The message to which you are about to reply is shown first. GO TO REPLY FORM



 VIEW    REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE    PRINT   SAVE 

Torque vs HP vs Acceleration explained 1800

Bill, i knew that[tongue in cheek], you left out the coeffient of friction Mu=F over R. When you think about it engines are only 20% efficient, 35% heat loss into engine components and cooling system, 35% heat loss into exhaust, 5% airflow loss, 5% friction losses. That leaves 20% of the fuel burn to act as torque on the crank. If we could harness those losses we would not need dynos the bum meter and fear would tell you when to change. Turbos are a good start, the ultimate reciprocating poppet valve engine would be full polished ceramic, tight tolerances[same expansion rate] no oil no cooling no rings or brgs very little friction small heat loss and last forever. Trivia from my Tech days, definition of friction, the interlocking of the minute hills and hollows of two opposing surfaces. Its 5am in Oz cant sleep hence the rave. Regards Jack McIntyre.






USERNAME
Use "claim to be" below if you don't want to log in.
PASSWORD
I don't have an account. Sign me up.
CLAIM TO BE
Use only if you don't want to login (post anonymously).
ENTER CAPTCHA CODE
This is required for posting anonymously.
OPTIONS notify by email
Available only to user accounts.
SUBJECT
MODEL/YEAR
MESSAGE

DICTIONARY
LABEL(S) +
IMAGE URL *
[IMAGE LIBRARY (UPLOAD/SELECT)]

* = Field is optional.

+ = Enter space delimited labels for this post. An example entry: 240 muffler


©Jarrod Stenberg 1997-2022. All material except where indicated.


All participants agree to these terms.

Brickboard.com is not affiliated with nor sponsored by AB Volvo, Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. or Ford Motor Company. Brickboard.com is a Volvo owner/enthusiast site, similar to a club, and does not intend to pose as an official Volvo site. The official Volvo site can be found here.