If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Ford gets a clue
"Michael Johnson" wrote: > > IMO, talking about horsepower is just part of the performance equation. > One also has to look at the torque rating of an engine. Your old 5.0L may > be on the low side for hp/litre but it delivers a lot of torque. Torque is > what accelerates your car not hp. Historically, American consumers prefer > a car with a good torque curve over one with high end hp. That is why the > domestic auto makers tend to gravitate toward larger displacement engines > which provide a broad flat torque curve. Foreign buyers are comfortable > with high winding lower torque engines that deliver better gas mileage > mainly due to their smaller displacement. > > I would take an engine with a nice broad torque curve over a high winding > small displacement engine. I don't want to have to drive a car like I > stole it to get some performance from it. Other's preference may be > different. I agree with you 100%. This guy doesn't have a clue. He fails to realize that the drop in Hp/Tq figures were do to Ford changing how they get those figures. In the 60's & 70's they used to get their figures from the crank. I believe they now get them at the rear wheels (if I remember right). I forget the formula that you use to figure the HP/Tq at the wheels when the info has come from the crank, but if you reverse the formula, He would see that there was actually little or no drop off in those figures. Mike, it looks like this guy is set in his ways, and no sense in arguing with him. 66StangMan |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Ford gets a clue
"w_tom" > wrote in message oups.com... > On Feb 12, 12:17 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote: >> IMO, talking about horsepower is just part of the performance equation. >> One also has to look at the torque rating of an engine. Your old 5.0L >> may be on the low side for hp/litre but it delivers a lot of torque. >> Torque is what accelerates your car not hp. > > Torque times speed is the horsepower. Either have high speed or high > torque. Engine adapts to a changing load by something called a > transmission and drive train. Any higher horsepower engine can have > more torque - simply adapt to a changing load. And so we install > transmissions. This need for 'high torque' was a big spin to promote > low performance, obsolete technology V-8s to the naive. Need more > torque? Then select a lower gear. Need more acceleration? No way > around higher horsepower. Any engine can be geared for more torque. > > Meanwhile, how to make an engine 'feel' more powerful. Make noise. > A truly high performance engines not only accelerates faster. It also > leaves a driver unaware of how much faster the vehicle is accelerating > - because energy goes into acceleration rather than into noise and > vibration. > > Let's see what true sport cars do. Mazda Miata: 85 Hp/liter. Lotus > Elise: 105 Hp/liter. Audi TT has two engines with turbo: 100 / 125; > or 78 Hp/liter without. Porshe 911: three engines - 90/88/100. > Porshe Boxer: 89/88. Honda S2000: 108. Pontiac Solsitce 74. > Chrysler Crossfi 67 and 103 with a supercharger. Ford Mustang: > 52 / 62. > > All are only fuel injected unless stated otherwise. > > Some sport cars are nothing more than standard performance. Then > hype promotes a myth just as hype also sells Listerine, Geritol, and > younger skin from the Pond's Institute. A sports car typically does > what all cars are expected to do 20 years later. If I recall > correctly, Porsche was doing 70 Hp/liter in the 1970s. 1960s > Corvettes and Shelby Mustangs also once did those numbers. So what > happened? > > 'Bean counters' started designing all Ford and GM products. They > promoted myths to motorheads so as to blame it all on anything but > auto company management. Myths such as high torque V-8s. Engines > were not 'detuned'. They were cost controlled - which is why costs > increased and performance decreased. Read stories about GM's Mona Lisa > room to appreciate why they had to promote myths about lower revving > engines. Yes, you cannot machine engines to 0.0001 tolerances when > using technology only capable of 0.001. Those HP/liter numbers > demonstrate what a decent sports car does when using current > technology manufacturing machines. Those who make lesser products > mask their lesser designs with more pistons and myths. > Yeah, maybe... But when the light turns green and I mash the gas, the only thing that passes my 5.0 are the car's taillights!!! Yahoo! What a frickin' joy that car is to drive! That's what a sports car is all about. Big, long, smokey burnouts, tons of torque off idle and an engine that sounds like the world is coming to an end. And for the record, all of the 'big 3' produce cars that make 100hp/litre. If you want to drive a Miata, fill your boots. Ford owns 20% of Mazda so at least the profits are going somewhere good. Brad PS: Porsche was an inch away from bankruptcy recently, so I don't think people really care what horsepower per litre cars generate. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Ford gets a clue
"w_tom" > wrote in message ups.com... > On Feb 11, 2:10 pm, "razz" > wrote: >> I don't know about the rest of the 91 stangs, they were rated at 225hp, I >> had mine dynoed, to see my base line, was rebuilding it to the nuts. It >> came >> out on the dyno just shy of 240hp's, in stock form. > > The naive will then speculate - assume that a published number is > intentionally lowered for marketing reasons. Wrong. Engineering > reasons explain a concept taught in first year statistics - confidence > level. If marketing says it does 225 Hp, then all must do 225 Hp ... or > more. Again, this is a simple engineering concept. But like the 100 > MPG carburetor, some just know without first learning these facts. > Confidence level is but another example of why one first learns facts > before falling for or promoting myths. > > Meanwhile Ford in those 2007 cars is doing maybe late 1980 or 1990 > technology. This is a major accomplishment from their pathetic 50+ Hp/ > liter engines (GM also sells the same pathetic technology to the > naive). The existence of a 67 Hp/liter engine (as a base engine) > means somebody let 'car guys' design starting maybe four years ago. > Therefore profits from that liberation may begin appearing years from > now. Notice how long it takes innovation to appear on spread sheets. > 'Bean counters' (also called communists) would fear you might learn > this concept - if they even understood it. > If you say so... That said, I will never get rid of my puny 55hp/litre 5.0. It came out 20 years ago and today it still kicks the crap out of 95% of cars on the road. Go figure. Sounds like there is an awful lot of bench racing here. And Razz, my cousin had a 1989 5.0 that dynoed 240 bone stock. This 5.0 was something fast so he dynoed it... What a surprise... still with the air silencer in it, stock timing, 5-spd and 2.73s out back. It was an impressive car in 1989. Still is today. Brad |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Ford gets a clue
"BradandBrooks" > wrote in message news:fvgAh.962525$5R2.128058@pd7urf3no... > > "w_tom" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > On Feb 11, 2:10 pm, "razz" > wrote: > >> I don't know about the rest of the 91 stangs, they were rated at 225hp, I > >> had mine dynoed, to see my base line, was rebuilding it to the nuts. It > >> came > >> out on the dyno just shy of 240hp's, in stock form. > > > > The naive will then speculate - assume that a published number is > > intentionally lowered for marketing reasons. Wrong. Engineering > > reasons explain a concept taught in first year statistics - confidence > > level. If marketing says it does 225 Hp, then all must do 225 Hp ... or > > more. Again, this is a simple engineering concept. But like the 100 > > MPG carburetor, some just know without first learning these facts. > > Confidence level is but another example of why one first learns facts > > before falling for or promoting myths. > > > > Meanwhile Ford in those 2007 cars is doing maybe late 1980 or 1990 > > technology. This is a major accomplishment from their pathetic 50+ Hp/ > > liter engines (GM also sells the same pathetic technology to the > > naive). The existence of a 67 Hp/liter engine (as a base engine) > > means somebody let 'car guys' design starting maybe four years ago. > > Therefore profits from that liberation may begin appearing years from > > now. Notice how long it takes innovation to appear on spread sheets. > > 'Bean counters' (also called communists) would fear you might learn > > this concept - if they even understood it. > > > > If you say so... > > That said, I will never get rid of my puny 55hp/litre 5.0. It came out 20 > years ago and today it still kicks the crap out of 95% of cars on the road. > Go figure. Sounds like there is an awful lot of bench racing here. > > And Razz, my cousin had a 1989 5.0 that dynoed 240 bone stock. This 5.0 was > something fast so he dynoed it... What a surprise... still with the air > silencer in it, stock timing, 5-spd and 2.73s out back. It was an impressive > car in 1989. Still is today. > > Brad I laugh all the way to the other side of the intersection when a S2000 thinks he can roll me. My pony sits at 500hp's, and when I hear this S2000 fart can motor start to wind up I start laughing at these guys, really ****es them off. This motor really sounds like it's going to puke parts all over the place, as i sit there idling, waiting for the light. As it turns green, I look in the mirror, cause I'm already across the intersection, and he hasn't barley moved yet, and the look they have on their face is worth every penny of gas I just wasted, considering my car, when heavy on the gas, drinks gas like a dam just burst. Can hardly wait to put twin turbo's on my baby. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Ford gets a clue
66StangMan wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" wrote: >> IMO, talking about horsepower is just part of the performance equation. >> One also has to look at the torque rating of an engine. Your old 5.0L may >> be on the low side for hp/litre but it delivers a lot of torque. Torque is >> what accelerates your car not hp. Historically, American consumers prefer >> a car with a good torque curve over one with high end hp. That is why the >> domestic auto makers tend to gravitate toward larger displacement engines >> which provide a broad flat torque curve. Foreign buyers are comfortable >> with high winding lower torque engines that deliver better gas mileage >> mainly due to their smaller displacement. >> >> I would take an engine with a nice broad torque curve over a high winding >> small displacement engine. I don't want to have to drive a car like I >> stole it to get some performance from it. Other's preference may be >> different. > > I agree with you 100%. This guy doesn't have a clue. He fails to realize > that the drop in Hp/Tq figures were do to Ford changing how they get those > figures. In the 60's & 70's they used to get their figures from the crank. I > believe they now get them at the rear wheels (if I remember right). I forget > the formula that you use to figure the HP/Tq at the wheels when the info has > come from the crank, but if you reverse the formula, He would see that there > was actually little or no drop off in those figures. In the old days they used to get the hp/torque numbers without accessories (air conditioning, alternator etc.) or exhaust attached to the engine. Now the numbers are based on a fully loaded engine that is run as it is configured in the automobile and with the exhaust system attached. I think all the hp numbers are still relative to the crank and not the rear wheels. > Mike, it looks like this guy is set in his ways, and no sense in arguing with him. Shoot, this isn't arguing. Do a search on me in Google Groups and you will see some epic threads that I consider a full blown argument. Most times they have nothing to do with cars. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Ford gets a clue
razz wrote:
> "BradandBrooks" > wrote in message > news:fvgAh.962525$5R2.128058@pd7urf3no... >> "w_tom" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >>> On Feb 11, 2:10 pm, "razz" > wrote: >>>> I don't know about the rest of the 91 stangs, they were rated at 225hp, > I >>>> had mine dynoed, to see my base line, was rebuilding it to the nuts. It >>>> came >>>> out on the dyno just shy of 240hp's, in stock form. >>> The naive will then speculate - assume that a published number is >>> intentionally lowered for marketing reasons. Wrong. Engineering >>> reasons explain a concept taught in first year statistics - confidence >>> level. If marketing says it does 225 Hp, then all must do 225 Hp ... or >>> more. Again, this is a simple engineering concept. But like the 100 >>> MPG carburetor, some just know without first learning these facts. >>> Confidence level is but another example of why one first learns facts >>> before falling for or promoting myths. >>> >>> Meanwhile Ford in those 2007 cars is doing maybe late 1980 or 1990 >>> technology. This is a major accomplishment from their pathetic 50+ Hp/ >>> liter engines (GM also sells the same pathetic technology to the >>> naive). The existence of a 67 Hp/liter engine (as a base engine) >>> means somebody let 'car guys' design starting maybe four years ago. >>> Therefore profits from that liberation may begin appearing years from >>> now. Notice how long it takes innovation to appear on spread sheets. >>> 'Bean counters' (also called communists) would fear you might learn >>> this concept - if they even understood it. >>> >> If you say so... >> >> That said, I will never get rid of my puny 55hp/litre 5.0. It came out 20 >> years ago and today it still kicks the crap out of 95% of cars on the > road. >> Go figure. Sounds like there is an awful lot of bench racing here. >> >> And Razz, my cousin had a 1989 5.0 that dynoed 240 bone stock. This 5.0 > was >> something fast so he dynoed it... What a surprise... still with the air >> silencer in it, stock timing, 5-spd and 2.73s out back. It was an > impressive >> car in 1989. Still is today. >> >> Brad > I laugh all the way to the other side of the intersection when a S2000 > thinks he can roll me. My pony sits at 500hp's, and when I hear this S2000 > fart can motor start to wind up I start laughing at these guys, really > ****es them off. This motor really sounds like it's going to puke parts all > over the place, as i sit there idling, waiting for the light. As it turns > green, I look in the mirror, cause I'm already across the intersection, and > he hasn't barley moved yet, and the look they have on their face is worth > every penny of gas I just wasted, considering my car, when heavy on the gas, > drinks gas like a dam just burst. Can hardly wait to put twin turbo's on my > baby. My preference is to make them think it is a close race through 1st and 2nd gears. Then when I hit third gear I pull away from them like they were standing still. Once I prove my point then I back down and let them pass me. The looks I see on their faces as they go by are priceless. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Ford gets a clue
On Feb 13, 1:11 am, "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote:
> they are producing 800-1200 ft-lbs of TORQUE!!! It is torque that gets the > load moving, not horsepower. Any engine can be geared to produce that torque. Simply change drive train ratios. However more speed at that torque means more horsepower. To sell low performance and obsolete technology engines, the myth about 'torque only from a V-8' is widely promoted. Horsepower determines acceleration. Only higher horsepower engines can also provide speed necessary at that torque. Narrower operating range is found in lower performance engines. Meanwhile varrroom of a low performance V-8 is irrelevant. Point is whether Ford will survive - whether Ford can sell cars at a profit - or would sell low performance and lower reliability engines that mean higher costs and no profits. As demonstrated by recent numbers from 2007 cars, 'car guys' were permitted to design. Only a 'bean counter' would advocate selling those lower performance V-8s that cost more to build and that have been obsoleted by innovators ('car guys') from the competition. Mustang may get an average performance 320 Hp engine. However why would Ford waste time doing that when so many Mustang owners are happy with a low performance 210 Hp engines? The discussion is not about silly torque myths. The subject is Ford's survival - what Ford must produce to remain competitive and what lawyers, business school graduates, and communication majors did to harm Ford Motor. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Ford gets a clue
In article .com>, w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:11 am, "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote: >> they are producing 800-1200 ft-lbs of TORQUE!!! It is torque that gets the >> load moving, not horsepower. > > Any engine can be geared to produce that torque. Simply change > drive train ratios. Ride a bicycle and get back to us on that... just try changing the gearing and see what happens. You'll soon find the limiting factor is the torque you put out. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Ford gets a clue
In article >, Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, w_tom wrote: >> On Feb 13, 1:11 am, "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote: >>> they are producing 800-1200 ft-lbs of TORQUE!!! It is torque that gets the >>> load moving, not horsepower. >> >> Any engine can be geared to produce that torque. Simply change >> drive train ratios. > > Ride a bicycle and get back to us on that... just try changing the > gearing and see what happens. > > You'll soon find the limiting factor is the torque you put out. I take that back in part... if you have strong legs you'll start skipping chain or break something when starting in gear for quicker acceleration. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ford chief seeks help from Toyota | Grover C. McCoury III | Ford Mustang | 111 | January 9th 07 06:46 AM |
Visit to the Ford Dealer | Mort Guffman | Ford Mustang | 25 | July 24th 06 08:45 PM |
Ford Mustang (and other) OEM Parts books for sale | Joe | Ford Mustang | 0 | March 19th 06 06:38 PM |
Ford Posts Profit, Autos Disappoint Again | Grover C. McCoury III | Ford Mustang | 1 | January 20th 05 06:05 PM |