Thread: S14 with SR20 or KA24

So you are telling me in a car...... and a car only cause that's what we are talking about.... when the engine produces torque nothing moves!!! what are you smoking seriously.... An engine has to be running to produce torque!!! If your spinning (rotating) your tires then what is spinning them?????? Oh I'm sorry that would be torque....

I've got one!! Do one better then!!!

And in order to do that you must make torque!!!!!!!!! do the math....... you CAN NOT have alot of hp at low RPM's with out torque PERIOD..

Torque X RPM
______________ = Horspower
5252

Car, boat, plane, train. It don't matter. Torque don't change its color just 'cause it's on a different vehicle.

I can see you're actually trying to learn, so I'll try and explain properly. An internal combustion piston engine, by nature, can not produce torque without moving (producing power). So you're right there. Other motors and things can however produce torque without moving. Electric motors are a great example. They can produce torque without moving. Can we talk about a car with an electric motor? =/
I only mention this so you'll realize how special internal combustion engines are, and why you may assume that torque must mean movement is taking place because you're familiar with internal combustion engines, when there are a host of other things out there that produce torque without moving, some of them being motors that spin things.
So yes, an internal combustion engine will move while it's producing torque. You actually can not separate its generation of torque from it's generation of power due to it's unique operation.
You can however separate torque from power in a descriptive sense. Classical physics tells us that torque is a force, and by definition has no concept of acceleration built into its definition. Torque is simply a measurement of the amount of work that can be accomplished with the amount of potential energy you have present in a system. It does not tell you how much work is actually accomplished, as you can have torque/potential energy and accomplish no work. To describe how much work is accomplished, and how quickly it is accomplished (or how quickly something accelerates) we are now talking about the classical definition of power. Power can be used to describe the rate at which work is accomplished, and when you have power, work is by definition, being accomplished. Or in your terms, when you have acceleration in a car, power is the measurement used to determine how fast it accelerates. Torque can not.

If you'd read and understood the discussion in the link I posted earlier you'd already know this. I really tire at having to explain it over and over again (now for the third time at length).

I have ignored your back-handed, passive-aggressive comments for long enough. If you're attempting to degrade my character or somehow under mind my argument with you're blatant use of slander/libel, let me clue you in on something. No one's buying it.

Admittedly yes. Although I never denied this or implied otherwise.

This, for the sake of our argument, I will grant you. Torque is spinning the tires. However, and this is a big however... If you have spinning wheels, they are spinning due to torque created by the engine, but once they change speed, or accelerate one iota, power is now being created.

I have to admit, in your narrow example there, you're right. Torque does spin the wheels in your example. It would take power to change their speed however. And we're assuming the bearings are frictionless I assume.

Yes, I completely understand what you're saying here. You're right. You can not have power in any rotating motor/engine without creating torque. The problem is, you can't have acceleration with just torque.

It takes time to change the speed of something, and once you put time into the equation (RPM in the equation above) you're now talking about power.

So then I could make the same argument that you can't have power without torque..... SOOOOO.... what it boils down to is that they are both equally important.... On the math side...

Yah, but that's like saying you can't have smoke without fire, so it's the smoke that makes you warm...

It's not.

It's the fire.



Similarly, power causes acceleration. Not torque.

But the torque is the fire... Literally! It's the RPM's that make it Horsepower, because you said it yourself... Horsepower happens over time... well RPM is a measurement of time.

Okay, it was a bad analogy. Yes, I understand that it's the torque over time that creates horsepower. So yah, it is the fire. But you've missed the point and I can't think of a good analogy at the moment.

Saying torque is responsible for acceleration instead of horsepower being responsible is not correct. It's not even a matter of opinion or point of view. It's definitive. I don't know how else to explain it right now though. I'm out of ideas.

This presumptuous, leading comment designed to instigate and/or insult me adds nothing of value to the discussion and has been reported.