In article <%NyBe.5046$BK1.1122@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

> Bullshit. I raised the point ONLY to compare the Jazz and Fit to my Civic.

And you compared the engine horsepower of those cars, without regard to
each car's mass.

 

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net>
> Elle wrote:
>
> > "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> >>Elle wrote:
> >
> > snip drivel
> >
> >>>Naturally exactly what that "certain amount of power" "one" needs will
> >>>depend on vehicle specifics.
> >>
> >>We're talking about maybe 8-10HP difference but 7-8mpg.
> >
> >
> > We're talking about 80-83 hp for the 1.4L Fit and 1.3L Jazz (that's what
a
> > few sites said, anyway) vs. 92 hp for my 1.5L Civic. This is over 10%
> > difference.
>
> Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz What a Civic
> does is immaterial.

Bullshit. I raised the point ONLY to compare the Jazz and Fit to my Civic.

RTFP.

 

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz

whats the diff between the fit and the jazz?

 

Elle wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> snip
>
>>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure.
>>All that matters is torque. Period.
>
>
> Bullshit. Period.
>
>
will you kids please grow up?

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> > snip
> >
> >>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure.
> >>All that matters is torque. Period.
> >
> >
> > Bullshit. Period.
> >
> >
> will you kids please grow up?

All you've done is joined the fray and kept Joseph ignorant.

 

Elle wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> snip
>
>>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure.
>>All that matters is torque. Period.
>
>
> Bullshit. Period.

HP = T*N/5252

Where T = Torque (lbft)
N = Speed (rpm)

Where did that 5252 come from????

A:The 5252 is a made up synthetic number.

You do the math.

 

Elle wrote:

>>Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz What a Civic
>>does is immaterial.
>
> Bullshit. I raised the point ONLY to compare the Jazz and Fit to my Civic.

My original post about this point was comparing the U.S. version
and lamentinhg that we couldn't get the 1.2 as it was much more
efficient for a paltry amount of loss in power.

 

SoCalMike wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> Wrong car. I meant the 1.4 Fit versus the 1.2Jazz
>
>
> whats the diff between the fit and the jazz?

JUst the name. In the U.K., they sell a version with
a tuned for maximum efficiency 1.2l engine. 60mpg highway
and about 50mpg overall efficiency. No hybrid nonsense
and it's not a tin can Smart Car or Mini, either.

 

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> > snip
> >
> >>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure.
> >>All that matters is torque. Period.
> >
> >
> > Bullshit. Period.
>
> HP = T*N/5252
>
> Where T = Torque (lbft)
> N = Speed (rpm)
>
> Where did that 5252 come from????

The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian). It is a
"unity conversion factor," in the same way that 12 inches/foot and 1.34 hp /
kw are both "unity conversion factors," as in

length, inches = (length, feet) * 12

power, hp = (power, kw) * 1.34

 

Elle wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure.
>>>>All that matters is torque. Period.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bullshit. Period.
>>
>>HP = T*N/5252
>>
>>Where T = Torque (lbft)
>>N = Speed (rpm)
>>
>>Where did that 5252 come from????
>
>
> The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian).

Makes no difference. It's derived from the amount of torque and
how fast you are reving the engine. People have it backwards.
They think that "Horsepower" is how powerful an engine is and
it's really nearly useless in determining that. Of course,
people do the same thing in audio - they honestly think that
how many "watts" the receiver is rated for determines which
one is better.

 

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:44:23 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
<josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
>Elle wrote:
>> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
>>
>>>Elle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure.
>>>>>All that matters is torque. Period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. Period.
>>>
>>>HP = T*N/5252
>>>
>>>Where T = Torque (lbft)
>>>N = Speed (rpm)
>>>
>>>Where did that 5252 come from????
>>
>>
>> The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian).
>
>Makes no difference. It's derived from the amount of torque and
>how fast you are reving the engine. People have it backwards.
>They think that "Horsepower" is how powerful an engine is and
>it's really nearly useless in determining that. Of course,
>people do the same thing in audio - they honestly think that
>how many "watts" the receiver is rated for determines which
>one is better.

"Better" is a broad characterization which may include many factors
including subjective ones. However, when it comes to the ability of
an engine to do work (such as accelerating a car) power is the primary
determinant.

If you have an engine that produces 10000 ft*lb at 10 rpm but won't
turn any faster, you are goining to be very slow even though you have
lots of torque. You will get beaten by a car of identical weight with
100 hp at 10,000 rpm every time. He will blow your doors off, even
though he might have peak torque of less than 1% of your engine.
orque alone doesn't matter. It's power that moves the car. Sorry.

 

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> >>Elle wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote
> >>>snip
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>He should also figure out that horsepower is a made up figure.
> >>>>All that matters is torque. Period.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Bullshit. Period.
> >>
> >>HP = T*N/5252
> >>
> >>Where T = Torque (lbft)
> >>N = Speed (rpm)
> >>
> >>Where did that 5252 come from????
> >
> >
> > The units that attach to the 5252 are (rev-ft-lb/min) / (hp-radian).
>
> Makes no difference. It's derived from the amount of torque and
> how fast you are reving the engine.

You just changed your claim above that, "All that matters is torque.
Period."

> People have it backwards.
> They think that "Horsepower" is how powerful an engine is

Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how powerful
an engine is.

The thread speaks for itself. I withdraw.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:

> If you have an engine that produces 10000 ft*lb at 10 rpm but won't
> turn any faster, you are goining to be very slow even though you have
> lots of torque. You will get beaten by a car of identical weight with
> 100 hp at 10,000 rpm every time. He will blow your doors off, even
> though he might have peak torque of less than 1% of your engine.
> orque alone doesn't matter. It's power that moves the car. Sorry.

Except that it only takes about 40-50hp to maintain 70mph. That
one car can do 140 and the other only 100mph really means nothing.
(It's not as drastic as you imply for automobiles)

 

Elle wrote:

> Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how powerful
> an engine is.

Yet this is as meaningless as "watts" are in audio. That it is
commonly accepted as such is meaningless. Torque is how powerful
the engine is. The rest is gearing, and any idiot can calculate
ratios or add another gear to the transmission.

 

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pT_Ce.5144$dU3.1228@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Elle wrote:
>
>> Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how
>> powerful
>> an engine is.
>
> Yet this is as meaningless as "watts" are in audio. That it is
> commonly accepted as such is meaningless. Torque is how powerful
> the engine is. The rest is gearing, and any idiot can calculate
> ratios or add another gear to the transmission.

Watts are not at all regarded as meaningless in audio. The unit is
misunderstood, misused, and like horesepower, does not tell the whole story.
You might want to review your basic physics with regard to the meanings of
the terms torque and power.

Leonard

 

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:58:13 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
<josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Elle wrote:
>
>> Horsepower is commonly and rightly accepted as one measure of how powerful
>> an engine is.
>
>Yet this is as meaningless as "watts" are in audio. That it is
>commonly accepted as such is meaningless. Torque is how powerful
>the engine is. The rest is gearing, and any idiot can calculate
>ratios or add another gear to the transmission.

Elle is right, horsepower is the only unit that makes sense to use.
For example, the typical civic needs 70HP to do 100mph and 90HP to do
110mph. Try to use torque to describe the same and write half a page
of meaningless equations.
--
Leon

 

"Leon" <Curb_Weight_69@hotmail.com> wrote
snip
> Elle is right, horsepower is the only unit that makes sense to use.
> For example, the typical civic needs 70HP to do 100mph and 90HP to do
> 110mph. Try to use torque to describe the same and write half a page
> of meaningless equations.

Hey, where'd you get the numbers? I'm not disputing them; I'm just curious.

I remember researching the horsepower for cruising (ya know, normal speeds),
and I think it was around 20 to 30 hp. But as big an issue is how well a car
accelerates. That's when the horsepower becomes an important metric and
crude measure of how well a car will accelerate.

Torque and RPM certainly both have their place in discussions of what one
wants an engine to do, but I'd never dismiss hp the way Joseph chooses to
do. For now, anyway.

 

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> Watts are not at all regarded as meaningless in audio. The unit is
> misunderstood, misused, and like horesepower, does not tell the whole story.
> You might want to review your basic physics with regard to the meanings of
> the terms torque and power.

the way i understand it, the number advertised is "peak", which is the
most the head unit will put out, and often lasts a millisecond. if i
turn my blaupunkt all the way up, it sounds crappy. the speakers can
handle the wattage (40x4) but the head unit strains to deliver. i need
an amp...

but what to get? 2 channel or 4 channel?

 

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:51:54 GMT, "Elle"
<elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Leon" <Curb_Weight_69@hotmail.com> wrote
>snip
>> Elle is right, horsepower is the only unit that makes sense to use.
>> For example, the typical civic needs 70HP to do 100mph and 90HP to do
>> 110mph. Try to use torque to describe the same and write half a page
>> of meaningless equations.
>
>Hey, where'd you get the numbers? I'm not disputing them; I'm just curious.
>
>I remember researching the horsepower for cruising (ya know, normal speeds),
>and I think it was around 20 to 30 hp. But as big an issue is how well a car
>accelerates. That's when the horsepower becomes an important metric and
>crude measure of how well a car will accelerate.
>
>Torque and RPM certainly both have their place in discussions of what one
>wants an engine to do, but I'd never dismiss hp the way Joseph chooses to
>do. For now, anyway.
>
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/topspeed.htm
Extremely accurate calculations, I've verified them against various
FWD cars.
--
Leon

 

"Leon" <Curb_Weight_69@hotmail.com> wrote
> <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"Leon" <Curb_Weight_69@hotmail.com> wrote
> >snip
> >> Elle is right, horsepower is the only unit that makes sense to use.
> >> For example, the typical civic needs 70HP to do 100mph and 90HP to do
> >> 110mph. Try to use torque to describe the same and write half a page
> >> of meaningless equations.
> >
> >Hey, where'd you get the numbers? I'm not disputing them; I'm just
curious.

> http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/topspeed.htm

Nice!

Thanks.