PDA

View Full Version : torque / horsepower calculation



Casey
07-20-2007, 10:52 PM
thought this was interesting
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question622.htm

Have you ever looked at the specs of an engine in a magazine and seen something like "this engine makes 300 pound-feet of torque at 4,000 RPM," and wondered how much power that was? How much horsepower are we talking about here? You can calculate how many foot-pounds of horsepower this engine produces using a common equation:

(Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower

The engine that makes 300 pound-feet of torque at 4,000 RPM produces [(300 x 4,000) / 5,252] 228 horsepower at 4,000 RPM. But where does the number 5,252 come from?

To get from pound-feet of torque to horsepower, you need to go through a few conversions. The number 5,252 is the result of lumping several different conversion factors together into one number.

First, 1 horsepower is defined as 550 foot-pounds per second (read How Horsepower Works to find out how they got that number). The units of torque are pound-feet. So to get from torque to horsepower, you need the "per second" term. You get that by multiplying the torque by the engine speed.

But engine speed is normally referred to in revolutions per minute (RPM). Since we want a "per second," we need to convert RPMs to "something per second." The seconds are easy -- we just divide by 60 to get from minutes to seconds. Now what we need is a dimensionless unit for revolutions: a radian. A radian is actually a ratio of the length of an arc divided by the length of a radius, so the units of length cancel out and you're left with a dimensionless measure.

You can think of a revolution as a measurement of an angle. One revolution is 360 degrees of a circle. Since the circumference of a circle is (2 x pi x radius), there are 2-pi radians in a revolution. To convert revolutions per minute to radians per second, you multiply RPM by (2-pi/60), which equals 0.10472 radians per second. This gives us the "per second" we need to calculate horsepower.

Let's put this all together. We need to get to horsepower, which is 550 foot-pounds per second, using torque (pound-feet) and engine speed (RPM). If we divide the 550 foot-pounds by the 0.10472 radians per second (engine speed), we get 550/0.10472, which equals 5,252.

So if you multiply torque (in pound-feet) by engine speed (in RPM) and divide the product by 5,252, RPM is converted to "radians per second" and you can get from torque to horsepower -- from "pound-feet" to "foot-pounds per second."

zcrew
07-20-2007, 10:53 PM
I read that the other night and found it interesting as well. I love that site, its got a ton of good stuff everyone needs to read.

Casey
07-20-2007, 10:57 PM
yup
i was showing a friend about motors and how the information is all on that site and started clicking around
i like how torque and horsepower can be calculated by engine rpm if you have 2 of the 3 numbers. makes things simpler. so now im gonna start trying to play with the numbers. =D

Tire
07-21-2007, 12:11 AM
Thats pretty awesome. thanks for sharing.

Tire
07-21-2007, 12:19 AM
So a stock SR has 154.60776 HP at 4,000 Rpms. Woot!

badass240
07-21-2007, 06:16 AM
damn, u really do learn somethin new everyday

Casey
07-21-2007, 06:37 AM
So a stock SR has 154.60776 HP at 4,000 Rpms. Woot!

sweet dude hahah
i havent had time to mess with the numbers yet
but thats cool


damn, u really do learn somethin new everyday

lol yeah i think we do?

turbology
08-14-2007, 08:46 PM
if the horsepower and torque scale the same way, you can always fine torque and hp intersect at 5200rpm point (in dyno chart)

yes, hp = torque x rpm / 5252.
But, do you have 300torque at 3000rpm,
or 300hp at 8000rpm ?

just a thought :)

v-empire
08-15-2007, 06:26 PM
no

Casey
08-15-2007, 08:00 PM
lmfao

turbology
08-15-2007, 08:27 PM
no
Care to explain what you mean "no" ?

v-empire
08-15-2007, 08:32 PM
if the horsepower and torque scale the same way, you can always fine torque and hp intersect at 5200rpm point (in dyno chart)

yes, hp = torque x rpm / 5252.
But, do you have 300torque at 3000rpm,
or 300hp at 8000rpm ?
just a thought :)


Care to explain what you mean "no" ?

you asked a question... i just replied it.
hence, the "no".

but i got what you were saying.

:)

turbology
08-15-2007, 08:45 PM
I actually mean, do you prefer 300torque or 300horse ? :)

v-empire
08-15-2007, 09:01 PM
ooohhh i actually thought you were saying which one is more likely to happen. obvious the 300 @ 8k.

i would love 300 tq at 3k rpm....thats insane hawtness..lol.

Casey
08-15-2007, 09:23 PM
ooohhh i actually thought you were saying which one is more likely to happen. obvious the 300 @ 8k.

i would love 300 tq at 3k rpm....thats insane hawtness..lol.

displacement is required... :(
no 2.0 liter torque 4 bangers that push 400hp in the highrpms and 300 torque down at 3k rpm
man phisics suck

turbology
08-15-2007, 09:27 PM
displacement is required... :(
no 2.0 liter torque 4 bangers that push 400hp in the highrpms and 300 torque down at 3k rpm
man phisics suck

huh?
you can make 2L I4 engine to perform 300torque in low rpm.
but you will need 8 gears transmission

If I am AutoX, I will take 300torque car
If I am Race race, I will take 300horse car.

v-empire
08-15-2007, 09:29 PM
displacement is required... :(
no 2.0 liter torque 4 bangers that push 400hp in the highrpms and 300 torque down at 3k rpm
man phisics suck

well, 2.0L power band range is alot larger than a huge motor. thats a larger advantage.

thats why honda motors are so great.

Casey
08-15-2007, 09:36 PM
well, 2.0L power band range is alot larger than a huge motor. thats a larger advantage.

thats why honda motors are so great.

you wont get a torque curve thats a flat line from 1000 rpm to 5000 rpm with a 2 liter 4 banger...

v-empire
08-15-2007, 09:38 PM
bt you have 5k to 12k

or would you prefer 3k to 6k from a larger motor?

turbology
08-16-2007, 02:15 AM
well, 2.0L power band range is alot larger than a huge motor. thats why honda motors are so great.

huh?
Any engine can have better power band than 2L Honda motors.
It just the design: valvetrain, valve angle, bore x stroke, manifold, and ..... list can go on.

In engine terms - Honda, or most japanese car, are "better" because their car are lighter. They also make it rev happier to take advantage of gear ratio, and increase engine efficiency.

Speaking of good engine under 2.0L, notable ones are:
Nissan: SR20, CA18 and RB20 series
Honda: B18 & F20 series
Toyota: 4A-GE series, 3S-GE & 2ZZ-GE
Mitsubishi: 4G63
Mazda: 13B, 20B

Speaking of powerband, nothing can beat Mazda's 13B,
and Mitsubishi has been using their 4G63 for 20years.

Andy C
08-16-2007, 02:36 AM
You are always posting up interesting things like this casey.

v-empire
08-16-2007, 02:38 AM
it was more of a metaphoric rebutal. i used honda because people here only seems to think they are rice.

turbology
08-16-2007, 02:40 AM
nothing wrong with Honda. They are very ... "junkyard available" in case something goes wrong :)
I rather built honda, than Alfa

Andy C
08-16-2007, 02:43 AM
I'd rather build a house than a honda.
; ) jk

Casey
08-16-2007, 03:48 AM
id rather have 5k to 12k any day :)
im just sayin if you wanted 3k 300 torque then go for a v8 lol

Bware113
08-16-2007, 09:25 AM
great post, I'm in school for engineering so that to me was like a Mech. design class.

Casey
08-16-2007, 10:15 PM
lol thanks
came acorss it and was like hmmmm
interesting
*post

Bware113
08-16-2007, 11:57 PM
lol