsson.se (Karl Hansell) writes:

>In article 1...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au, ins...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (S.P Fooey) writes:
>[...]
>>
>> Hang on... doesn't acceleration have to do with torque and not horsepower?!
>>I guess in some way they are kinda related... aren't they??
>>

>F=m*a

><=>

>a=F/m

>where a is acceleration, m is mass, F is power (like in horsepower).
>Concl: Acceleration is dependent on power, not torque.

Nej, F is FORCE, not Power.

Force = Mass * Acceleration

Work = Force * Distance

Power = Work/Time

Thus:
Power = Force * Distance / Time
Power = Mass * Acceleration * Distance / Time

Torque is angular Force: t = F x l
- x is the cross-product of Force
- l is the distance from the axle that the force is applied)

Thus, the original poster is more correct. Torque IS related to acceleration.

Horsepower is how much faster than the next guy, your car is in the
quarter mile, all other things being equal. :-)

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vel Natarajan nata...@rtsg.mot.com Motorola Cellular, Arlington Hts IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Rosser

unread,
Mar 4, 1994, 2:48:30 PM3/4/94
to
>You are definitely right that more hp means more fun (we Germans like
>driving fast ;) ) but please don't forget that (for most of us) there
>is a life OUTSIDE the car. And there, more pollution means less fun!!

And don't forget that there is a LOT more to "pollution" than what you
propose here.

>Therefore, we must find a compromise.
>With more than 75hp :)
>But with engines with less than 5.7l!!
>A good example that such a compromise can be made is the new version of
>the Porsche 911 Carrera. 272hp and mileage values around 19mpg (normal
>Porsche driving style assumed!), that's a compromise for both sides.

I want to see this backed up. I refuse to believe that this high-tech
motor will beat a high-tech V-8 (i.e. LT-1) in any significant manner.
I don't know what "normal Porsche driving style is", but an LT-1 will
meet 272hp/19mpg. LT-1's, ZR-1's, and >400hp Calloway and Lingenfelter
modifications of 5.7 liters are all emissions legal, so be careful
about these broad "big engines = unacceptable pollution" statements.

>Many american car designers (and buyers) don't make (buy) cars with good
>fuel economy because of low taxes (yes, yes, I will get flames about that;
>but a big engine ever need more fuel than a smaller one, that's a fact!).

Yes, I'm sure you will get roasted on that. Since there is no footnote
as to just where this "fact" is, and considering all the other
generalizations present, you're asking people to just believe what you
write is the absolute truth -- kind of like the US government.

>Why does the Camaro still have this old 5.7l engine?
>A modern engine can produce the same hp level with 3.0l !

First of all, the new Camaro doesn't have the "old" 5.7l. The rear
main seal, I believe, is the only thing in common between the old and
new 5.7's -- except for total displacement, of course. One of the
best things about the Chevy 350 is that it is "old"; it's such a good
engine that its lasted since the 1950's. It's also physically durable,
arguably more durable than a 4 or 6 cyl. of equal output.

Sure, a 3.0l can output the same hp as a larger motor. The first
question in my mind is "for how long?" And to demonstrate the absurd
by being absurd; a Yugo COULD go just as fast as a Porsche, but would
you want to drive the Yugo?

>Perhaps new cars like the Chrysler Neon change this behaviour.
>Think about that!
>
>Holger Spielmann <spie...@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>
>

Rob
rro...@st6000.sct.edu


rsi...@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu

unread,
Mar 5, 1994, 2:35:19 AM3/5/94
to
In article <1994Mar3.1...@bcarh54a.bnr.ca>, dw...@bcarh28f.bnr.ca (Dwight Wilbur Johanson Zywikie) writes:
> metric) units. Just out of curiosity, when is the US of A going to join
> the rest of the world (except the UK) and adopt SI units?
>

Hopefully, NEVER!

-Ron


G.E.Barkley

unread,
Mar 5, 1994, 6:13:00 PM3/5/94
to
BMW's only engine over 5.7 litres is the 6.1 litre in the McLaren F1. The
850 Csi has a 5.6 litre. I know which one I'd prefer...
:)
Gareth. Just come back from France and whos head is spinning.

Kurt da' Squirt

unread,
Mar 6, 1994, 10:30:26 PM3/6/94
to
Sure seems to be a lot of confusion about this torque/horsepower thing.
some know exactly what they are talking about and others have it all
backward.
Torque is angular force.
torque by itself is meanigless, I have a tractor in the garage
that in the right gear can produce 1400ftlbs of torque at the wheels. BUT
that is at about 5rpm. SO RPM is imprtant to.

Horse power is
power = force*distance (in the linear world)
power=rpm*torque ( in the turnig world)

Its takes torque through all the rpm band to accellerate a car. Or
through a band wide enough to cover each gear. This is where wide
ratio/short ratio trans come into play.

SO it is the area availabvle under the HP curve that is useful.

Big bad boy V8s basically use high torque/low RPM.
like 300ftlbs and a peak HP at 4500-5500rpm

DOHC 4valves per cylinder type engines, use moderate torque/ high RPM.
like 170ftlbs and a peak HP at 6500rpm or in the famous case of the
Integra GSR 7500rpm.

An engine turning twice as fast only needs half the torque to acellerate
eqully with another. BUT usually the engine that is turning twice as
fast is lighter too, and is in a lighter car.

Americans like Big cars so this nessesitates the big engine, power
steering, power brakes, gotta have AC, need more power, on and on.
And our gas is cheap by world standards.
Our roads are long and strait, So a car wieghing 3600lbs 1700kg is not a
problem to handeling.
I have a 2300lbs/1100kg, 128hp@6500rpm, 114lbft@4500rpm car. And
I love to catch up to big muscle cars in tight winding canyons where
their wieght, steam rollor tires, and ridged axle rear suspension make
them the pokey ones.
But for most americans its accelartion and heading down the
interstate at 75mph. Where a big slow turning V8 that is responsive without
having to down shift, and lasts a long time because it is only turning
1500rpm at 65mph is exactly what they want.
Kurt
--
_____________________________
/ \ |~~\_____/~~\__ |
| Kurt da' Squirt |______________ \______====== )-+
| send...@ucsu.colorado.edu | ~~~|/~~ |

Holger Spielmann

unread,
Mar 7, 1994, 9:21:56 AM3/7/94
to
c...@cbnews.cb.att.com (conrad.f.matter) wrote answering a post of mine:

>The Camaro has the LT-1 engine that is also in the Corvette. It is not
>really that old of an engine. Unless you are referring to turbo or
>supercharged engines, you have to pay a fairly high price to get
>275 or 300 HP out of a 3.0L engine! The Porsche 911 engine is larger
>than 3.0L isn't it? I thought it is now 3.6L. I think you are also
>forgeting about all those BMW's and MB's that have engines with
>LARGER displacement than 5.7L !!! Why do you single out the Camaro?

I guess your car is a Camaro, isn't it? ;)
I needed an example and the first automobilistic dinosaur that came to my mind
was the Camaro (huh, now all Camaro drivers will definitely roast me :) ,
therefore, I wrote it!!).
Naturally, there are more gas guzzlers than the Camaro (and there are a few
german ones, too, look at the MB S 600 or the BMW 850CSi, for example, but these
ones have much more power (394hp and 380hp, respectively) and are far too
expensive for the normal car driver, so only a small amount of such cars is on
our roads).
I wanted to express that the fairly simple technique to produce hp by
large displacement will result in bad mileage when the driver actually use
the power. A smaller engine (perhaps the 3.0l V8 of the BMW 530i, 218hp) needs
less fuel in all circumstances and will satisfy the needs of an american driver,
too.

Holger Spielmann <spie...@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>

Holger Spielmann

unread,
Mar 7, 1994, 10:17:30 AM3/7/94
to
rro...@sct.edu (Robert Rosser) wrote answering a post of mine:

[stuff deleted]

>I want to see this backed up. I refuse to believe that this high-tech
>motor will beat a high-tech V-8 (i.e. LT-1) in any significant manner.
>I don't know what "normal Porsche driving style is", but an LT-1 will
>meet 272hp/19mpg. LT-1's, ZR-1's, and >400hp Calloway and Lingenfelter
>modifications of 5.7 liters are all emissions legal, so be careful
>about these broad "big engines = unacceptable pollution" statements.

First of all: Auto Bild, a german car magazine, tested the Camaro with 5.7l
engine with a 14mpg mileage. They use for all test drives the same roads,
therefore the Porsche produces less pollution (the less fuel the less pollution,
I think that's reasonable!). Naturally, you can get a 25mpg mileage if you don't
use the Camaro/Corvette power (cruising 55mph at 1500rpm) but then you don't
need such an engine. With a smaller modern engine, you get 28mpg or even more
under such circumstances.


>>Many american car designers (and buyers) don't make (buy) cars with good
>>fuel economy because of low taxes (yes, yes, I will get flames about that;
>>but a big engine ever need more fuel than a smaller one, that's a fact!).

>Yes, I'm sure you will get roasted on that. Since there is no footnote
>as to just where this "fact" is, and considering all the other
>generalizations present, you're asking people to just believe what you
>write is the absolute truth -- kind of like the US government.

This fact is a physical one: I'm not an engineer but I know that you need
more fuel to fill a larger displacement before the ignition spark does his
work. And a big engine is a heavy engine; it needs some extra fuel to accelerate
its own weight. I think there are enough engineers out there who can explain
this in detail.

>First of all, the new Camaro doesn't have the "old" 5.7l. The rear
>main seal, I believe, is the only thing in common between the old and
>new 5.7's -- except for total displacement, of course. One of the
>best things about the Chevy 350 is that it is "old"; it's such a good
>engine that its lasted since the 1950's. It's also physically durable,
>arguably more durable than a 4 or 6 cyl. of equal output.

You're right. Big engines tend to have better durability.
But this was not my point: I want to express that intelligent drivers in
combination with intelligent technology can use economical engines and have
nevertheless enough fun. You need to breath even when you're driving! If you
ever came to L.A. in the summer you know what I want to say.

>Sure, a 3.0l can output the same hp as a larger motor. The first
>question in my mind is "for how long?"

I'm trusting in the capabilities of Mercedes-Benz and BMW engineers that
their engines last longer than the rest of the car. You might say I'm naive.
But ask MB and BMW owners first on the reliability of their engines.

I don't know exact reliability values for japanese engines but, generally, they
are able to build good engines, too (Lexus LS400 V8, for example). But they
tend to be thirstier than german engines (I don't want to be a patriot, it's
just what I read in car magazines!!).

>a Yugo COULD go just as fast as a Porsche, but would
>you want to drive the Yugo?

No. Never. But I don't have to. There are enough BMWs out there. :)


Holger Spielmann <spie...@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>


Unknown

unread,
Mar 7, 1994, 11:12:08 AM3/7/94
to
In article <sendelwe....@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, send...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Kurt da' Squirt) writes:
|> Sure seems to be a lot of confusion about this torque/horsepower thing.
|> some know exactly what they are talking about and others have it all
|> backward.
|> Torque is angular force.
|> torque by itself is meanigless, I have a tractor in the garage
|> that in the right gear can produce 1400ftlbs of torque at the wheels. BUT
|> that is at about 5rpm. SO RPM is imprtant to.
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


YES!!!!!!!! You got It.

For performance you want torque *AND* rpm.

But, alas for reasons that involve volumetric efficiency and mechanical
limitations it becomes more and more increasingly difficult to increase
torque output as rpm rises. Power will continue to rise however even
after torque output begins to decline. The reason is that even though
there is less torque at the higher rpm level, there are many more instances
of this torque per time interval.

An engine that pumps out 400 lb-ft @ 3000 is making about 228 hp (I am partial
to fat torqued V8s) (^B
if the torque peaked there and began to drop and was 300 lb-ft by 4500 rpm
the engine would be producing 257 hp. what you see is 3000 400lb-ft "instances"
applied in a period of 1 minute vs 4500 "instances" of 300lb-ft for the same
time period.

So, if you have a small engine with only "some" torque but, you have 8000 (rpm)
instances of it, you are still producing decent power.

HP figures are merely a means to quantify torque over time. Ultimately, its
the engine torque that will predict how a given vehicle accelerates. In fact,
if you plot acceleration curves vs torque curve of the engine the peak
acceleration will occur at the peak torque. This is true even though the
engine will produce higher power at a higher rev (higher speed implied, which
brings increased road load, drag, & friction)

[ If you could hold the engine at pk HP rpm accross all speeds, this would ]
[ produce the best acceleration, but were talki'n reality here... ]

This does not mean everyone needs to stuff a fat torqued V8 into their car.
Big engines are heavy, the lighter the vehicle the less power the engine needs
to make to get "performance" accelerations. Besides, torque at the wheels can
be acheived with enough transmission. One other thing to remember about HP peaks
is to ask yourself how long will the engine be at that rpm, and 2nd, what kind of
power is produced on either side of the peak.

Enough rambling.

Regards,

EricY

Sharen A. Rund

unread,
Mar 8, 1994, 10:56:52 AM3/8/94
to
mike stegbauer (mike...@syclone.csd.sgi.com) wrote:
: In article <2l57dj$m...@usenet.mcs.kent.edu>, rh...@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (Robert W. Hall) writes:
: |>
{ some deletia....}

I've had a number of cars in my driving lifetime and the main requirement
was/has/is always been dependability as in when I step on the gas/petrol
I want to go - there's nothing worse than driving down the road & having
some car pull in front of you & take 1/4-to-1/2 mile to get up to
speed thus causing everyone to have to stop/slow down - especially on
the hiways, which you're supposed to enter at the speed of the flow
of traffic, not at 25 mph when everyone's going 55+....
there's also another 'bug' of mine where someone who basically knows
nothing about a manual shift that takes off from a stop/signal lite
gets up to 3-1/2 mph & almost stops shifting, then gets up to 5-1/2 mph
& does the same thing - then, about the time they finally get going, they/you
have to stop at the next light.......

at any rate all of my cars (51 stude, 52 stude convert, 56 chev, 56 olds,
58 vauxhaul, 66 plymouth sport fury, 63? valiant, 73 pinto wagon, 66 mustang
convert, 73 mustang convert, 84 amc eagle wagon, 89 taurus, 87 t-bird,
77 blazer, 46 buick sedanette, 33 ford roadster, 55 buick, 57 buick 2-dr
hatdtop, 57 buick caballero, 40 ford tudor) have one thing in common -
when I step on the gas/petrol they go, they don't hesitate, they don't
begin to move forward slowly, they go, and that's what I want in a car!!!

... 8-)


--
____________ __ ____________ "They that can give up essential
\_____ / /_ \ \ _____/ liberty to obtain a little
\_____ \____/ \____/ _____/ temporary safety deserve
\_____ _____/ neither liberty nor safety."
\___________ ___________/ --Benjamin Franklin
/ \ ALL disclaimers apply ....
~~~~~~

rsi...@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu

unread,
Mar 8, 1994, 11:32:36 AM3/8/94
to
In article <2li1pi$i...@wcap.centerline.com>, ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
> Hopefully, soon. You probably missed the first attempt by our
> government to push it through -- I went through several years of them
> pounding the different measurements into my head.
>
> That experience led me to the firm belief that SI is better,
> particularly for unit conversions. They tried to tell me that in
> grade school but it was painfully obvious in chemistry and physics.
>
> But more importantly there are substantial costs related to doing it
> different than everyone else -- multiple sets of tools, multiple
> calibrations on things like speedometers, and repackaging necessary to
> sell things out of the country to name a few of them.
>
> As it is many more things are SI in this country than most people
> would care to admit. The conversion is happening but a lot slower
> than the 70's government wanted. Giving up "miles" is going the be
> the hardest, I think.
>
> jim frost
> ji...@centerline.com


I agree with you that there are somethings that SI is much better in,
like chemistry. I just don't like the idea of completely converting
over to SI. I guess it's just a matter of what you are used to.
I can imagine how big a 1/2 inch bolt is, but couldn't tell you the
relative size of a 7 mm bolt. Also in distances, especially trips
most of us know how far/long it will take for a 300 mile trip, but
have no idea for a 300 km trip. And temperatures we all know what
80 degrees farenheit is like, but not necessiarly 30 degrees celcius.
How about when considering things like engine output, we all know
horsepower, what is the SI equalivent, or engine sizes. Almost everybody
knows how big a 302 ci, a 454 ci, a 350 ci etc. engine is, but we
only know a few SI engine sizes, like 5.0L is a 302 ci. (I know a 302
is only 4.9 L and a 5.0L is a 305?)


I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that while SI may be
better in some respects, I hope we don't convert completely to SI.


-Ron Singer

ds...@vmsmail.gov.bc.ca

unread,
Mar 9, 1994, 2:42:08 PM3/9/94
to
In article <CMEJq...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, rjw...@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>>I agree with you that there are somethings that SI is much better in,
>>like chemistry. I just don't like the idea of completely converting
>>over to SI. I guess it's just a matter of what you are used to.
>>I can imagine how big a 1/2 inch bolt is, but couldn't tell you the
>>relative size of a 7 mm bolt. Also in distances, especially trips
>
> you'd learn this very quickly...as soon as you experienced it regularly...
> probably 6-12 months. it's certainly easier if 7mm is too small and 9mm
> is to big to pick 8, rather than the 3/4 too small but 7/8 too big...boondoggle.

>
>>most of us know how far/long it will take for a 300 mile trip, but
>>have no idea for a 300 km trip. And temperatures we all know what
> come on...300km at 100km/hr=3 hours....300km at 300km/hour=3 hours...basic.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
whoops. 300km at 300km/hr=1 hour. i hope that was just a slip. :-)

Canada went metric in 1974 and experienced the usual resistance to the
new system. There are still a few die hards who still want to go back.

You will all become used to it. For those people who know both systems
they are lucky. Kids coming out of our schools here fully understand
metric, and don't know the old system much at all. I was in school
when they changed over so i'm versed in both.

Anybody that tells you that the metric system is crap, has their head
buried in the sand and really doesn't know what they're talking about.
It's all just a matter of getting used to.

Dan.
--
Disclaimer: The opinions and statements contained in this posting are the sole
responsibility of the author and have not in any way been reviewed or approved
by my employer or any network service.

Per-Olof Litby @Sun Sweden

unread,
Mar 10, 1994, 3:02:18 AM3/10/94
to
In article a...@mojo.eng.umd.edu, tom...@glue.umd.edu (Thomas V. DelRosario) writes:
>stuff deleted...
>The US will
>be at a disadvantage from a trade standpoint as long as it hangs on to
>this stupid measurement system (Who the hell thought up the English
>system, barrels aren't standardized, miles aren't standardized, must
>have taken a real imbecile to think that up).

The Imperial "system" wasn't thought up, it evolved from basic measurements usually
taken from things around people. For instance, an acre was how large a piece of
land you could seed from one barrel of grain, an inch was the length of a thumb...

The SI system was thought up, however. That should be pretty obvious.

/POL

---
----------------------------- Per-Olof Litby ---------------------------
-------------------------- Sun Microsystems AB -------------------------
------------------- P.O Box 51, S-164 94 Kista, Sweden -----------------------
------------------------- Voice: +46 8 623-9115 --------------------------
---------------------- Email: Per-Olo...@sun.se ------------------------

Cameron Ing

unread,
Mar 10, 1994, 7:02:05 AM3/10/94
to
ERKKI MYLLYNEN (MATEK) (emyl...@viikki.helsinki.fi) wrote:

: In article <2kr66p$i...@rmg01.prod.aol.net> da...@aol.com (David) writes:

: >Another reason for high-horsepower cars is, "It's not how fast, but how quick."

: >Many on-ramps to America's interstate system don't allow enough room to merge
: >with traffic traveling 60-70 mph. A high-horsepower car, with the right gear
: >ratio, allows you to attain highway speeds in a very short distance. That's
: >why
: >we're so keen on how many seconds it takes to get from 0-60 mph.

: My first and most lasting impression of American highways was amazement
: about the amount of space used for intersections and ramps. I agree that

: sufficient power makes it a lot easier and safer to join the traffic flow,

: but I don't think that American interstates have shorter ramps than their
: Italian or (this one i am goddamn sure of) Finnish counterparts.

: Engine power is addictive and fun. That's what it is about.

If you've got it, flaunt it!!!!!

--
_________ ___ ___
/ / / / / |/ | Cameron Ing cams...@werple.apana.org.au
/ / / / / | BAYERISHCE MOTOREN WERKE -
/__/__/__/ /__/|__/|__| ** THE ULTIMATE DRIVING MACHINE **

Chris BeHanna

unread,
Mar 11, 1994, 10:40:09 AM3/11/94
to
In article <2lni1g$4...@fbi-news.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> Holger Spielmann (spie...@dusty.informatik.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:
:>From the fingertips of rro...@sct.edu (Robert Rosser) came forth:
:>>And just assuming, for a minute and incorrectly, that your claim of a
:>>one-to-one relationship exists between fuel mileage and engine emissions, and
:>>using the order of magnitude of actual emissions from a modern automobile, the
:>>difference in emissions over a 3 mpg spread would be virtually undetectable.

:>Maybe, but a 10% difference will result in 50 gallons of gas over a year. And

How does this follow?

:>there exists more than one Camaro/Corvette in the States.
:>These emissions are detectable, I suppose.

Any modern Camaro/Corvette will baseline the test equipment these days.
Pollution controls on modern autos in the U.S. are quite strict, I can assure
you.

:>>[...argument about large engine fuel consumption vs. small engine fuel
:>>consumption deleted...]
:>
:>at this special moment.
:>BUT YOU HAVE TO ACCELERATE THE CARS TO THIS SPEED FIRST!
:>And the more often you have to do this (stop-and-go in city streets!) the more
:>often the big engine will consume more than the small one. (If you can prove the
:>opposite, I'll order a Viper tomorrow :) And every small car gets his own 5,7l.
:>And the lawn-mowers, too! Why should anyone buy a car with another engine?)

:>And as more people drive on real roads than in laboratories (I hope so :) ),
:>all that I claimed was that a typical driver (= the average driver of this
:>special car type) has a considerably lower mileage with a 5,7l engine than
:>with a 3,0l or 3,6l (assuming 1/3 city streets, 1/3 highways with one lane for
:>each direction, 1/3 two-or-more-lane highways as an average all-day route).

Fine. The engine is tailored to the desired characteristics of the
car. A broad powerband with lots of power available over a wide range of
rpms means a larger engine, period. Yes, it will drink more gas. The owner
is already paying for that. Why should the owner have to justify his choice
to you?

:>>My parents are MB owners and there products have been pretty reliable. But
:>>MB has little reputation for making things light weight. This is aimed
:>>at the contention above that V-8's automatically weigh more than downsized
:>>engines. If I'm gonna have a 6 cyl. that's reliable and weighs as much as
:>>a V-8 which is reliable, I'll take two more pistons.
:>
:>Oh, if that's the only problem, MB offers a 6,0l V12 in their S and SL series.
:>They weigh more than 4000 pounds and are easily able to drink the Corvette
:>under the table :) (Hey, I've found the perfect car for you!?)
:>Besides, each 6 cyl (that I have heard of) weighs less than a 8 cyl with same
:>displacement. The MB cars weigh a lot, not their engines.

Hmm...you should be interested to find out that the Ford 302 weighs
only marginally more than the Ford 2300cc inline four, and that the Ford 302
weighs only fifty pounds more than the Mazda Miata powerplant.

Beware hasty generalizations about weight being proportional to
displacement or number of cylinders.

Do you honestly believe that the owners of powerful cars choose their
cars on the criteria of "Let's see which one of these burns the most gas. I
want that!"?

:>>Ahh, now I see the problem. Car magazines are not the gospel on anything,
:>>whether they are German, American, or otherwise.

:>Maybe.
:>But they are able to compare cars as they have actually driven them. And if
:>you think that a german magazine could give preferential treatment to
:>german cars and cheat the american ones, there aren't any reason for it.

Really?

:>Their share of the market is only of little significance in Germany.
:>Noone would make a profit from such dirty tricks. So they have no reason to lie.
:>Therefore, practical evidence beats your "theory" (if there were any!).

Uh, all I've seen from you are baldfaced assertions with little, if
any, evidence. Theory vs. theory, to be generous.

--
Chris BeHanna DoD# 114 KotSTA Ed Green 1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com Fan Club #004 1991 ZX-11 - needs a name
kore ha en-ii-shi no iken dewa arimasen. 1973 RD350A
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs. 1987 EX500 - the RaceBike

Kent Gabrin

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 5:28:20 AM3/14/94
to
In article <1994Mar10.2...@dg-rtp.dg.com>,
Bob Goudreau <goud...@batgirl.rtp.dg.com> wrote:

...deleted lines...

>However, I agree with some of your other points, like the fact that
>Celsius temperatures are far harder for Fahrenheit-accustomed people
>to intuitively grasp.

Here at CelsiusTech Systems I am most accustomed to Celsius
temperatures even I know that the real SI-unit is Kelvin. :-)

Even that we here in Sweden uses a lot of SI-units when we talk
we still have a long way before we all talk SI. We still use
HorsePower when talking about engines instead of kW. Fuel
consumption should be m**2 (square meters) instead of litre/km.
:-)

(Miles per gallon could be translated to 1/(square inch) :-) )

Regards Kent

Kent Gabrin CelsiusTech Systems ! My thinking is not as great as
S-175 88 Jaerfaella Sweden ! Oliver Berendinus Bumble /Will Try
KE...@Celsiustech.se

Spiros Triantafyllopoulos

unread,
Mar 14, 1994, 8:54:28 AM3/14/94
to
In article <1994Mar10.2...@dg-rtp.dg.com> goud...@batgirl.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:
>However, I agree with some of your other points, like the fact that
>Celsius temperatures are far harder for Fahrenheit-accustomed people
>to intuitively grasp.

How about miles per gallon conversion from/to liters/100 KM?

Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos Kokomo, IN 46904 (317) 451-0815
Software Development Technology c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Delco Electronics/GM Hughes Electronics [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]

Chris BeHanna

unread,
Mar 15, 1994, 1:04:25 PM3/15/94
to
In article <2m4rcd$b...@perot.mtsu.edu> Computer Languages- UNIX (cs1...@perot.mtsu.edu) wrote:
:>In <1994Mar11.1...@research.nj.nec.com> beh...@syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna) writes:


:>> Hmm...you should be interested to find out that the Ford 302 weighs


:>>only marginally more than the Ford 2300cc inline four, and that the Ford 302
:>>weighs only fifty pounds more than the Mazda Miata powerplant.

:>> Beware hasty generalizations about weight being proportional to
:>>displacement or number of cylinders.

:>Can this be true? How is it possible for the iron 302 to be only 50lbs.
:>heavier than an all aluminum 1.6L miata engine? I am curious as to how
:>this is possible. What are the weights you are using for these
:>comparisons? The 1.8L aluminum 4 in my dad's Subaru only weighs 207lbs.
:>with its transmission. Is the Miata powerplant any heavier than the
:>Subaru? I know the 302 weighs much more than this. Where did this
:>information come from? Please do not take this as a flame; I am merely
:>curious as to how this is possible.

Ford 289/302 V8 460 pounds (late 5.0s are lighter)

I don't have a listing for Mazda, sorry.

--
Chris BeHanna DoD# 114 KotSTA Ed Green 1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com Fan Club #004 1991 ZX-11 - needs a name

kore ha NEC no iken dewa arimasen. 1973 RD350A

ERKKI MYLLYNEN (MATEK)

unread,
Mar 16, 1994, 7:25:53 AM3/16/94
to
In article <1994Mar15.1...@research.nj.nec.com> beh...@syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna) writes:
>From: beh...@syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna)
>Subject: Re: *High* power cars -- Why
>Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 18:04:25 GMT

>In article <2m4rcd$b...@perot.mtsu.edu> Computer Languages- UNIX
>(cs1...@perot.mtsu.edu) wrote:
>:>In <1994Mar11.1...@research.nj.nec.com> beh...@syl.nj.nec.com
>(Chris BeHanna) writes:


>:>> Hmm...you should be interested to find out that the Ford 302 weighs
>:>>only marginally more than the Ford 2300cc inline four, and that the Ford
>302
>:>>weighs only fifty pounds more than the Mazda Miata powerplant.

>:>> Beware hasty generalizations about weight being proportional to
>:>>displacement or number of cylinders.

>:>Can this be true? How is it possible for the iron 302 to be only 50lbs.
>:>heavier than an all aluminum 1.6L miata engine? I am curious as to how
>:>this is possible. What are the weights you are using for these
>:>comparisons? The 1.8L aluminum 4 in my dad's Subaru only weighs 207lbs.
>:>with its transmission. Is the Miata powerplant any heavier than the
>:>Subaru? I know the 302 weighs much more than this. Where did this
>:>information come from? Please do not take this as a flame; I am merely
>:>curious as to how this is possible.

>Ford 289/302 V8 460 pounds (late 5.0s are lighter)

> I don't have a listing for Mazda, sorry.

I thought Miata engine was made of iron, except the aluminum head. It's just
a modified 323 engine.

EM

Bob Goudreau

unread,
Mar 16, 1994, 11:57:15 AM3/16/94
to
In article <1994Mar14.1...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>
>>However, I agree with some of your other points, like the fact that
>>Celsius temperatures are far harder for Fahrenheit-accustomed people
>>to intuitively grasp.
>
>How about miles per gallon conversion from/to liters/100 KM?

Yup, that's even worse than the temperature conversion. If the EPA
ever mandates metric "mileage" ratings, I really hope they include
km/l figures. I find l/100km numbers about as enlightening as road
signs saying "Speed Limit 1 hour/100km".

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages