m21sniper

LOL, i thought it was pretty funny.

Mark your knowledge of HP and what makes cars fast is matched only by your inability to clearly communicate it in succinct and short messages.

Heh, i think that was pretty funny too....

mark kibort

I wonder why this stuff doesnt sink in. no HP is not an "interpretation of torque at a particular rpm, it is torque at a particular rpm! the entire point, was to get out of the torque discussion and use the hp , it has all the caculations done for you so you dont have to get into gearing and interpolate torque at speeds based on peak torque.
We have all been down this route before. for awhile there , 5250 was thought to be some magic number where peak torque has to occure. finally it was accepted that it is only an arbatrary intercection based on the units of "torque" being "FT-lbs". if it was in any other units the curves wouldnt intersect or intersect at a differnt crossover. (that discussion ended well)

now, there was talk about Cobalt running near max torque, and i just chimmed in to help him rethink that strategy, as max torque means nothing. its max hp and better said, staying as close as possible with gearing to max HP. usually meaning redline, which strattles max HP as far as RPMs.

torque is a factor of HP . HP is made UP of torque and speed. a level down from HP is Work, and work is force x displacement. HP is work over time and is really what we all want more of, especially if we are racing.

Im trying to help, when i see errors in "go fast strategy" . no more , no less.
no more beating of the dead dog. I know you know this, maybe even better now.

Mk

mark kibort

I guess ill take that as an A in science and an F in english. hmmm. Ill have to get more balance in my life. Ive never been good with the typed word!
shoot me!
Yes, it was funny!

MK

Jim Nowak

Maybe science fiction.

I hope this helps:

Torque and Horsepower - A Primer
From Bruce Augenstein, rba@augenstein.ultranet.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's been a certain amount of discussion, in this and other files, about the concepts of horsepower and torque, how they relate to each other, and how they apply in terms of automobile performance. I have observed that, although nearly everyone participating has a passion for automobiles, there is a huge variance in knowledge. It's clear that a bunch of folks have strong opinions (about this topic, and other things), but that has generally led to more heat than light, if you get my drift :-). I've posted a subset of this note in another string, but felt it deserved to be dealt with as a separate topic. This is meant to be a primer on the subject, which may lead to serious discussion that fleshes out this and other subtopics that will inevitably need to be addressed.
OK. Here's the deal, in moderately plain english.


Force, Work and Time
If you have a one pound weight bolted to the floor, and try to lift it with one pound of force (or 10, or 50 pounds), you will have applied force and exerted energy, but no work will have been done. If you unbolt the weight, and apply a force sufficient to lift the weight one foot, then one foot pound of work will have been done. If that event takes a minute to accomplish, then you will be doing work at the rate of one foot pound per minute. If it takes one second to accomplish the task, then work will be done at the rate of 60 foot pounds per minute, and so on.
In order to apply these measurements to automobiles and their performance (whether you're speaking of torque, horsepower, newton meters, watts, or any other terms), you need to address the three variables of force, work and time.

Awhile back, a gentleman by the name of Watt (the same gent who did all that neat stuff with steam engines) made some observations, and concluded that the average horse of the time could lift a 550 pound weight one foot in one second, thereby performing work at the rate of 550 foot pounds per second, or 33,000 foot pounds per minute, for an eight hour shift, more or less. He then published those observations, and stated that 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work was equivalent to the power of one horse, or, one horsepower.

Everybody else said OK. :-)

For purposes of this discussion, we need to measure units of force from rotating objects such as crankshafts, so we'll use terms which define a *twisting* force, such as foot pounds of torque. A foot pound of torque is the twisting force necessary to support a one pound weight on a weightless horizontal bar, one foot from the fulcrum.

Now, it's important to understand that nobody on the planet ever actually measures horsepower from a running engine. What we actually measure (on a dynomometer) is torque, expressed in foot pounds (in the U.S.), and then we *calculate* actual horsepower by converting the twisting force of torque into the work units of horsepower.

Visualize that one pound weight we mentioned, one foot from the fulcrum on its weightless bar. If we rotate that weight for one full revolution against a one pound resistance, we have moved it a total of 6.2832 feet (Pi * a two foot circle), and, incidently, we have done 6.2832 foot pounds of work.

OK. Remember Watt? He said that 33,000 foot pounds of work per minute was equivalent to one horsepower. If we divide the 6.2832 foot pounds of work we've done per revolution of that weight into 33,000 foot pounds, we come up with the fact that one foot pound of torque at 5252 rpm is equal to 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work, and is the equivalent of one horsepower. If we only move that weight at the rate of 2626 rpm, it's the equivalent of 1/2 horsepower (16,500 foot pounds per minute), and so on. Therefore, the following formula applies for calculating horsepower from a torque measurement:

Horsepower = Torque * RPM/ 5252


This is not a debatable item. It's the way it's done. Period.
The Case For Torque
Now, what does all this mean in carland?
First of all, from a driver's perspective, torque, to use the vernacular, RULES :-). Any given car, in any given gear, will accelerate at a rate that *exactly* matches its torque curve (allowing for increased air and rolling resistance as speeds climb). Another way of saying this is that a car will accelerate hardest at its torque peak in any given gear, and will not accelerate as hard below that peak, or above it. Torque is the only thing that a driver feels, and horsepower is just sort of an esoteric measurement in that context. 300 foot pounds of torque will accelerate you just as hard at 2000 rpm as it would if you were making that torque at 4000 rpm in the same gear, yet, per the formula, the horsepower would be *double* at 4000 rpm. Therefore, horsepower isn't particularly meaningful from a driver's perspective, and the two numbers only get friendly at 5252 rpm, where horsepower and torque always come out the same.

In contrast to a torque curve (and the matching pushback into your seat), horsepower rises rapidly with rpm, especially when torque values are also climbing. Horsepower will continue to climb, however, until well past the torque peak, and will continue to rise as engine speed climbs, until the torque curve really begins to plummet, faster than engine rpm is rising. However, as I said, horsepower has nothing to do with what a driver *feels*.

You don't believe all this?

Fine. Take your non turbo car (turbo lag muddles the results) to its torque peak in first gear, and punch it. Notice the belt in the back? Now take it to the power peak, and punch it. Notice that the belt in the back is a bit weaker? Fine. Can we go on, now? :-)


The Case For Horsepower
OK. If torque is so all-fired important, why do we care about horsepower?
Because (to quote a friend), "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*.

For an extreme example of this, I'll leave carland for a moment, and describe a waterwheel I got to watch awhile ago. This was a pretty massive wheel (built a couple of hundred years ago), rotating lazily on a shaft which was connected to the works inside a flour mill. Working some things out from what the people in the mill said, I was able to determine that the wheel typically generated about 2600(!) foot pounds of torque. I had clocked its speed, and determined that it was rotating at about 12 rpm. If we hooked that wheel to, say, the drivewheels of a car, that car would go from zero to twelve rpm in a flash, and the waterwheel would hardly notice :-).

On the other hand, twelve rpm of the drivewheels is around one mph for the average car, and, in order to go faster, we'd need to gear it up. To get to 60 mph would require gearing the wheel up enough so that it would be effectively making a little over 43 foot pounds of torque at the output, which is not only a relatively small amount, it's less than what the average car would need in order to actually get to 60. Applying the conversion formula gives us the facts on this. Twelve times twenty six hundred, over five thousand two hundred fifty two gives us:

6 HP.

Oops. Now we see the rest of the story. While it's clearly true that the water wheel can exert a *bunch* of force, its *power* (ability to do work over time) is severely limited.


At The Dragstrip
OK. Back to carland, and some examples of how horsepower makes a major difference in how fast a car can accelerate, in spite of what torque on your backside tells you :-).
A very good example would be to compare the current LT1 Corvette with the last of the L98 Vettes, built in 1991. Figures as follows:


Engine Peak HP @ RPM Peak Torque @ RPM

------ ------------- -----------------

L98 250 @ 4000 340 @ 3200

LT1 300 @ 5000 340 @ 3600


The cars are geared identically, and car weights are within a few pounds, so it's a good comparison.
First, each car will push you back in the seat (the fun factor) with the same authority - at least at or near peak torque in each gear. One will tend to *feel* about as fast as the other to the driver, but the LT1 will actually be significantly faster than the L98, even though it won't pull any harder. If we mess about with the formula, we can begin to discover exactly *why* the LT1 is faster. Here's another slice at that formula:


torque = horsepower * 5252/ rpm

If we plug some numbers in, we can see that the L98 is making 328 foot pounds of torque at its power peak (250 hp @ 4000), and we can infer that it cannot be making any more than 263 pound feet of torque at 5000 rpm, or it would be making more than 250 hp at that engine speed, and would be so rated. In actuality, the L98 is probably making no more than around 210 pound feet or so at 5000 rpm, and anybody who owns one would shift it at around 46-4700 rpm, because more torque is available at the drive wheels in the next gear at that point.
On the other hand, the LT1 is fairly happy making 315 pound feet at 5000 rpm, and is happy right up to its mid 5s redline.

So, in a drag race, the cars would launch more or less together. The L98 might have a slight advantage due to its peak torque occuring a little earlier in the rev range, but that is debatable, since the LT1 has a wider, flatter curve (again pretty much by definition, looking at the figures). From somewhere in the mid range and up, however, the LT1 would begin to pull away. Where the L98 has to shift to second (and throw away torque multiplication for speed), the LT1 still has around another 1000 rpm to go in first, and thus begins to widen its lead, more and more as the speeds climb. As long as the revs are high, the LT1, by definition, has an advantage.

Another example would be the LT1 against the ZR-1. Same deal, only in reverse. The ZR-1 actually pulls a little harder than the LT1, although its torque advantage is softened somewhat by its extra weight. The real advantage, however, is that the ZR-1 has another 1500 rpm in hand at the point where the LT1 has to shift.

There are numerous examples of this phenomenon. The Integra GS-R, for instance, is faster than the garden variety Integra, not because it pulls particularly harder (it doesn't), but because it pulls *longer*. It doesn't feel particularly faster, but it is.

A final example of this requires your imagination. Figure that we can tweak an LT1 engine so that it still makes peak torque of 340 foot pounds at 3600 rpm, but, instead of the curve dropping off to 315 pound feet at 5000, we extend the torque curve so much that it doesn't fall off to 315 pound feet until 15000 rpm. OK, so we'd need to have virtually all the moving parts made out of unobtanium :-), and some sort of turbocharging on demand that would make enough high-rpm boost to keep the curve from falling, but hey, bear with me.

If you raced a stock LT1 with this car, they would launch together, but, somewhere around the 60 foot point, the stocker would begin to fade, and would have to grab second gear shortly thereafter. Not long after that, you'd see in your mirror that the stocker has grabbed third, and not too long after that, it would get fourth, but you'd wouldn't be able to see that due to the distance between you as you crossed the line, *still in first gear*, and pulling like crazy.

I've got a computer simulation that models an LT1 Vette in a quarter mile pass, and it predicts a 13.38 second ET, at 104.5 mph. That's pretty close (actually a tiny bit conservative) to what a stock LT1 can do at 100% air density at a high traction drag strip, being powershifted. However, our modified car, while belting the driver in the back no harder than the stocker (at peak torque) does an 11.96, at 135.1 mph, all in first gear, of course. It doesn't pull any harder, but it sure as hell pulls longer :-). It's also making *900* hp, at 15,000 rpm.

Of course, folks who are knowledgeable about drag racing are now openly snickering, because they've read the preceeding paragraph, and it occurs to them that any self respecting car that can get to 135 mph in a quarter mile will just naturally be doing this in less than ten seconds. Of course that's true, but I remind these same folks that any self-respecting engine that propels a Vette into the nines is also making a whole bunch more than 340 foot pounds of torque.

That does bring up another point, though. Essentially, a more "real" Corvette running 135 mph in a quarter mile (maybe a mega big block) might be making 700-800 foot pounds of torque, and thus it would pull a whole bunch harder than my paper tiger would. It would need slicks and other modifications in order to turn that torque into forward motion, but it would also get from here to way over there a bunch quicker.

On the other hand, as long as we're making quarter mile passes with fantasy engines, if we put a 10.35:1 final-drive gear (3.45 is stock) in our fantasy LT1, with slicks and other chassis mods, we'd be in the nines just as easily as the big block would, and thus save face :-). The mechanical advantage of such a nonsensical rear gear would allow our combination to pull just as hard as the big block, plus we'd get to do all that gear banging and such that real racers do, and finish in fourth gear, as God intends. :-)

The only modification to the preceeding paragraph would be the polar moments of inertia (flywheel effect) argument brought about by such a stiff rear gear, and that argument is outside of the scope of this already massive document. Another time, maybe, if you can stand it :-).


At The Bonneville Salt Flats
Looking at top speed, horsepower wins again, in the sense that making more torque at high rpm means you can use a stiffer gear for any given car speed, and thus have more effective torque *at the drive wheels*.
Finally, operating at the power peak means you are doing the absolute best you can at any given car speed, measuring torque at the drive wheels. I know I said that acceleration follows the torque curve in any given gear, but if you factor in gearing vs car speed, the power peak is *it*. An example, yet again, of the LT1 Vette will illustrate this. If you take it up to its torque peak (3600 rpm) in a gear, it will generate some level of torque (340 foot pounds times whatever overall gearing) at the drive wheels, which is the best it will do in that gear (meaning, that's where it is pulling hardest in that gear).

However, if you re-gear the car so it is operating at the power peak (5000 rpm) *at the same car speed*, it will deliver more torque to the drive wheels, because you'll need to gear it up by nearly 39% (5000/3600), while engine torque has only dropped by a little over 7% (315/340). You'll net a 29% gain in drive wheel torque at the power peak vs the torque peak, at a given car speed.

Any other rpm (other than the power peak) at a given car speed will net you a lower torque value at the drive wheels. This would be true of any car on the planet, so, theoretical "best" top speed will always occur when a given vehicle is operating at its power peak.

"Modernizing" The 18th Century
OK. For the final-final point (Really. I Promise.), what if we ditched that water wheel, and bolted an LT1 in its place? Now, no LT1 is going to be making over 2600 foot pounds of torque (except possibly for a single, glorious instant, running on nitromethane), but, assuming we needed 12 rpm for an input to the mill, we could run the LT1 at 5000 rpm (where it's making 315 foot pounds of torque), and gear it down to a 12 rpm output. Result? We'd have over *131,000* foot pounds of torque to play with. We could probably twist the whole flour mill around the input shaft, if we needed to :-).

The Only Thing You Really Need to Know
Repeat after me. "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*." :-)
Thanks for your time.

Bruce

Jim Nowak

Here is some more reading for the student:

http://store.yahoo.com/cabrera/thatyouneedt.html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00260.htm
http://www.dynacam.com/Product/Torqu...orsepower.html



Horsepower vs. Torque
by Tyler(planetslowcar1)

What are horsepower and torque? How are they related? What is the difference between the two? These are common questions that hardly anyone can answer correctly and the ones that can are just repeating something they heard but do not fully understand. Now its time to try to clear it all up. Let us start with the first question.

What are horsepower and torque? This is the easy one. Most people have heard all the technical stuff about torque as a measure of twist and HP is 33,000 lb/ft per minute. Let us skip all that. The purpose here is to give you a practical understanding of HP and torque as related to cars, not to repeat high school physics. For all intents and purposes, torque is a measure of the engines power. HP is how fast it can deliver the power. To over-simplify:

Torque = power, how well car does burnouts, how well it can tow a boat

HP = how fast engine delivers the torque

Example:

Mustang 5.0 =

- Lots of power
- slow delivery
- good burnouts
- no top end


S2000 =

- tiny power
- very fast delivery
- bad burnouts
- lots of top end


Now you have a basic idea of what HP and torque mean, its time to learn about the magic of gearing and how a torque less Honda and an RPM challenged Mustang can hang together at the track. I know I said we weren’t going to go back to high school physics, but there’s no way around it in this case. Ok, 1HP = moving 33,000lbs. 1 foot in 1 minute. Here’s where the difference between the S2000 and the Mustang comes in. That measure of HP can be 33,000lbs. 1 foot, in 1 minute OR 3.3lbs. 10,000 feet, in 1 minute; or any other equal numbers you want to substitute. What’s the difference? It takes lots of power to move 33,000lbs. 1 foot in 1 minute and it takes high revs to move 3.3lbs. 10,000 feet in 1 minute. As you can guess, the S2000 has the revs and the Mustang has the power, but in the end they both need to be quick off the line and have reasonable top speed. This is where the gearing comes in.

Note: The following is the complicated and confusing technical version of how gears work. If you don’t care or just don’t get it, move on to where it says “start reading again” in bold, just make sure you stop on the way down and memorize that conversion in bold. If you read it through enough times, I am sure you’ll understand it eventually anyway….

The Torque is multiplied by the gearing, HP is not, but is still a function of torque and RPM. Now a VERY IMPORTANT conversion to remember: HP = torque x RPM / 5252. Example time (again, over-simplified):

100lb/ft engine:

First gear = 4:1

Final Drive = 3.5:1

Add it together and multiply by the torque = 4 + 3.5 x 100 = 750lb/ft at the wheels

So we have a 750% gain in torque, but because of the low gearing the RPM dropped 750%. Now you can try it for yourself with the HP conversion and different gear ratios or you can take my word for it that HP will end up equaling out because torque is gained (or lost) and RPM is lost (or gained) in proportion throughout the rev range. So if you have a high revving engine, you’ll be able to run it through low gearing to make up for the lack of torque and still have enough RPM left to make good HP. If you have a low revving engine, you will be able to run it through high gearing to give you the RPM necessary to make HP and you will still have enough torque left. I hope that made sense to you. You should now be able to see why the high revving, high HP S2000, and the low revving, high torque Mustang can hang together. It’s all about gearing. You can have your screaming Honda engine or your powerful American iron, but in the end, you have to gear them so they perform nearly identical. The only difference will be what RPM they are at.

Start reading again, if you did not read that last part go back and do it before I slap you.

To sum that all up: High torque/Low revving engines need high gearing which has the effect of taking away some torque but giving them the revs they lack. Low torque/High-revving engines need low gearing which has the effect of taking away some revs but giving them the torque they lack. Again, this is why a 150lb/ft Honda can hang with a 300lb/ft muscle car.

DISCLAIMER: I’m not sure of the exact output of an S2000 or a 5.0 Mustang or whether they have similar straight-line performance. I used the two cars for the purpose of an EXAMPLE ONLY. If you are a fan of either one and I ripped you off a few HP or whatever, spare me the angry email. It is ONLY AN IMAGINARY EXAMPLE.


Ok, that went far deeper than I intended and got far more technical than I wanted. Nonetheless, if you have not been scared away, its time to look at how HP and torque are related and how they effect each other.

People tend to thing torque = low end, but it does not. They say when you put on a large diameter exhaust you "lose torque,” but you don’t, the torque just shifts into a higher RPM range. Because HP = torque X RPM / 5252 (I told you it was important) you make more HP with higher RPM torque.

Draw a torque curve on a hand made dyno chart and then try that equation (you really should memorize it) to get the HP at different RPM points, high and low. You should then be able to see how they relate. Start with a torque curve that looks like this:

____________________

Yes, a straight line at 100lb/ft just to keep it simple. After working through the equation for a bunch of different points, you should see the HP will make a diagonal line that goes up and crosses the torque at 5252rpm. Therefore, the engine made the same amount of torque everywhere in the power band, but made more HP after 5252rpm and less before, all in direct proportion to the torque and RPM.

Now try one like this:

____/\_____/\____

So lets say we gain a about 10lb/ft of torque at 2 places in the power band, one before 5252rpm (say 2000rpm) and one after (7000rpm), in both places the engine gained the exact same amount or torque. So go through like before and figure the HP at lots of RPM points. You should see that even though the torque gains were equal, the high RPM HP gain was significantly larger than the low RPM gain (3.8HP @ 2000rpm vs. 13.3HP @ 7000rpm). In fact, in the low RPM the torque gain was higher than the HP gain. This is why low revving muscle cars make more torque than HP, in fact for any engine that has a redline lower than 5252 its IMPOSSIBLE to make more HP than torque. Hence, we have diesel trucks that make 500lb/ft off idle and only 250hp. Turn this around and its how Hondas and F1 cars make lots of HP with small displacement and low torque, they just have to rev and make torque high in the RPM range.

As I said before:

Torque = power

HP = how fast power is delivered

This should be even clearer now. However, let me state it again just in case. Hondas only have a small amount of torque but deliver it very fast; this is how they make high HP. Muscle cars have very slow delivery so they have to make lots of torque to make HP.

If you take nothing else away from this article, at least understand this. It is one of the MOST common misconceptions of HP. HP is not measured, it is calculated. This is important to understand. When you go to the dyno, they measure your engines torque and then using that conversion you should have memorized they CALCULATE horsepower. HP is a very confusing and stupid way to measure engine output. Try to keep in mind it is nothing more than a measurement of torque delivery.
Keep everything I said in mind and the next time a muscle head starts making fun of your torque less 4 cylinder, you can explain to them just how little that matters.

SharkSkin

</hijack>
Um... ya, that MBZ V-12TT is badass. Nice Kill, Cameron.

cobalt

I will let you guys argue the science and math.

I will say to Mark that I was in 3rd gear and to drop into 2nd to bring up the rpms and punch it to gain the extra 20%. A) I would have lost precsious time in downshifting which is a slower process than mashing the pedal on an auto tranny and B) would defanitely spin the rear tires. I know this from experiance and it is not as much fun as some may think. I would agree if I was just cruizing in 4th or 5th and needed to build power fast I would drop it a gear or 2 as needed. Especially if I was off boost. I will not argue that. So long as the boost was up and I was on the gas I obviously had the power to pull from this guy and things happen so quickly that it is possible to gain some serious ground and speed in only fractions of a second. I have left some very nice 997TT's and Vipers behind without the need to downshift if the conditions are correct. I deffinately agree if I were to downshift and punch it in a higher gear that the surge forward would be greater and I would gain the 20% or more you describe. Although I find this approach does not work as well under the conditions I was under and to drop into second would have worked against me based on shifting time and wheel slippage alone.

I would also like to say that we all can gain considerable time on our 1/4 times if we were using racing shoes. Not only in the straight line but more so in the turns. These guys are throwing racing rubber with 10K dollar chips and use (I will spell it out Watching too many Hot Wheels movies with my son) Nitrous oxide to obtain great numbers no doubt. I guess when you have several hundred grand to blow why not? I could take my car convert to EFI make some serious changes and dust their doors with enough money to buy a Cayenne turbo and trailer to bring the beast back and forth to the track when I was done. My car has very simple mods that did not cost tremendous amounts of money using old school technology and I am damn close to their numbers with a lot less HP.Best of all I can run it all day long without blowing up my engine. To me that says a lot. I am sure if I put some nice V 710's or better on my car I would be giving the somewhat stock versions at least a fair run for their money

My cousin has a friend who is a service manager at the local MB dealer. You know how many of these things are in for major repairs because these cars are so badly abused. Especially the E55's. If you would like I can get you some screaming deals on some of these cars less than a year old with very low mileage. I for one wouldn't touch them. They are mostly cobbled back together so that they can be sold after these young guys with too much $$ have trashed the hell out of them. It is funny they are selling these things faster than they can make them new but there are tons sitting on the used lots selling for half of what they sold for new. I wonder why.

Jim Nowak

Sure, point out some 211 E55's selling for half of their selling price and I'll buy it on the spot. I haven't seen any of them for sale that cheap. I did see a flood damaged car that was selling for $53,000 but even the 2003's are bringing $60,000+.

mark kibort

I wrote a letter a few years ago to bruce to correct some of his little torque vs hp letter below. its very old and has not been changed. while most of what he has said is correct, it misses the marks on several levels giving mixed messages.

Even on his closing line, his point wonders. making torque at higher rpms as he say, means its better to have more hp! talking about torque without reference to rpms is as meaningless as talking about rpms without torque.

the example im known for is two cars both with the same weight and HP say 550hp, and one car with HALF the max torque (say one at 500ft and the other at 250ftlbs) assume same gear ratio spacing, and one reving 2 x of the other car. both cars will accelerate the same at all speeds! Now, the point everyone misses is that in these two examples, both cars will put the same torque AT the wheels at any particular speed. THIS IS THE POINT!

where Bruce also misleds some, is that he recants the fact that any car will pull its hardest in any particular gear at max torque. Its misleading, as at that speed,its not the fastest rate of acceleration of the car! that can be achieved most often by using a lower gear and being at a greater HP range of the engine. Say, instead of running at max toruqe in our 928s at 4000rpm, its better to be a gear down and runing at 5300rpm and gain 20% or more applied through the gears. confirming that keeping your car at max hp or near it as much as possible will be the fastest way to the finish line.

I hope that is coming across correctly. As it is truely correct in concept


Mk

mark kibort

Jim, also an author that is TRYING to get it right, but just misses the mark. although in a subtle twist at the end, he and i are on the same page. forget about torque, its HP that matters, when defending a low torque honda against a big torque mustang and why they can run together.

Let me add some comments of where he goes a little astray with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here is goes:

MK

mark kibort

my comments with the>>>>>

Sab

I am dizzy now.
I think you like to hear yourself talk...
You should be in politics...

MoonBoy

...