new bmw 335i

[badass]

Power may me a product of torque in a car engine, but pointing out that a turbocharged engine has more torque than a N/A one like its impressive is still pointless.
A car with loads of power but next to no torque will still be able to accelerate very quickly and hit a high top speed.
The same car with loads of torque but next to no power will not accelerate as fast, provided the gearboxes are matched to the engines properly.
Torque figures are usefull as nothing more than an indication of how an engine delivers its power.

[dkmech]

Was reading about the new M3 V8 in top gear - they have gone for a high revving engine with less torque - because torque equals strong and heavy components. That would add undesirable mass.

P.S. Tractors have loads of torque, but not actually that crazy amounts of power if you think about it. And they don't do that well on drag strips (waits to be proved wrong by some youtube clip, oh and i know about tractor pulling competitions )

[arbitor]

well when i see and hear one roar past me i will know if i like the new m3 or not.

Still love the m5 atm

[dangel]

Well quite- that's the point. I'm guessing that a BMW 335d engine wouldn't be particularly happy running at 6000+ RPM either.....

I doubt you could manage 1000 RPM I think you need to work on your analogies

[kalniel]

I can get to 9000 rpm easily using a hand gryoscope (http://www.powerballs.com/) Don't think it'd work with a pole attached though.

[dangel]

I can get to 9000 rpm easily using a hand gryoscope (http://www.powerballs.com/) Don't think it'd work with a pole attached though.

Ah, but the pole is all-important

[arbitor]

I can get to 9000 rpm easily using a hand gryoscope (http://www.powerballs.com/) Don't think it'd work with a pole attached though.

13k here

[kalniel]

I applaud your superior wrist action.

[dangel]

Yes, obviously hours of practice has paid off..

[arbitor]

indeed, its an awesome tool though

[Rave]

I doubt you could manage 1000 RPM I think you need to work on your analogies

I couldn't manage 50 rpm. The point is that torque figures are fairly meaningless when it comes to figuring out how much power a car has and thus how hard it's likely to accelerate.

The buses I drive must have well over 1000 lbft of torque. Still can't beat an F430 away from the lights though.

[J4MES]

torque figures are fairly meaningless when it comes to figuring out how much power a car has ... The buses I drive must have well over 1000 lbft of torque. Still can't beat an F430 away from the lights though.

not really though - they're directly related. my Golf has 115bhp but over 200lbft, as a consequence will accellerate faster than the 1.6 petrol with simliar power but less torque(105/109)

you bus weighs too much, that's all (loose all your fat passengers, do a but of lightweight work - seats, windows etc.) and give the F430 another run..

[dangel]

Weight, gearing, RPM etc etc.. As J4MES (and many others now) have said - power is merely a calculation based on actual figures - i.e. RPM and TORQUE(!) so " The point is that torque figures are fairly meaningless when it comes to figuring out how much power a car has" is complete rubbish. Go to a rolling road and ask them how they work out BHP (Power) for a car.. Why on Earth do people insist on trying to seperate inherently related figures? It's pointless.

[Rave]

not really though - they're directly related. my Golf has 115bhp but over 200lbft, as a consequence will accellerate faster than the 1.6 petrol with simliar power but less torque(105/109)

If so then the petrol is badly geared or it has a narrower power band than the diesel. The diesel accelerates faster because the engine is able to deliver more power for longer, not because it has a higher peak torque figure.

]Weight, gearing, RPM etc etc.. As J4MES (and many others now) have said - power is merely a calculation based on actual figures - i.e. RPM and TORQUE(!) so " The point is that torque figures are fairly meaningless when it comes to figuring out how much power a car has" is complete rubbish.

FFS, I have an A-Level in Physics, I am perfectly well aware of the relationship between torque, RPM and power. O.K., so perhaps what I should have written was "The point is that peak torque figures are fairly meaningless when it comes to figuring out a car's peak power output and hence its rate of acceleration", but frankly anyone who wasn't deliberately being a pedantic nitpicker could have figured out what I meant easily.

Why on Earth do people insist on trying to seperate inherently related figures? It's pointless.

Why do you misinterpret a lot of what I post? Like I say, I have an A-Level in Physics (and scored an A in every module, for that matter), so I really don't need to be patronised by you. My point, and it was a sensible one, was that there's nothing impressive about a BMW 335d having more peak torque than a Ferrari F430, and that it's really not worth commenting on.

[Tom Scott]

I find it impressive, I can't think of many other diesel or petrol engines in a passenger car that produce that much torque (from such a small engine lump).
I won't bother metioning it in future if it causes a 2 page long debate.

The 335d’s 3.0 liter twin-turbodiesel engine which made it’s debut in the BMW 5-Series makes 286 horsepower and comes with an astonishing torque chart. The plateau-like torque curve reads a maximum of 580Nm of torque from as low as 1,750rpm, with 95% of that amount available from low as 1,500rpm.

Similarly, with peak torque of 580Nm being achieved at just 1,300rpm through to 5,000rpm, the resulting flat torque curve delivers swift in-gear acceleration.

The Phaetons 5 Litre V10 Diesel only produces 750 Nm of torque, so 580 from 3.5 litre straight 6 is most impressive.

[Howard]

Ladies, please


I think many modern big saloons/estates/SUVs have higher torque figures than supercars, but I doubt they have the rev range, torque curves, lightweight components or aerodynamics