Renesis Torque 450ft/lbs.....
#27
Originally posted by Buger
Just playing devil's advocate of course. I'm mainly a lurker now and I don't post very much. This thread is pretty interesting, I hope it doesn't die too quickly...
Brian
Just playing devil's advocate of course. I'm mainly a lurker now and I don't post very much. This thread is pretty interesting, I hope it doesn't die too quickly...
Brian
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisvegas, Aust
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 97gpGT
...it's assumed that if you improve the torque output at the flywheel that the torque output at the wheels also increases. Kinda hard to imagine how it would be different, don't you think?
...it's assumed that if you improve the torque output at the flywheel that the torque output at the wheels also increases. Kinda hard to imagine how it would be different, don't you think?
I'm not one of the types of people who believes that torque is everything and that high powered, low torque cars are slow as it may seem from reading my first few posts, and I'm sorry that I gave that impression.
This part of your post I completely agree with. But, unfortunately, most of the cars that we drive are street cars, not all out race cars, and their designers have to take things like fuel efficiency and engine longevity into consideration.
I just get a laugh out of these things because the vast majority of people think that the torque numbers on your dyno graph is actually whats there at the wheels.
-pete
#30
Originally posted by rpm_pwr
I just get a laugh out of these things because the vast majority of people think that the torque numbers on your dyno graph is actually whats there at the wheels.
I just get a laugh out of these things because the vast majority of people think that the torque numbers on your dyno graph is actually whats there at the wheels.
#32
Originally posted by 97gpGT
Now, if this same transmission was put into an S2000 to achieve the same torque multiplication factors to make the S2000 even faster, the S2k's top speed (redline: 9000rpm) would only be 135. This also means that, at 75 mph, the engine would be spinning at 5000 rpm, not only causing a considerable drop in fuel efficiency but also greatly increasing wear and tear on an engine that is not going to be rebuilt after every time it is used, as F1 engines are.
Now, if this same transmission was put into an S2000 to achieve the same torque multiplication factors to make the S2000 even faster, the S2k's top speed (redline: 9000rpm) would only be 135. This also means that, at 75 mph, the engine would be spinning at 5000 rpm, not only causing a considerable drop in fuel efficiency but also greatly increasing wear and tear on an engine that is not going to be rebuilt after every time it is used, as F1 engines are.
You of course realize that you are quoting rpm and speed figures that are very close to real-world for the S2k.
#33
Sponge Bob RotorPants
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mostron8
You of course realize that you are quoting rpm and speed figures that are very close to real-world for the S2k.
You of course realize that you are quoting rpm and speed figures that are very close to real-world for the S2k.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post