

| Subject: | Re: 102mph - Turbo vs. 6-cylinder |
| From: | Sudhir Desai |
| Date: | Wed, 23 May 2007 00:01:44 -0400 |
Semper ubi sububi. (I think that one fits in there as well) :D Happy Wednesday! Sudhir On 5/22/07, Pensioner <al_knoll@pacbell.net> wrote: > It's not peak torque we brick drivers are seeking, it's a broad range of > usable torque. > > If you look at the torque vs rpm curves for most turbocharged 1.8/2.5 litre > motors you will notice the peakiness of the curve. If you look at the SVX > torque curve it shows >180lbs-ft from 1500RPM to above 6000RPM with a peak > around 235/240lbs-ft at around 4400RPM. Smooth and flattish. Just what you > need for a 5000lb truck. > > Now if we had a constant 200lbs-ft from 1000 to 15000 rpm we could do with a > two speed transmission. (ref Jim Hall, Chaparral MK2). > > The only valid reason to have multiple speed transmissions is to allow one > to remain within the usable torque range of the powerplant. Or since the > Corvette NEEDS a six speed to enhance one's virility and reduce one's guilt, > a second reason arises, desire or because you WANT one. And now that you > HAVE one at exhorbitant financial and energy cost, you're mad as hell > because you're stuck in 20mph traffic with your > 50000USD/600BHP/160MPH/13MPG@3.75 per gallon enhanced virility blingy > thingy. > > If you want to ride the bullet train, you gotta buy the ticket. > > De gustibus non disputandum est. > > p >
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »