Much Torque+much Hp = No Traction?!
10-01-2003, 01:14 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,547
Originally Posted by epion2985' date='Oct 1 2003, 01:05 PM
[quote name='Jims5543' date='Oct 1 2003, 10:00 AM'] For what it is worth.
My '00 Mustang GT had 300 ft lbs torque and 260 FlywheelHP weighed 3600 lbs.
My TII at the time had 225 RWHP and 195 ft. lb torque weighed 2690 lbs.
I have Autocrossed both on the same exact tires and rims.
The Mustang was a pain in the *** every time I even touched the gas I would loose rear traction and it would try to come around. The RX-7 would not.
Now my RX-7 has 320RWHP and 310 Ft. Lbs Torque and it will loose traction very easy.
I hope this helps you out.
My '00 Mustang GT had 300 ft lbs torque and 260 FlywheelHP weighed 3600 lbs.
My TII at the time had 225 RWHP and 195 ft. lb torque weighed 2690 lbs.
I have Autocrossed both on the same exact tires and rims.
The Mustang was a pain in the *** every time I even touched the gas I would loose rear traction and it would try to come around. The RX-7 would not.
Now my RX-7 has 320RWHP and 310 Ft. Lbs Torque and it will loose traction very easy.
I hope this helps you out.
Nope again LOL, what hes saying is that as soon as your lighter car gets more power, it'll break loose the rears as soon as a heavier counterpart with a piston engine.
10-01-2003, 01:17 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Jensen Beach, FL / Sylva, NC
Posts: 2,934
250hp 230tq RX-7 easy to drive in Autocross
260hp 300tq mustang that weighed 800 lbs more spun tires easily
Imagine 500tq. or more??
Like I said take it for what its worth. The big difference between the mustang the the RX-7 is the torque even though the mustang weighed a lot more it had more traction issues. Now that my RX-7 has 300+ tq it is harder to drive hard.
260hp 300tq mustang that weighed 800 lbs more spun tires easily
Imagine 500tq. or more??
Like I said take it for what its worth. The big difference between the mustang the the RX-7 is the torque even though the mustang weighed a lot more it had more traction issues. Now that my RX-7 has 300+ tq it is harder to drive hard.
10-01-2003, 01:21 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,547
Originally Posted by Jims5543' date='Oct 1 2003, 01:17 PM
The big difference between the mustang the the RX-7 is the torque even though the mustang weighed a lot more it had more traction issues.
10-01-2003, 01:28 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, NY
Posts: 635
Originally Posted by Srce' date='Oct 1 2003, 02:21 PM
But why is that, I highly doubt that it's the piston engine. I think it's because the FC gets it's power up top and the stang down bottom. If a rotary could make comparable levels of both power and tq at the same RPM ranges as a piston motor, the results would be the same regardless of weight issues. No?
Some cars with more torque and higher displacement than a Supra can sometimes launch better, regardless...no?
I think there are too many factors to consider. The size of the tire and how hard it's being pushed into the ground (weight and its transfer) plus the power (Torque) being demanded out of it.
All cars have a sweet spot to launch it at, just some are harder to control.
10-01-2003, 01:30 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,547
Originally Posted by PhoenixDownVII' date='Oct 1 2003, 01:28 PM
That was my point in mentioning the Powerband.
Some cars with more torque and higher displacement than a Supra can sometimes launch better, regardless...no?
I think there are too many factors to consider. The size of the tire and how hard it's being pushed into the ground (weight and its transfer) plus the power (Torque) being demanded out of it.
All cars have a sweet spot to launch it at, just some are harder to control.
Some cars with more torque and higher displacement than a Supra can sometimes launch better, regardless...no?
I think there are too many factors to consider. The size of the tire and how hard it's being pushed into the ground (weight and its transfer) plus the power (Torque) being demanded out of it.
All cars have a sweet spot to launch it at, just some are harder to control.
10-01-2003, 01:36 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Jensen Beach, FL / Sylva, NC
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by Srce' date='Oct 1 2003, 01:21 PM
But why is that, I highly doubt that it's the piston engine. I think it's because the FC gets it's power up top and the stang down bottom. If a rotary could make comparable levels of both power and tq at the same RPM ranges as a piston motor, the results would be the same regardless of weight issues. No?
Mustang peak torque @ 4000 RPM peak HP @ 5250 RPM redline was 5500 RPM
RX-7 Peak torque @ 7K RPM peak HP @ 5k - 7K redline 7k
My dyno slip of my RX-7 with its stock engine
Mods 720 secondaries/ S-AFC /Profec B/ Racing beat Exhaust/ K&N Intake / hybrid T-04E @ 9 PSI (at 10 PSI ran 13.08 1/4 mile - engine compression on rear rotor was down hence to lower boost)
10-01-2003, 01:43 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,547
Originally Posted by Jims5543' date='Oct 1 2003, 01:36 PM
But the question was torque more specifically Rotary vs. Piston so you decide tons of torque down low = wheel spin or all your torque up high when the car is moving more = less wheel spin.
10-01-2003, 01:49 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Jensen Beach, FL / Sylva, NC
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by Srce' date='Oct 1 2003, 01:43 PM
Does that mean that the RX7 could produce the same amount of wheelspin at for example 7K as the mustang at 3K with power levels directly in proportion with their HP and RPM ranges?