Mileage Question

Page 2 of 3  


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The same, but different...... which was the point, right? Basically means an engine can be rated without measuring torque.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

Yes, and most people don't know that rpm has just as much to do with horsepower ratings as anything else. They throw around horsepower numbers like they mean something without the rpm. How many times have you heard someone brag about the horsepower their engine makes? Want to shut them up? Ask them what rpm that horsepower occurs at. Most often, they don't even know. So what good is that number? Horsepower tells you nothing of the engine's performance without knowing the rpm.

I'm glad you got a chuckle from the F1 guys. I do think they are better engineers than comics though. I don't know what they say about the other tracks. If you find out, let us know. Pick anyone to quote if you like, but please use credible sources. Don't quote Joe Bling saying that the 22's that he put on his Civic make 500 horsepower so it now goes 300 mph in the straights. I will consider any comments from any credible source that says a high horsepower number is more important than torque.

Those dynos still measure the engine's torque and then convert it to kW. Also, I said "no matter what engine" and I should not have. I didn't intend that to include jet engines, nuclear power plants, or other exotics.
--
Ken

8><-----
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorta works the same for Torque, thats why they usually pair each one with an RPM.

No one claimed one was more important than the other except you. Fact is, the two cannot be separated, nor can they happen without RPM and get anything done.

Those dynos measure output, be it torque or kW. Hydrualic dynos measure torque, electric dynos measure kW output.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Inertial dynos (Dynojet, for example) don't... they measure power (be it HP or KW), and interpret torque based on engine RPM. This is why a lot of times, diesel guys only get HP ratings from their dyno runs - becuase they don't feel like setting up the cumbersome little optical sensor to read RPM from the engine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Lawrence wrote:

The Dynojet measures horsepower, but it has no idea what the rpm is? Please explain how you can tell the hosepower without knowing the rpm.
I saw your dyno sheets. Quite impressive. What happened at 2650 rpm on sheet 2?
I'm not ignoring the other questions, I just don't have time to answer them right now.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stop thinking that HP is _ONLY_ "torque times RPM divided by 5252". HP is a measure of work done over time. Work is the moving of a load over a distance. The dynojet knows the load (weight of the drum). It knows the distance the load is moved (turned). It knows the time between samples. Work done over time is power. It's a simple calculation. 1 HP equals 33,000 ft.lbs. of work per minute, or 550 ft.lbs. of work per second A foot pound is the energy required to move 1 pound 1 foot.

I dunno... maybe some wheelspin/slippage? Those are also old dyno sheets, before I put on twin turbos. I have to take the outer rear tires off to fit the truck on the dyno, so my contact patch goes down by 50% :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This just wasn't making any sense to me so I read it again.

I missed this part the first time around. I understand what you said now.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Lawrence wrote:

That is the point that I disagree with. A horsepower number does not describe an engine's ability the same at different rpms. 100 horsepower at 1,000 rpm is 10 times stronger than 100 horsepower at 10,000 rpm. 100 lbs/ft of torque has the same ability no matter what rpm it occurs at.
100 hp @ 1,000 rpm = 525.2 lbs/ft torque 100 hp @ 10,000 rpm = 52.52 lbs/ft torque
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Um... no. 100ft lbs at 1000RPM is 19Hp. 100ft lbs at 6000RPM is 114Hp.
If it takes 100ftlbs to turn a shaft, one shaft will turn 6 times as fast, meaning more work is done. Looks like different abilities to me.
Whats this for?
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep - and back to my F1 example... 270ft.lbs. at 8000RPM in a 3.0L V10 makes 411HP, where that same 270ft.lbs. at 2800RPM in a 4.7L V8 only makes 144HP. Which engine's going to move the same amount of weight faster?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm almost sorry to have started this, if in fact I did. My only point is that Torque is the force that turns the shaft. it doesn't matter how fast you turn the shaft, it is still torque that is turning it. At no point does the force or even the name of the force change into something else, it is always torque. HP never turns the shaft it is an expression of the resulting motion. You must have torque to produce HP but you do not need HP (or kW, etc.) to produce torque. Torque is the force at play and HP is an expression of the work performed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep... it's all your fault :)
Everything you say about torque is true - I'm not arguing that. The initial statement was in reference to someone's claim that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "the ability to pull [move] a load is all about gearing". I countered that, "no - when it comes to moving a load, it's all about HP". Weights being equal, the vehicle with the ability to generate more HP will go faster.
What I WASN'T discussing was the ability to ACCELERATE a load to a certain speed. That makes it a much more complicated equation, because then you're usually talking about starting from a stand-still, which because of the limitations of modern drivetrains, requires that the engine be able to produce enough HP to overcome static friction/inertia/etc. (everything that resists motion and acceleration), at a relatively low RPM. Since one component of the HP equation is being limited, torque (the other component) becomes the deciding factor in being able to overcome those static forces. This is where gearing, torque curves, etc. etc. come into play. If we could eliminate those artificial limitations (let's say we have an infinitely variable transmission that would let an engine operate at it's peak HP output all the time), then that little 800HP 3.0L V10 engine would out-pull a big Cummins 600HP 14L I6 in every conceivable measurement: 60 ft. times, 1/4 mile times, top speed, you name it. The fact that the V10 would implode itself before the Cummins reached full operating temperature isn't germane to this discussion :^)
Back to my original statement... the vehicle that produces more horsepower will be able to move a given load at a faster overall rate than the vehicle with less HP.
And oh yeah.... my Dodge is better than Larry's Chevy - which is where this whole thing started in the first place <grin>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So its not all about torque?
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

What's this for? It's to show that a horsepower number alone does not accurately describe the ability an engine has to do work.
You said "If it takes 100ftlbs to turn a shaft, one shaft will turn 6 times as fast, meaning more work is done." We'll use that same shaft again comparing the two 100 horsepower engines.
The engine that makes 100 hp @ 1,000 rpm has 525 lbs/ft of torque. That's plenty of torque to do the job. In fact it can run 5 shafts each requiring 100 lbs/ft of torque all at the same time. The engine that produces 100 hp @ 10,000 rpm makes less than 53 lbs/ft of torque. If it takes 100 lbs/ft of torque to turn the shaft, it will not be able to turn the shaft at all. No work is being done.
I'll give you another example. Say I'm out shopping for a new push mower. I get frequent rain and one corner of my back lawn doesn't drain very well. The lawn is always wet there and the grass grows very fast. My old mower cut fine everywhere in my lawn, including the high wet grass. It had a good 5 horsepower engine when new but now it's old and uses too much oil. I leave a trail of smoke behind every pass. I assume any 5 horsepower push mower with the same size blade will work the exact same way, so that's what I go shopping for. I want a brand new mower just like my old one, but the old model is discontinued. I find the same brand mower with the same 21" blade, a 5hp engine, and rear mounted collection bag. Same thing as the old one right? Well, no. It looked the same and had all the same advertised specifications, but it wasn't the same thing. I didn't realize that my old mower was rated 5 horsepower @ 500 rpm and the new one is 5 horsepower @ 1,000 rpm. The grass doesn't really care if it gets whacked by a blade spinning around at 500 rpm or 1,000 rpm, so the end result should be the same. It should make tall grass short. I try out my new mower. I get the front lawn done and it looks very nice. That 1,000 rpm mower cuts the lawn very cleanly and deposits much more of the clippings into the bag than my old mower ever did. I'm very happy with my new mower even though I still don't know about the higher blade speed. I assume the old engine was getting weak and this new one is more powerful. Now I go around back. I get three feet into the wet high grass and the mower stalls. I have to drag it back out of the wet area to get it started again. I push it another three feet into the wet grass and it stalls again. It takes me hours longer with this new mower to cut the wet area than it did with my old mower. 5 horsepower isn't always exactly the same as 5 horsepower. The old mower had twice the torque that my new mower has. The new mower has twice the blade speed that the old mower had. Which one gets more work done? If you ask the guy that has to push the mower through the tall wet grass, it's the old one.
I'm not saying that horsepower ratings are meaningless. I'm only saying that horsepower ratings are less meaningful without an rpm to go along with them.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No kidding, thats why they typically pair it with a torque rating. Note the word "pair". It means both HP and torque are important. This is the point, so let me repeat.....
It means both HP and torque are important.

Congrats, you can do the math. You still don't seem to understand that torque isn't the only thing that needs to be talked about. If it were, we'd be getting complete tables of torque and RPM.

No need, I already KNOW how the two work together. YOU were the one that said torque was everything.

Ok........ 1000ft lbs.
Wow, thats useful......
Get it yet?
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

Yes, it's very useful if you know how to use it.

Yes, Max. I get it.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

19.4 MPG or so as I travel about 80% Freeway (68-70mph) and 20% city (25-55mph, not to mention the times I go 0mph). The heated seats allow for an extra .2mpg as I'm not shivering down the road. I also get 11-12 MPG when towing my Arctic Fox 24-5N 55-65 mph.
'03 2500 HO 4wd LB 6sp Laramie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My 2500, 04, six speed, 4X4 gets 19 to 20 mixed city and slow highway. At 80 it's gets about 14.
Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.