What IBM is doing is encouraging people to get jobs elsewhere, because it is their goal to replace those people with cheap labor from third world countries anyway. It's better for your image to educate someone and "let them leave" than to announce layoffs and hire people from India.
The fact is that IBM would like American and European labor to exit the company so they can pick up Indian and Chinese labor. They want us out, and they're trying to do it nicely.
Correct, when I step on the gas, the throttle body butterfly valve opens, increasing pressure in the manifold which causes the spark to advance, so that the explosion will occur earlier, have more force and accelerate the engine, which will suck in more air/fuel mixture which will provide more power at that RPM.
Forget about the spark advance right now, as that's a (relatively) recent trick used to get more power. It's not one of the fundamentals required for engine operation.
If you look at a lawnmower engine, it has some of the basic requirements for an engine to run. It has a basic spark that's triggered by a magnet on the flywheel passing by the coil. There is no spark advance at all- it always runs the same timing. What makes it accelerate is opening the throttle, which sucks in more air/fuel. That allows the engine to produce more power and rev higher.
Stroke 1 will suck in.6l, stroke 2 will compress that.6l to lets say.06l (10:1 compression). Just as the piston hit's top dead center, the spark is ignited, the gas begins it's expansion right at TDC. for ~.1 seconds the gas tries to expand at X ft/second, any thing that limits that expansion will increase the force applied against the piston. But at the end of that.1 seconds, the gas is spent. But it only takes.06 seconds per rotation (at 1000rpms). So what happens to the extra.04 seconds of burn? tossed out the exhaust when the exhaust valves open at the end of the power stroke. stroke 4 then pushes the spent and unspent fuel out the exhaust. But then what? You advance the spark timing. Advancing the spark timing by.01 second allows you to have the combustion starting before TDC, which means you will have expansion occuring while the combustion chamber is at the smallest size, which means more pressure (force) which accelerates the engine. The engine spins faster, sucks more air per minute, but still sucks the exact same amount of air/fuel per rotation that it always did.
You are completely getting lost in the details here. You are thinking along the lines that the engine sucks in the same amount every stroke. You've said that in this post and other posts. An engine doesn't work that way. The throttle body will limit the amount of air that can pass, and the cylinders will have a lower pressure. So when you think about the amount of air *at atmospheric pressure* that the engine sucks in, this amount changes based on how much throttle you're giving ig. At idle, which is your lowest throttle setting, the.6L cylinder is only drawing in a small fraction of.6L of outside air. It will be operating under a vacuum (not total vacuum of course, but pressure lower than atmospheric). Only at wide open throttle will the cylinders theoretically be filled with.6L of air, and that's if your engine were able to operate at 100% volumetric efficiency, which it probably doesn't.
Again, spark timing advance is only a tweak made to get more power out of combustion. It's not a requirement for engine operation and that's not what makes the engine change speed or even work. Many engines have no spark advance, and some small engines have no spark at all, they work by using a glow plug.
I've come across many people who do not understand how an engine works. They are so used to the modern advances of an engine that they think they are the fundamentals of engine operation.
Gasoline engines are controlled by limiting airflow, not spark. In fact, you do not really even need a sparkplug for an engine to work, and the smallest gas engines don't have spark plugs. I have a model airplane engine that will run on gas, and it only has a glow plug- no spark advance there. But it does have a throttle body (in the carb), which is a fundamental of gasoline engine operation.
He is getting lost in the details and failing to grasp the overall concept of how the engine works.
You don't seem to understand the basic principles of how a gasoline engine works. On a gas engine, you do not control the RPM's with the spark advance, you control it by limiting airflow.
You can burn more fuel over time, but you can not burn more fuel per cycle. More air/fuel is the RESULT of acceleration, not the cause.You can burn more fuel over time, but you can not burn more fuel per cycle. More air/fuel is the RESULT of acceleration, not the cause.
Incorrect. More air/fuel is the result of opening the throttle body, which allows more air to rush into the engine, and you can therefore burn more fuel. An engine is NOT always sucking in the same amount of air/fuel. There is usually some amount of manifold vacuum because of the sucking force of the pistons on the intake stroke and the throttle body which will only let as much air past as you allow.
A cylinder that displaces half a liter of space will only ever be able to burn.5l of air/fuel mixture. Period. You can not magically "burn more fuel". You can only burn.5l per cylinder per cycle. In order to burn more air you have to accelerate the engine. You accelerate the engine by improving the efficiency of the engine (advancing timing)
Wrong. A cylinder with.5L of of displacement doesn't have to burn.5L of air/fuel. It is usually running some vacuum and not sucking in as much air/fuel as it can. The only time the cylinders suck in as much fuel as they can is at wide open throttle, and your throttle body isn't limiting the amount of air that can enter the engine.
Also, spark timing doesn't have much to do with this. You adjust your spark timing to get the most power out of the power stroke as possible, but it is not what controls the rpm. And it is not what controls the idle.
If you ever play with a gas model airplane engine, you'll see this for yourself. They don't have spark plugs, they have glow plugs. Therefore you cannot control the spark advance. But you can still regulate the idle and RPM, and you do this by adjusting the throttle body in the carburetor.
Cliffs Notes: A gasoline engine is air regulated.
Interestingly, a diesel engine works more like you say, although it has no spark plugs either. On a diesel, you cannot limit the amount of air that enters the engine (no throttle) and there is no spark. You control its speed by limiting fuel (injection timing and injection amount)
Read the post again. He was thinking about snipping the link from the airbag module to the data bus. Nothing to do with OnStar
Ok, I read it again. Here's what I see:
"I'm still not so sure if I'm comfortable with the onboard data recorder that runs in a loop and stops on airbag deployment. Those have been in GM cars since 1999, if not earlier. Don't think I haven't thought about snipping its link to the data bus"
Upon reading it again, it appears that he was talking about the link from the "black box" (that records your sensor data) to the data bus. It has nothing to do with the airbag or OnStar.
Does this mean we don't have to rebuild New Orleans? Maybe the looters can walk away with a Shuttle ticket or something.
We need to develop a rocket large enough to launch all of the welfare-sucking animals in New Orleans into space. Those people contribute nothing, riot at the drop of a hat, and leech off our system. Even before the hurricane they contributed to one of the highest crime rates in the US.
Like the saying goes, "shape up or ship out." They haven't shaped up, now we need to ship them out.
The link from Onstar to the data bus has nothing to do with the airbags. You could snip that and it wouldn't affect the operation of the airbags or any of the sensors.
It's the same thing you can do with a $50 tool from AutoZone. Any time a problem is detected by the computer, it throws up a code. Some of these codes cause the SES light to come on, some don't. An ODBII scanner plugs in behind the dash and reads these codes from the computer modules, then displays them. Usually in a nicer to read format.
That's all this is doing.... Instantaneous speed couldn't be gotten from the car via this interface.
The data port transmits much more information than the cheap $50 code readers will display for you.
You can easily get instantaneous speed readings through the data port, and if the OnStar system is attached to it as you say, they could easily get your instantaneous speed.
I've made scantools for my cars. They hook up to the data port and give you the information you request.
I made a scantool for my 300ZXTT. It will tell you the speed, rpm, spark advance, cam advance, injector duty cycle, incoming air temp, ambient air temp, coolant temp, oxygen sensor reading, steering wheel position, throttle position sensor reading, status of the air conditioner switch, air conditioning relay position, electric cooling fan state, start signal status, fuel pump status, EGR solenoid status, air/fuel ratio (rich/lean) and the list goes on.
All these things can be monitored in real time, and there's no reason that a system which feeds its info to the OnStar system couldn't send this data.
So babies born into rich families are generally more intelligent than those born into poor families ?
On average they are more intelligent, yes. They get their genes from their parents, and someone in their bloodlines proved themselves able to outsmart their competition and make more money than them.
While you'll get isolated cases of people becoming rich by hitting the lottery, that's the exception and not the rule. On average, the cream of the crop will rise to the top.
If we lived in societies where the amount of money you had was related to intelligence then maybe you'd have a point but unfortunately we don't.
We do.
Wealth is definitely related to intelligence. There have been many studies stating that obvious fact. Just do a search and take a look at them for yourself.
I'd love to see a guy like you walk over into the bad area of town and get made a fool out of by the "stupid people". You wouldn't stand a chance. Seriously, do you even walk outside? Or do you only hang out with other overpriveledged snobs?
I'm not overpriveledged. I grew up in a working class town and I went to school in a pretty rough town. I put myself in the situation I'm in now, I wasn't fed with a silver spoon.
Also, I don't listen to Rush. I don't get along well with Bible-thumping Republicans.
Is there not a major assumption being made here - that smart people are wealthier than poor people?
I think of myself as pretty smart, but I know a lot of dumb people who earn more than I do. Wealth (and by implication survival in the modern world - although that is another questionable assumption) is far more a matter of luck and inheritance (wealth or status, not genes) than intelligence.
While there will always be deviation from the average, the fact remains that, on average, smart people make more money than poor people. If you look at the many studies that have been done on this, you'll see that IQ closely correlates to wealth.
Bringup up a deviation and saying that it disproves the general trend is ignorant. It's just like with people with college degrees- sure, you have some self-made men like Bill Gates who make more money than most college degree holders. But the fact remains that on average, a college degree holder makes more money than someone who doesn't have a degree.
We're talking genetics here, so it's the averages on the long run that matter.
And bringing up Godwin's law was senseless. Nobody mentioned Nazi's. That was just a thinly-veiled attempt to do so. You wanted to bring it up but you didn't want to look like a fool.
That's really the neat part; that it shows that this idea of "survival of the dumbest" is apparently not what has been happening. Instead, there is every reason to think we have been getting smarter.
Unfortunately socialist governments are a recent invention, and they're quickly undoing what natural selection used to take place in the wild. With massive welfare systems now in place in many countries, the dumbest people can now breed out of control, and you're paying for it. They might lack the genes to effectively compete in modern society, but it doesn't matter as long as you're paying for their house, food, healthcare, and kids.
Letting the weakest die off might seem un-pc and mean in the short term, but in the long term it's helping the human race.
Not all opinions are created equally. You might say that 9x9=81, but I might say that it's 21. I wouldn't be expressing a valid opinion, I'd just be expressing stupidity.
With your claim that we never went to the Moon, that's just moronic. Really, anybody with half a brain could assemble the available facts and determine it for himself.
However, you do occasionally get people who lack the mental stability to read the writing on the wall, and think everything is a conspiracy. That's just craziness.
Are you sure about those numbers? Usually small displacement high revving engines produce less torque than horsepower, simply due to the method of calculating horsepower from torque.
hp=tq*rpm/5252
Yes, I got my car dyno'd. Don't forget that the torque curve of a turbo car looks much different than a naturally aspirated car at the same displacement. At 14.7 psi of boost, my 3 liter engine is cramming twice the amount of air into the combustion chamber than the non-turbo version of the 3 liter engine would. At 1 bar of boost, the torque will be about the same as a 6 liter NA engine.
For the non-turbo version of the engine, since you can't produce much more torque, you need to rev higher to produce the same amount of power. With the turbo version, you increase the boost, the torque increases, and as a result, the power goes up at a lower RPM.
Take Formula 1 cars for example. The modern naturally aspirated 3 liter F1 engines produce about 850 hp at 19,000 rpm. The older Turbo 1.5 liter F1 cars produced over 1,000 hp at around 11,000 rpm. By the math, you can see that an engine half the displacement produced much more torque, at a lower RPM, too.
When I dyno'd, I had 339 rwhp, and 389 rwtq.
Horsepower stats that car manufacturers use are taken at the engine's crankshaft, but if it's in your car you have to dyno it on a roller, which measures the power at the rear wheels. If you take into account the usual 18% drivetrain loss for a RWD car, 339 rwhp and 389 rwtq would calculate to 413.4 horsepower and 474.4 ft-lbs of torque at the crank.
Stock the car had 300 hp, and the 18% loss states that the car would make 246 hp. Commonly when dyno'd, they produce abotu 245 rear wheel hp.
I made 339 hp (at the rear wheels, about 413 hp at the crank) at 4600 rpm. To figure how much torque that is, if you multiply by 5252 and divide by 4600, it comes out to 471.7.
And even more importantly price per mile per horsepower is what matters. Gas MPG/hp hasn't changed since the 70's. I want a 200hp car that gets 35-40mpg, or a Hydrogen powered car that for example gets 17-20mpg at $1.00 a gallon or the equivalent
Gas MPG/Horsepower has changed a lot since the 70's. A new Corvette has 400 HP and gets about 18 mpg/28 mpg (city/highway).
It also depends on the type of engine in the car. If you have a naturally aspirated engine and you make it capable of producing more power, your gas mileage usually decreases a bit since you have to change the displacement/compression ratio/cam timing/etc, and it operates with that configuration all the time, it doesn't change (well the cam timing does nowadays).
However if you have a turbocharged car, making the engine capable of producing more power won't decrease the gas mileage. I have a 300ZX Twin Turbo that had 300 hp and got about 22 mpg (highway) when it was stock. After I increased the boost from 9.5 to 15 psi, I have about 400 hp and 450 lbs of torque. My gas milage stayed the same (during normal driving). That's because I didn't change the engine configuration, during normal driving, the engine doesn't operate any differently than it did before. While the wastegates on the turbochargers will now enable them to produce 15 psi of boost compared to 9.5 psi before, they aren't going to make that much unless I'm flooring it.
Now when I'm racing it, it will burn gas faster than it did before, since the potential for increased airflow increases the potential for fuel burn, and consequently potential for horsepower.
Basically, your engine will burn fuel at a rate that's proportional to the amount of horsepower it is producing at the moment. A 400 HP engine isn't always producing 400 hp... it's just capable of doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
What IBM is doing is encouraging people to get jobs elsewhere, because it is their goal to replace those people with cheap labor from third world countries anyway. It's better for your image to educate someone and "let them leave" than to announce layoffs and hire people from India.
The fact is that IBM would like American and European labor to exit the company so they can pick up Indian and Chinese labor. They want us out, and they're trying to do it nicely.
There's no altruism here.
Correct, when I step on the gas, the throttle body butterfly valve opens, increasing pressure in the manifold which causes the spark to advance, so that the explosion will occur earlier, have more force and accelerate the engine, which will suck in more air/fuel mixture which will provide more power at that RPM.
.6l, stroke 2 will compress that .6l to lets say .06l (10:1 compression). Just as the piston hit's top dead center, the spark is ignited, the gas begins it's expansion right at TDC. for ~ .1 seconds the gas tries to expand at X ft/second, any thing that limits that expansion will increase the force applied against the piston. But at the end of that .1 seconds, the gas is spent. But it only takes .06 seconds per rotation (at 1000rpms). So what happens to the extra .04 seconds of burn? tossed out the exhaust when the exhaust valves open at the end of the power stroke. stroke 4 then pushes the spent and unspent fuel out the exhaust. .01 second allows you to have the combustion starting before TDC, which means you will have expansion occuring while the combustion chamber is at the smallest size, which means more pressure (force) which accelerates the engine. The engine spins faster, sucks more air per minute, but still sucks the exact same amount of air/fuel per rotation that it always did.
.6L cylinder is only drawing in a small fraction of .6L of outside air. It will be operating under a vacuum (not total vacuum of course, but pressure lower than atmospheric). Only at wide open throttle will the cylinders theoretically be filled with .6L of air, and that's if your engine were able to operate at 100% volumetric efficiency, which it probably doesn't.
Forget about the spark advance right now, as that's a (relatively) recent trick used to get more power. It's not one of the fundamentals required for engine operation.
If you look at a lawnmower engine, it has some of the basic requirements for an engine to run. It has a basic spark that's triggered by a magnet on the flywheel passing by the coil. There is no spark advance at all- it always runs the same timing. What makes it accelerate is opening the throttle, which sucks in more air/fuel. That allows the engine to produce more power and rev higher.
Stroke 1 will suck in
But then what? You advance the spark timing. Advancing the spark timing by
You are completely getting lost in the details here. You are thinking along the lines that the engine sucks in the same amount every stroke. You've said that in this post and other posts. An engine doesn't work that way. The throttle body will limit the amount of air that can pass, and the cylinders will have a lower pressure. So when you think about the amount of air *at atmospheric pressure* that the engine sucks in, this amount changes based on how much throttle you're giving ig. At idle, which is your lowest throttle setting, the
Again, spark timing advance is only a tweak made to get more power out of combustion. It's not a requirement for engine operation and that's not what makes the engine change speed or even work. Many engines have no spark advance, and some small engines have no spark at all, they work by using a glow plug.
I've come across many people who do not understand how an engine works. They are so used to the modern advances of an engine that they think they are the fundamentals of engine operation.
Gasoline engines are controlled by limiting airflow, not spark. In fact, you do not really even need a sparkplug for an engine to work, and the smallest gas engines don't have spark plugs. I have a model airplane engine that will run on gas, and it only has a glow plug- no spark advance there. But it does have a throttle body (in the carb), which is a fundamental of gasoline engine operation.
He is getting lost in the details and failing to grasp the overall concept of how the engine works.
You don't seem to understand the basic principles of how a gasoline engine works. On a gas engine, you do not control the RPM's with the spark advance, you control it by limiting airflow.
.5l of air/fuel mixture. Period. You can not magically "burn more fuel". You can only burn .5l per cylinder per cycle. In order to burn more air you have to accelerate the engine. You accelerate the engine by improving the efficiency of the engine (advancing timing)
.5L of of displacement doesn't have to burn .5L of air/fuel. It is usually running some vacuum and not sucking in as much air/fuel as it can. The only time the cylinders suck in as much fuel as they can is at wide open throttle, and your throttle body isn't limiting the amount of air that can enter the engine.
You can burn more fuel over time, but you can not burn more fuel per cycle. More air/fuel is the RESULT of acceleration, not the cause.You can burn more fuel over time, but you can not burn more fuel per cycle. More air/fuel is the RESULT of acceleration, not the cause.
Incorrect. More air/fuel is the result of opening the throttle body, which allows more air to rush into the engine, and you can therefore burn more fuel. An engine is NOT always sucking in the same amount of air/fuel. There is usually some amount of manifold vacuum because of the sucking force of the pistons on the intake stroke and the throttle body which will only let as much air past as you allow.
A cylinder that displaces half a liter of space will only ever be able to burn
Wrong. A cylinder with
Also, spark timing doesn't have much to do with this. You adjust your spark timing to get the most power out of the power stroke as possible, but it is not what controls the rpm. And it is not what controls the idle.
If you ever play with a gas model airplane engine, you'll see this for yourself. They don't have spark plugs, they have glow plugs. Therefore you cannot control the spark advance. But you can still regulate the idle and RPM, and you do this by adjusting the throttle body in the carburetor.
Cliffs Notes: A gasoline engine is air regulated.
Interestingly, a diesel engine works more like you say, although it has no spark plugs either. On a diesel, you cannot limit the amount of air that enters the engine (no throttle) and there is no spark. You control its speed by limiting fuel (injection timing and injection amount)
Read the post again. He was thinking about snipping the link from the airbag module to the data bus. Nothing to do with OnStar
Ok, I read it again. Here's what I see:
"I'm still not so sure if I'm comfortable with the onboard data recorder that runs in a loop and stops on airbag deployment. Those have been in GM cars since 1999, if not earlier. Don't think I haven't thought about snipping its link to the data bus"
Upon reading it again, it appears that he was talking about the link from the "black box" (that records your sensor data) to the data bus. It has nothing to do with the airbag or OnStar.
Does this mean we don't have to rebuild New Orleans? Maybe the looters can walk away with a Shuttle ticket or something.
We need to develop a rocket large enough to launch all of the welfare-sucking animals in New Orleans into space. Those people contribute nothing, riot at the drop of a hat, and leech off our system. Even before the hurricane they contributed to one of the highest crime rates in the US.
Like the saying goes, "shape up or ship out." They haven't shaped up, now we need to ship them out.
a. If a car got hit hard enough to break your legs, the windows would probably be broken.
b. the doors would also probably be stuck shut, so it wouldn't matter if they were locked or not.
Even if they were locked and the glass wasn't broken, one of the rescuers could simply break the window and unlock the door or pull you out.
The link from Onstar to the data bus has nothing to do with the airbags. You could snip that and it wouldn't affect the operation of the airbags or any of the sensors.
Check out www.scantool.net
They have lots of info on how to build your own scantools.
It's the same thing you can do with a $50 tool from AutoZone. Any time a problem is detected by the computer, it throws up a code. Some of these codes cause the SES light to come on, some don't. An ODBII scanner plugs in behind the dash and reads these codes from the computer modules, then displays them. Usually in a nicer to read format.
That's all this is doing....
Instantaneous speed couldn't be gotten from the car via this interface.
The data port transmits much more information than the cheap $50 code readers will display for you.
You can easily get instantaneous speed readings through the data port, and if the OnStar system is attached to it as you say, they could easily get your instantaneous speed.
I've made scantools for my cars. They hook up to the data port and give you the information you request.
I made a scantool for my 300ZXTT. It will tell you the speed, rpm, spark advance, cam advance, injector duty cycle, incoming air temp, ambient air temp, coolant temp, oxygen sensor reading, steering wheel position, throttle position sensor reading, status of the air conditioner switch, air conditioning relay position, electric cooling fan state, start signal status, fuel pump status, EGR solenoid status, air/fuel ratio (rich/lean) and the list goes on.
All these things can be monitored in real time, and there's no reason that a system which feeds its info to the OnStar system couldn't send this data.
And then we can say how great Linux is!
Pretty funny :-)
5 17984
But in my own defense, I did make correct that mistake 4 hours before your reply.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161646&cid=13
So babies born into rich families are generally more intelligent than those born into poor families ?
On average they are more intelligent, yes. They get their genes from their parents, and someone in their bloodlines proved themselves able to outsmart their competition and make more money than them.
While you'll get isolated cases of people becoming rich by hitting the lottery, that's the exception and not the rule. On average, the cream of the crop will rise to the top.
If we lived in societies where the amount of money you had was related to intelligence then maybe you'd have a point but unfortunately we don't.
We do.
Wealth is definitely related to intelligence. There have been many studies stating that obvious fact. Just do a search and take a look at them for yourself.
I'd love to see a guy like you walk over into the bad area of town and get made a fool out of by the "stupid people". You wouldn't stand a chance. Seriously, do you even walk outside? Or do you only hang out with other overpriveledged snobs?
I'm not overpriveledged. I grew up in a working class town and I went to school in a pretty rough town. I put myself in the situation I'm in now, I wasn't fed with a silver spoon.
Also, I don't listen to Rush. I don't get along well with Bible-thumping Republicans.
While there will always be deviation from the average, the fact remains that, on average, smart people make more money than poor people.
:-)
That should read, "smart people make more money than *dumb* people."
Most people make more money than poor people
Is there not a major assumption being made here - that smart people are wealthier than poor people?
I think of myself as pretty smart, but I know a lot of dumb people who earn more than I do. Wealth (and by implication survival in the modern world - although that is another questionable assumption) is far more a matter of luck and inheritance (wealth or status, not genes) than intelligence.
While there will always be deviation from the average, the fact remains that, on average, smart people make more money than poor people. If you look at the many studies that have been done on this, you'll see that IQ closely correlates to wealth.
Bringup up a deviation and saying that it disproves the general trend is ignorant. It's just like with people with college degrees- sure, you have some self-made men like Bill Gates who make more money than most college degree holders. But the fact remains that on average, a college degree holder makes more money than someone who doesn't have a degree.
We're talking genetics here, so it's the averages on the long run that matter.
And bringing up Godwin's law was senseless. Nobody mentioned Nazi's. That was just a thinly-veiled attempt to do so. You wanted to bring it up but you didn't want to look like a fool.
That's really the neat part; that it shows that this idea of "survival of the dumbest" is apparently not what has been happening. Instead, there is every reason to think we have been getting smarter.
Unfortunately socialist governments are a recent invention, and they're quickly undoing what natural selection used to take place in the wild. With massive welfare systems now in place in many countries, the dumbest people can now breed out of control, and you're paying for it. They might lack the genes to effectively compete in modern society, but it doesn't matter as long as you're paying for their house, food, healthcare, and kids.
Letting the weakest die off might seem un-pc and mean in the short term, but in the long term it's helping the human race.
Not all opinions are created equally. You might say that 9x9=81, but I might say that it's 21. I wouldn't be expressing a valid opinion, I'd just be expressing stupidity.
With your claim that we never went to the Moon, that's just moronic. Really, anybody with half a brain could assemble the available facts and determine it for himself.
However, you do occasionally get people who lack the mental stability to read the writing on the wall, and think everything is a conspiracy. That's just craziness.
I was about to laugh along with you, but then I read your post history. It seems that you believe that crap.
It's quite sad to see a fellow human being with a mental resolution so low that they believe that nonsense. Please take off your tinfoil hat.
Because you'll need that to view the slideshow that S3 cards produce in 3d games.
Are you sure about those numbers? Usually small displacement high revving engines produce less torque than horsepower, simply due to the method of calculating horsepower from torque.
hp=tq*rpm/5252
Yes, I got my car dyno'd. Don't forget that the torque curve of a turbo car looks much different than a naturally aspirated car at the same displacement. At 14.7 psi of boost, my 3 liter engine is cramming twice the amount of air into the combustion chamber than the non-turbo version of the 3 liter engine would. At 1 bar of boost, the torque will be about the same as a 6 liter NA engine.
For the non-turbo version of the engine, since you can't produce much more torque, you need to rev higher to produce the same amount of power. With the turbo version, you increase the boost, the torque increases, and as a result, the power goes up at a lower RPM.
Take Formula 1 cars for example. The modern naturally aspirated 3 liter F1 engines produce about 850 hp at 19,000 rpm. The older Turbo 1.5 liter F1 cars produced over 1,000 hp at around 11,000 rpm. By the math, you can see that an engine half the displacement produced much more torque, at a lower RPM, too.
When I dyno'd, I had 339 rwhp, and 389 rwtq.
Horsepower stats that car manufacturers use are taken at the engine's crankshaft, but if it's in your car you have to dyno it on a roller, which measures the power at the rear wheels. If you take into account the usual 18% drivetrain loss for a RWD car, 339 rwhp and 389 rwtq would calculate to 413.4 horsepower and 474.4 ft-lbs of torque at the crank.
Stock the car had 300 hp, and the 18% loss states that the car would make 246 hp. Commonly when dyno'd, they produce abotu 245 rear wheel hp.
I made 339 hp (at the rear wheels, about 413 hp at the crank) at 4600 rpm. To figure how much torque that is, if you multiply by 5252 and divide by 4600, it comes out to 471.7.
Thanks for telling us that this was a fake.
And even more importantly price per mile per horsepower is what matters. Gas MPG/hp hasn't changed since the 70's. I want a 200hp car that gets 35-40mpg, or a Hydrogen powered car that for example gets 17-20mpg at $1.00 a gallon or the equivalent
Gas MPG/Horsepower has changed a lot since the 70's. A new Corvette has 400 HP and gets about 18 mpg/28 mpg (city/highway).
It also depends on the type of engine in the car. If you have a naturally aspirated engine and you make it capable of producing more power, your gas mileage usually decreases a bit since you have to change the displacement/compression ratio/cam timing/etc, and it operates with that configuration all the time, it doesn't change (well the cam timing does nowadays).
However if you have a turbocharged car, making the engine capable of producing more power won't decrease the gas mileage. I have a 300ZX Twin Turbo that had 300 hp and got about 22 mpg (highway) when it was stock. After I increased the boost from 9.5 to 15 psi, I have about 400 hp and 450 lbs of torque. My gas milage stayed the same (during normal driving). That's because I didn't change the engine configuration, during normal driving, the engine doesn't operate any differently than it did before. While the wastegates on the turbochargers will now enable them to produce 15 psi of boost compared to 9.5 psi before, they aren't going to make that much unless I'm flooring it.
Now when I'm racing it, it will burn gas faster than it did before, since the potential for increased airflow increases the potential for fuel burn, and consequently potential for horsepower.
Basically, your engine will burn fuel at a rate that's proportional to the amount of horsepower it is producing at the moment. A 400 HP engine isn't always producing 400 hp... it's just capable of doing so.
Who is "Tim Berners-Lee", and what is this "Internet" that the article refers to?