Is Horsepower Everything? (SPECIAL TOPIC)

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnBM01
  • 23 comments
  • 9,211 views
JohnBM01

JohnBM01

21 years!
In Memoriam
Messages
26,911
United States
Houston, Texas, USA
Messages
JMarine25
Some of the most recognizable features of a car is the amount of horsepower a car has. And when it comes to American automobiles, more power is always good. That's why on the drag strips, you'll see a Challenger or a 5.0 Mustang rip down the strip smoking anyone else's American beast of Japanese pocket rocket. You'll see 800hp dirt trackers rip up the "dirt" on the dirt ovals of Americana. But then when an American car enthusiast hears of a fun-to-drive Japanese car, he or she will be quick to say "it's so slow. It's all riced out and everything- stickers and 'fart can.'" Anyone who may know about racing cars is that if you take a high-horsepowered, heavy car around a road course, you're either not going to corner well or end up off-course. I know full well by racing high horsepowered cars in the GT lineup of games. Cars more focused on horsepower than handling. But I ask you, is horsepower EVERYTHING? I'll start.

Horsepower IS everything on the straight line and maybe even the oval. When I hear of NASCAR racing Sears Point and Watkins Glen (and maybe Mexico this year or next), I am actually surprised as to how stock cars can even take on these tracks even if they aren't Le Mans-winning race cars. NASCAR once raced the traditional course with the sweeping left turn that goes on to the Sears Point drag strip, all into a slow hairpin. Now they race this wussy configuration, even though stock cars "weren't meant to turn right." A drag racing machine packs plenty of power, has a close-type gearbox, but corners like crap. Except in a straight line, horsepower isn't everything.

What do you think, GTPlanet? IS horsepower everything?
 
No its not everything, but it helps........ alot. :)
 
Originally posted by BlazinXtreme
Horsepower sells car, torque wins races.
Click to expand...

Popular misconception. Torque is a force. Horsepower is work. Moving a car around a race track requires work. Torque by itself has no concept of time and is therefore not a very useful by itself in determining engine performance.

Much more accurate to say power to weight ratio, gearing, traction, aerodynamics and fuel efficiency wins races... but that doesn't make a very catchy slogan.


M
 
I was actually wondering that myself.
 
Many misconceptions from the original poster (Well implied). First off, Horsepower is not everything, he is absolutely correct. There are many more aspects to a car than HP. Two things I would like to clear up, about weight.

Muscle Cars are not that heavy. The look heavy, there paneling is heavy, but they lack many of the safety features that todays modern cars do, reducing there weight signifigantly. The original Mustang (1964.5 with the sixbanger) had a curb weight of about 2700 Lbs, thats less than a Honda S2000!!! A 1970 Cuda AAR weighed about the same as a Supra Mrk IV. A Ford Maverick (2 door pre 1973) weighs about the same as a Mitia.

Second DOHC engines ARE heavy compared to Pushrods. A Nissian 3.5 Inline 6 DOHC weighs more than a 5.7L Chevy LS6. A Ford 4.6L DOHC weighs a ton compared to the ford 5.0. (Cams are not light).

Now here is the formula how horsepower is mesured.

HP=(Torque X RPMs)/5252

Torque and Horsepower are interrealated, the amount of torque from the ENGINE is not important, but the torque line from the engine is important. The flatter the torqueline, the better the acceleration will be. (Usually the amount you accelerate follows your torque line very close).

Torque does matter at the rear wheel. Torque can be made by gearing, you can not make more horsepower by gears. Horsepower is constant, you can convert it to more to more torque, or have the wheels move haster. Torque is what moves the car in the end at the wheel. (Not the Engine). The M1 Abram tank is a great example, there turbine engines have very little torque from the engine itself (for a tank engine), but they rev past 40K RPMs, and the torque to the tread is made up by gearing.

Then there is weight, duh, less weight the easier it is to accelerate and turn.

Handling is a completely different issue, which power and torque have very little effect on. It depends on a balance (which muscle cars sucked at), weight, center of gravity, and many other issues. Also for handling alot depends on the driver, and his/her skill level. Lets take the dodge viper. Most average people that have driven it do not think it handles well, while experts who have say it handles very well. The dodge viper is not a forgiving car, but it does handle extremely well in the right hands.

So no HP is not the most important thing. To me though, it is a major factor. I never pull up to a stoplight and say, "Hey, lets go to the track and do a couple laps in the twisties to see who wins."
 
Horsepower is NOT everything. Let´s just say that you have a light, "mildly" powered car that handles good, and then you have a heavy car with great horsepower lets say, Aston Martin Vanquish (Just couldn´t think anything else). I think the lighter car with less power could win.

No, horsepower is not everything. Power is nothing without control. (was someones signature here, a very wisely said)
 
To me, horsepower and price are the two most important factors for buying a car. When you know what sort of car you're talking about, horsepower alone tells you quite a bit - engine size, fuel economy, acceleration, top speed.
 
hiya!

I feel that is sometimes going to be everything and sometimes its not depending on the race. I agree with alot of the above post! :O I dont really have much to say but horsepower is "everything" when its really needed that GREATLY to win and depending on the race :D :O :lol:
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Popular misconception. Torque is a force. Horsepower is work. Moving a car around a race track requires work. Torque by itself has no concept of time and is therefore not a very useful by itself in determining engine performance.
Click to expand...

I guess you must have slept during high school physics class, because work does not incorporate time either.

Torque is a force through a distance (as is work). Horsepower is not a measurement it's a unit. A unit of power (work over time), like gallon is a unit of volume.

More specifically, 1hp = 33,000 ft-lbs/min.
 
Originally posted by Firebird
I guess you must have slept during high school physics class, because work does not incorporate time either.

Torque is a force through a distance (as is work). Horsepower is not a measurement it's a unit. A unit of power (work over time), like gallon is a unit of volume.

More specifically, 1hp = 33,000 ft-lbs/min.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I stand corrected. I should have wrote "Horsepower is work over time" to overstate my point. I guess you must have stayed wide awake during How to nitpick posts for minor omissions and exaggerate their importance outside the context of the message. There are a few spelling and grammar errors in this thread, should you want to get huffy over those too.


M
 
I'm not trying to be biased, but you all think that it's about execution more than a car's horsepower? But yeah, I do think that horsepower is basically an American tradition. The more, the better. These were cars with monstrous engines (I'm talking about old muscle cars) that could seriously have his/her opponent shaking in his/her boots. But I think as good as their engine horsepower was, I think it was still about execution. Now, I want to say that the old Trans-Am cars of the past were very capable, if they weren't competitors at Goodwood, Spa-Francorchamps, or Le Mans. I think the SAE came in after the muscle car era. As they were making restriction after restriction, they became as dead as the dinosaurs around the Cenezoic Era.

Enough inaccurate history facts. To me, a Mini has about 76hp, a Honda Accord has 240, a new Viper has 500, the McLaren F1 has 625, and the BMW M1s had more than 1,000 hp. And I mean, so what? Some cars pack a lot of horsepower to make it a powerful car. I think a car that drives well and still has plenty of "get up and go" to tackle almost anything is a real car. So what am I saying? I'm not saying that a car built for only horsepower and top speed isn't a real car. Besides, any machine can be real. Just have to make it work and not be so reliant on HPs. M5 and McLaren are right. Altar kind of has a more technical view of the issue. The point of this topic is based on whether or not horsepower is all you need to know to find out if it is a good car or a bad one. You know, like comparing a Mercury Cougar from the 1960s compared to a Cougar of the past ten years, for example. Or maybe the GTO of the muscle car days compared to the Australian-made GTO. You know? But nice points. Keep it up.
 
Originally posted by JohnBM01
Horsepower IS everything on the straight line and maybe even the oval.
Click to expand...
Horsepower is worth nothing if it can't be transmitted onto the road. If the car just sits there spinning it's wheels, what good is it?

I know this isn't in the GT3 forum, but try driving a hybrid with 600,000bhp. It just sits there spinning it wheels. Completely useless to anyone.

Originally posted by RSCosworth
No, horsepower is not everything. Power is nothing without control. (was someones signature here, a very wisely said)
Click to expand...
It's still in there somewhere. :D (I "borrowed" it from a Pirrelli advert from a few years ago.)
 
Actually one of my favorite Muscle cars is the Cuda AAR, not because of the huge HP (It was only 270), but because it was made to handle well.

No, HP is not everything, but it certainly is fun.
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Thank you, I stand corrected. I should have wrote "Horsepower is work over time" to overstate my point. I guess you must have stayed wide awake during How to nitpick posts for minor omissions and exaggerate their importance outside the context of the message. There are a few spelling and grammar errors in this thread, should you want to get huffy over those too.


M
Click to expand...
Don't think we will be seeing him around after that. . . *tips hat* good job, now run a lap. . .

Now Firebird said something of Horsepower being 1hp = 33,000 ft-lbs/min. That too is a misconception if I remember correctly. Back when horsepower was thought up, They used how far a horse can carry either 1 pound or 2 pounds (not sure), 10 or 20, 100 or 200, 1000 or 2000 pounds respectively. It was based off of how far it could carry it in a mintue or second. Anyways, horsepower should have been measured as 1hp = 22,000 or 11,000 ft-lbs/min. Unfortunately it is not because then modern science decided to change a few equations and drop a number here and add a number there. I think we should just resort to Monkey power and multiply the Horsepower by 1.636 to add in the facture we are a weak species when it comes to strengh on this planet.


Please don't mind my little post here, my head is al sorts of messed up right now and I can't recall exactly what the book said about horsepower. I fart in anyones direction that pokes fun of this post.
 
Originally posted by miata13B
Now Firebird said something of Horsepower being 1hp = 33,000 ft-lbs/min. That too is a misconception if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

No, he is correct. 1 HP = 33,000 ft.lb per min or 550 ft.lb per second. It is derived from Watt's observations of what an average horse can move in a minute, using a pulley rig.

Nothing wrong with what he said, except for the focus on the fact that I didn't explicitly say horsepower was work over time (since it is by definition), which conveniently ignores that I was pointing out horsepower has a time component, and torque does not.


Originally posted by miata13B
I fart in anyones direction that pokes fun of this post.
Click to expand...

I doubt it will make it all the way from Connect-it-cut. :p


M
 

Latest Posts

Back