Is More Flow Better, Is The Smallest Intake Port That Flows The Most The Best

-
use to most trucks was gas powered way back in 30s threw 50s,.. but engineers got away from that cause gas engines didnt produce enuff torque! well never did diesels till gmc blowers and holsett turbos cam about in 40s....DWB!
It's more about the rpm it makes power at, you pretty much have 400 hp available to you anytime you need it.
 
It's more about the rpm it makes power at, you pretty much have 400 hp available to you anytime you need it.
Oh dear. 400hp is available at all times, is it?

Please explain this to us:

How can an electric engine be rated at 1000kW regardless of RPM???

We all know 1kW = 1.34HP so how does that work?

Explain.

EDIT: It doesn't matter. We're just going around in circles now. There's nothing else I can add.
 
Last edited:
I could say the same to you, your just wrong about hp

For what?



easy it would be the average of the two revolutions of the 4 stroke cycle, so the one power stroke divide by two.

No

What does that force get divide into tq and rpm different displacements will divide the force into different ratios 400 hp of fuel and air is gonna make half the tq and twice the rpm in a 170 vs 340 but the same power basically under similar efficiency.

No one saying it is, you keep saying torque does work


Save yourself the grief. It’s a simple test to see who knows what the **** they are talking about and who doesnt.

Take all the torque you got, put the ***** in high gear and see how fast it gets moving. It will be a PIG.

Because TQ never moved anything. It’s that simple.

RPM and gearing moves the car or whatever. RPM makes horsepower.

Those who have made it to their 40’s and older who have been doing this forever and don’t get that simple concept will NEVER learn.

I give up. I hope they all build junk with a TQ curve that’s higher than the HP curve and then be disappointed in what they have.
 
Oh dear. 400hp is available at all times, is it?
Making it at low rpm and 13 gears available i'd say yes
Please explain this to us:

How can an electric engine be rated at 1000kW regardless of RPM???

We all know 1kW = 1.34HP so how does that work?
Here's a dyno of an electronic motor other than a aggressive 0-3000 rpm looks no different
eve_30kw288v.jpg
 
Save yourself the grief. It’s a simple test to see who knows what the **** they are talking about and who doesnt.

Take all the torque you got, put the ***** in high gear and see how fast it gets moving. It will be a PIG.

Because TQ never moved anything. It’s that simple.

RPM and gearing moves the car or whatever. RPM makes horsepower.

Those who have made it to their 40’s and older who have been doing this forever and don’t get that simple concept will NEVER learn.

I give up. I hope they all build junk with a TQ curve that’s higher than the HP curve and then be disappointed in what they have.
Fastest accelerating production car in the world. Has one gear. I've said it already: you don't understand even basic physics.

 
Oh dear. 400hp is available at all times, is it?

Please explain this to us:

How can an electric engine be rated at 1000kW regardless of RPM???

We all know 1kW = 1.34HP so how does that work?

Explain.

EDIT: It doesn't matter. We're just going around in circles now. There's nothing else I can add.
can you explain to me why an engine making similar tq at different rpms say 500 lbs-ft @ 3500 rpm & 4500 rpm if I'm wrong it ain't per revolution and why does it make same tq and more hp at 4500 rpm and what does rpm have to do with all this?
 
Last edited:
can you explain to me why an engine making similar tq at different rpms say 500 lbs-ft @ 3500 rpm & 4500 rpm if I'm wrong it ain't per revolution and why does it make same tq and more hp at 4500 rpm and what does rpm have to do with all this?
I'm tired of explaining basic physics to people. You know the answer, I know the answer. Everything has been explained 10-fold in this thread.

A 1000kW electric engine is a simple equation that disproves your theory of time. V x A = 1000kW. No rpm, no dynos, no amount of elapsed time.

If you can't understand that potential energy exists regardless of rpm, then I really can't think of another way to explain it.
 
I'm tired of explaining basic physics to people. You know the answer, I know the answer. Everything has been explained 10-fold in this thread.
You think you have
A 1000kW electric engine is a simple equation that disproves your theory of time. V x A = 1000kW. No rpm, no dynos, no amount of elapsed time.
electric engine aren't my thing I'd have to think about it. But i'm sure i'll find why it's wrong,

My first guess off the top of my head if you apply V & A and no rpm must turn to heat not saying that's right.

If you can't understand that potential energy exists regardless of rpm, then I really can't think of another way to explain it.
A gas engine no rpm no potential energy can't when no power stroke are happening and when running potential goes up with rpm cause it's displaces more fuel and air higher up in it's powerband.

I'm good leaving it here
 
You think you have

electric engine aren't my thing I'd have to think about it. But i'm sure i'll find why it's wrong,

My first guess off the top of my head if you apply V & A and no rpm must turn to heat not saying that's right.


A gas engine potential energy goes up with rpm cause it's displaces more fuel and air higher up in it's powerband.

I'm good leaving it here
Mate, seriously. Heat is just a measure of energy transfer.

Potential energy is potential energy. It doesn't change. You can't create it nor destroy it – you can only transfer it or convert it to mass.

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I'm actually trying to help people understand why torque moves things. And I'm trying to explain to you why time doesn't matter to a potential force.

You think that because an engine only applies torque when it's running, that torque and rpm are inextricably linked – which is not the case.

I am saying that the potential for that torque already exists before it is applied. Ie; before you even start the engine.

An electric engine is a prime example of this. We already know how much torque we have before we start using it, because we know how much energy will be used. That energy is the potential force (converted to a rotational force = torque).

Is it that hard to understand?
 
You think you have

electric engine aren't my thing I'd have to think about it. But i'm sure i'll find why it's wrong,

My first guess off the top of my head if you apply V & A and no rpm must turn to heat not saying that's right.


A gas engine no rpm no potential energy can't when no power stroke are happening and when running potential goes up with rpm cause it's displaces more fuel and air higher up in it's powerband.

I'm good leaving it here

Look at the goal posts moving.

You‘ve got a wanker thinking he’s teaching physics. And electric motors.

Thats what wankers do when they have issues. Just to another platform.

Maybe Joey needs to start two new forums. One for electric car junk so they don’t pollute good threads and a forum just for wankers.

They can hang out there and dazzle each other with their bullshit.
 
Mate, seriously. Heat is just a measure of energy transfer.

Potential energy is potential energy. It doesn't change. You can't create it nor destroy it – you can only transfer it or convert it to mass.

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I'm actually trying to help people understand why torque moves things. And I'm trying to explain to you why time doesn't matter to a potential force.

You think that because an engine only applies torque when it's running, that torque and rpm are inextricably linked – which is not the case.

I am saying that the potential for that torque already exists before it is applied. Ie; before you even start the engine.

An electric engine is a prime example of this. We already know how much torque we have before we start using it, because we know how much energy will be used. That energy is the potential force (converted to a rotational force = torque).

Is it that hard to understand?


You‘re joking right? TQ without RPM does what?

Never mind. I don’t want to hear your bullshit.

Back on ignore you go with the rest of the wankers where you belong.
 
Mate, seriously. Heat is just a measure of energy transfer.
I know
Potential energy is potential energy. It doesn't change. You can't create it nor destroy it – you can only transfer it or convert it to mass.
I know
I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I'm actually trying to help people understand why torque moves things. And I'm trying to explain to you why time doesn't matter to a potential force.
Same here lol
You think that because an engine only applies torque when it's running, that torque and rpm are inextricably linked – which is not the case.
your wrong
I am saying that the potential for that torque already exists before it is applied. Ie; before you even start the engine.
This is ridiculously wrong
An electric engine is a prime example of this. We already know how much torque we have before we start using it, because we know how much energy will be used. That energy is the potential force (converted to a rotational force = torque).
There's potential in splitting atoms but unless do it means nothing, just cause you got a battery hooked to an electric motor means nothing until you flip the switch. Just because you have a tank of gas and air all around your car means nothing until you start your car.
Is it that hard to understand?
That's my question to you, obviously you have a grasp but your off on how your applying it you need to rethink everything.

How hard is it to accept that tq and rpm is what moves and accelerates a car and we call that hp ?
 
Last edited:
I know

I know

Same here lol

your wrong

This is ridiculously wrong

There's potential in splitting atoms but unless do it means nothing, just cause you got a battery hooked to an electric motor means nothing until you flip the switch. Just because you have a tank of gas and air all around means nothing until you start your car.

That's my question to you, obviously you have a grasp but your off on how your applying it you need to rethink everything.

How hard is it to accept that tq and rpm is what moves and accelerates a car and we call that hp ?
The reason I can't accept it is because the greater amount of force (TQ) being applied at any given rpm will accelerate the same mass faster.

OK, my final attempt . . .

You are in a turbo-charged car and you are travelling at 100mph holding a steady 5000rpm. To go faster, do you need to increase RPM? No. You can increase boost (which increases torque) at the same RPM and now you can go faster.

In the example above, the RPM hasn't made the car go faster – the torque has. It's as simple as that. You can't say that "TQ and RPM is what moves and accelerates a car" when in this case only the TQ made the car accelerate and not the RPM.

Do you understand that bit? I take all your points, and I even said much of what you have said in my very first post that "Torque moves the car, Horsepower determines how fast it accelerates", but they are not the same thing.

We're 99.9% in agreement – I even agree with you that you can't have a rotational force (TQ) without a rotation! But force and power are not the same thing.

F=MA
P=F*v

These equations prove it. P(ower) is not F(orce). If you are not saying that, then I apologise, but it does appear to me that is what you have been saying.
 
The reason I can't accept it is because the greater amount of force (TQ) being applied at any given rpm will accelerate the same mass faster.
Yes at any given rpm, different engine operate at different powerbands one of the reasons why we need the hp measurement in the first place.
OK, my final attempt . . .

You are in a turbo-charged car and you are travelling at 100mph holding a steady 5000rpm. To go faster, do you need to increase RPM? No. You can increase boost (which increases torque) at the same RPM and now you can go faster.
What does more tq make at same rpm, more hp, same thing would happen if it was an NA engine with a power band that goes higher more gas more rpm with same basic torque amount possibly less, at peak hp torque is at about 90% of it's peak. Which again more hp.
In the example above, the RPM hasn't made the car go faster – the torque has. It's as simple as that. You can't say that "TQ and RPM is what moves and accelerates a car" when in this case only the TQ made the car accelerate and not the RPM.
In that case increased hp is what made it go faster which was done through more tq and same rpm.
Do you understand that bit? I take all your points, and I even said much of what you have said in my very first post that "Torque moves the car, Horsepower determines how fast it accelerates", but they are not the same thing.
Any movement has an acceleration component. Go zero to 1 mph it takes some acceleration to do that and staying at 1 mph is still distance over time.
We're 99.9% in agreement – I even agree with you that you can't have a rotational force (TQ) without a rotation! But force and power are not the same thing.

F=MA
P=F*v

These equations prove it. P(ower) is not F(orce). If you are not saying that, then I apologise, but it does appear to me that is what you have been saying.
Never said hp is force, you keep acting like tq does everything and rpm and hp play near zero roll, you don't seem to realize any movement car does powered by the engine is work and takes hp to do that work which is tq and rpm.
 
Last edited:
It's OK, I kind of figured this was going nowhere from the start.

Any movement has an acceleration component.
The earth revolves around the sun – it is moving – it is not accelerating. You confuse movement with acceleration just as you confuse Force with Power.

In that case increased hp is what made it go faster.
No. Increased TQ made it go faster. HP is simply a MEASURE of the increased amount of TQ at the SAME RPM.

F=MA

^ See this equation? It was written by a man far smarter than you or I.

What does it say? Does it say "Horsepower = Mass x Acceleration"? Does it say "RPM = Mass x Acceleration"? Does it say "Work = Mass x Acceleration"?

It doesn't say any of those things. You should try arguing with Sir Isaac Newton, not me.
 
It's OK, I kind of figured this was going nowhere from the start.


The earth revolves around the sun – it is moving – it is not accelerating. You confuse movement with acceleration just as you confuse Force with Power.


No. Increased TQ made it go faster. HP is simply a MEASURE of the increased amount of TQ at the SAME RPM.

F=MA

^ See this equation? It was written by a man far smarter than you or I.

What does it say? Does it say "Horsepower = Mass x Acceleration"? Does it say "RPM = Mass x Acceleration"? Does it say "Work = Mass x Acceleration"?

It doesn't say any of those things. You should try arguing with Sir Isaac Newton, not me.
Cause when you talk tq or force your only talking about one revolution worth when i'm talking hp I'm factoring all the revolutions all the revolution of force being applied. So in other words you keep on arguing that one revolution is accelerating moving etc... I'm saying it's all of them which is hp.

If i'm wrong and torque ain't per revolution why can an engine with a fairly flat torque curve eg.. Making a 500tq at 3000 and 4000 rpm that's 12,000 & 16,000 power strokes how are they making the same torque with a difference of 4000 power strokes? We know the engine makes more power at 4000 rpm how why? Why is rpm even part of hp then ?
 
Last edited:
Exactly. And if you took it to the track it would run like it makes 375 HP. Even if the TQ was 800 it would still run like it made 375 HP because thats all it made.

Horsepower moves the car.
People forget what horse power actually is. It's a measure of WORK. In other words a measure of MOTION.
 
So in other words you keep on arguing that one revolution is accelerating moving etc... I'm saying it's all of them which is hp.

A rocket engine has no moving parts – how do you explain acceleration of a rocket?
 
Sorry. That's rocket science. If you truly believe that torque is "one power stroke" – as your signature attests – and not the force (combustion) that causes that rotation in the first place, then I can't expect you to understand rocket science. You already have combustion engines wrong.
 
Sorry. That's rocket science. If you truly believe that torque is "one power stroke" – as your signature attests – and not the force (combustion) that causes that rotation in the first place, then I can't expect you to understand rocket science. You already have combustion engines wrong.

Force and Work​

If we hold a 10 lb. weight we are applying a 10 lb. force. If we move (displace) the weight a distance of 3 feet we have done work. We have done 30 lb-ft of work.

Work = Force x Displacement

Power​

Power is how much work can be done in a period of time.

Power = Work / Time or Force x Displacement / Time

Horsepower​

The definition of 1 Horsepower is displacing 1 lb. 33,000 ft. in one minute or 33,000 lb-ft / minute.

1HP = 1 lb x 33,000 ft / 1 minute
obviously force is baked into the formula
 
-
Back
Top