# 2014 Jaguar F-Type: Smartly-Integrated Tech And Almost 500 Hp

Tags:
Last response: in Photo reports comments
Share

Jaguar invited us to its North American F-Type launch event. Naturally, we accepted and spent a day cruising around in the company's first sports car in almost 40 years. The F-Type integrates technology where necessary, and horsepower quite liberally.

2014 Jaguar F-Type: Smartly-Integrated Tech And Almost 500 Hp : Read more

Torque > Horsepower...

Where are the benchmarks?

shut up and take my bank account and my house and my kidneys!

xPandaPanda said:
Torque > Horsepower...

No.

Horsepower = (Torque x RPM)/5252

The only reason you want more torque is because it gives you more horsepower. Having more low end torque simply gives you more low end horsepower, which equals more average horsepower, or more power under the curve. Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration, not torque. You could gear a bicycle to produce 1000 ft lbs of torque, but the person peddling it still will only be able to produce about 1/4 hp.

Saying torque > horsepower is like saying mass > force. It just doesn't make any sense. Force = mass x acceleration.

Grandmastersexsay said:
Having more low end torque simply gives you more low end horsepower, which equals more average horsepower, or more power under the curve. Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration, not torque.

Thanks for the physics lesson - you had it almost right, though, until you said that Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration - wrong.

You actually answered your own question. F=M*A, so conversely, A = F/M. Torque is angular force. So, angular or rotational acceleration is proportional to Torque, not Power. The key, though, is that Torque at the wheels is what matters. Therefore, rotational horsepower of an engine can be applied through the appropriate rotational speed reduction (in the transmission) to result in the greatest amount of Torque at the wheel.

But ultimately, Torque at the wheel results in acceleration.

Great write-up guys! Definitely my kind of hardware review, and I'm sure it certainly is a nice break from the tireless redundancy of hardware performance testing.

Is there a performance benchmark for car navigation systems? Haha! My bet though is you'll eventually need one. Or how about that Adaptive Dynamics System, can it be OC'd to get 600 steering input samples per second?

Regarding the car, overall awesome design, but I'm a little mixed on the details. I think Jaguar has its work cut out to come up with a design that is their own. Right now, the front-end (picture 2) is a little too "Lightning McQueen" and the back-side view (picture 3) is a little too "Miata".

Overall nice to see something fresh in this segment though.

Gentlemen?,

The Jaguar F-type could not help having a degree of disappointment, given the years of teaser-hype expectation building and numerous car show and rendering false starts of the E-type successor, but my disappointment goes deeper, into the realm of market research pandering.

The problem is that with the F-type, Jaguar has embodied Jaguar's marketing position as a rich man's mid-life crisis demographic/ style / branding marketing committee driven company rather than from the individualist car-enthusiast's mold.

It's not the shameless copying of the BMW Z8 (of 1999!), the addition of a boring, turn of the Century interior ( and nowhere as interesting as the Z8's), and a small helping of Ferrari California, it's that overwhelming sense of market pandering and brand/ line position in which the F-type can't be more exciting than an XK8. This is a page from the Porsche corporate playbook that hobbled the looks and performance potential of the mid-engined Boxster- so as not to detract from the market-core rear-engine 911 series. The market dialed-in Jaguar of today, like Porsche, can't afford to make the cheaper car better in any way than the top end one.

They'll sell a pile thanks to the marketing committee's fine work with target group surveys and the number of recently divorced, 55-year old CPA's in Los Angeles earning more than \$110,000 per year, but the F-Type is nowhere near the league of inspiration of the E-Type.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

vertexx said:
Great write-up guys! Definitely my kind of hardware review, and I'm sure it certainly is a nice break from the tireless redundancy of hardware performance testing.

Is there a performance benchmark for car navigation systems? Haha! My bet though is you'll eventually need one. Or how about that Adaptive Dynamics System, can it be OC'd to get 600 steering input samples per second?

Regarding the car, overall awesome design, but I'm a little mixed on the details. I think Jaguar has its work cut out to come up with a design that is their own. Right now, the front-end (picture 2) is a little too "Lightning McQueen" and the back-side view (picture 3) is a little too "Miata".

Overall nice to see something fresh in this segment though.

We do have navigation system benchmarks but those are reserved for the week-long loaner vehicles. I wanted to give the picture story for a launch event a shot because we only get to spend a day with the car paired with another journalist. Its fun but we don't quite have the time to get detailed footage and benchmarks of every tech aspect as we usually do. Unfortunately, the events are the only place we get access to the product managers, designers and engineers to ask our tech focused questions.

bambiboom said:
Gentlemen?,

The Jaguar F-type could not help having a degree of disappointment, given the years of teaser-hype expectation building and numerous car show and rendering false starts of the E-type successor, but my disappointment goes deeper, into the realm of market research pandering.

The problem is that with the F-type, Jaguar has embodied Jaguar's marketing position as a rich man's mid-life crisis demographic/ style / branding marketing committee driven company rather than from the individualist car-enthusiast's mold.

It's not the shameless copying of the BMW Z8 (of 1999!), the addition of a boring, turn of the Century interior ( and nowhere as interesting as the Z8's), and a small helping of Ferrari California, it's that overwhelming sense of market pandering and brand/ line position in which the F-type can't be more exciting than an XK8. This is a page from the Porsche corporate playbook that hobbled the looks and performance potential of the mid-engined Boxster- so as not to detract from the market-core rear-engine 911 series. The market dialed-in Jaguar of today, like Porsche, can't afford to make the cheaper car better in any way than the top end one.

They'll sell a pile thanks to the marketing committee's fine work with target group surveys and the number of recently divorced, 55-year old CPA's in Los Angeles earning more than \$110,000 per year, but the F-Type is nowhere near the league of inspiration of the E-Type.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

Interesting thoughts. But you are right, they will sell a ton of them. But that is exactly what Jaguar needs. Their sales are on the upswing and I find their entire lineup very attractive, the cars look angry but still classy. I know there was a lot of opposition when the XJ debuted and lost the signature 4 round headlights, but that was a big gamble that paid off for them. These designs and positioning are how Jaguar manages to stay alive as a brand and not get killed off like Saab. Sure it doesn't have the character or class as the older E-Type, but incorporating some of the design cues is a nice nod to the E-Type. The F-Type is a much more refined car that you can live with as a daily driver and it won't try to kill you.

Oh jaguar, your cars are so shiny and always sport such lofty "specs", but end up in cheap used car lots, full of broken plastic, bad wiring, broken motors etc, and being sold to poor schleps that buy them as a status symbol. When I see a jaguar on the road with more than 30k miles and it's not a complete piece of garbage, I'll think about taking them seriously. But really, why would anyone even consider a jaguar when there are so many other great cars out there in a similar price range that won't fall apart 2 blocks off the lot.

This is a good successor to the E-Type

vertexx said:
Grandmastersexsay said:
Having more low end torque simply gives you more low end horsepower, which equals more average horsepower, or more power under the curve. Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration, not torque.

Thanks for the physics lesson - you had it almost right, though, until you said that Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration - wrong.

You actually answered your own question. F=M*A, so conversely, A = F/M. Torque is angular force. So, angular or rotational acceleration is proportional to Torque, not Power. The key, though, is that Torque at the wheels is what matters. Therefore, rotational horsepower of an engine can be applied through the appropriate rotational speed reduction (in the transmission) to result in the greatest amount of Torque at the wheel.

But ultimately, Torque at the wheel results in acceleration.

In your rush to be condescending you failed to realize we are talking about the acceleration of the vehicle, not the instantaneous rate of acceleration. The instantaneous rate of acceleration tells us nothing of importance for this discussion. We need the acceleration of the vehicle for an amount of time or for a specific distance. In other words we need Force × Distance which equals work. This is the work done by the tires though, not the engine. Torque produced by the engine can only translate to force at the tire, because, as you mentioned, torque refers only to rotational force. On the other hand, power produced by the engine translates to the work done by the tire. This is why power dictates how fast a car accelerates over a distance.

I can understand why you are confused, as this is not the easiest subject matter to grasp. Just try to picture a bicycle geared to produce 1000 ft lbs at the wheel, and you will realize the force at the tire is not what is responsible for acceleration, but is instead responsible for the instantaneous rate of acceleration.

Grandmastersexsay said:

In your rush to be condescending you failed to realize we are talking about the acceleration of the vehicle, not the instantaneous rate of acceleration. The instantaneous rate of acceleration tells us nothing of importance for this discussion. We need the acceleration of the vehicle for an amount of time or for a specific distance. In other words we need Force × Distance which equals work. This is the work done by the tires though, not the engine. Torque produced by the engine can only translate to force at the tire, because, as you mentioned, torque refers only to rotational force. On the other hand, power produced by the engine translates to the work done by the tire. This is why power dictates how fast a car accelerates over a distance.

I can understand why you are confused, as this is not the easiest subject matter to grasp. Just try to picture a bicycle geared to produce 1000 ft lbs at the wheel, and you will realize the force at the tire is not what is responsible for acceleration, but is instead responsible for the instantaneous rate of acceleration.

L M A O.... Wow... Who is condescending? I won't even get into it, but you are wrong in so many ways, and the details don't pertain to this article. Perhaps review your high school physics and then come back to discuss in another forum....

I was intrigued until slide 13. Reading that an automatic gearbox is the only option, I got that same sad feeling when first learning about the Nissan GTR. This car looks fantastic, sounds beautiful, and has a nice functional layout to the controls. For a soft top convertible, the blind spot detection is a nice touch (my wife's eclipse spyder has bad blind spots that really need attention). Oh well, maybe some day a car maker will design a car this nice that doesn't insult my driving ability*.

* For those that argue a proper dual clutch will shift faster than my left foot / right hand (left hand drive), you are most likely correct, but that doesn't concern me. It's just a personal preference and a deal breaker when I can't get the transmission of my choice when I'm paying all that money for a vehicle.

zakaron said:
I was intrigued until slide 13. Reading that an automatic gearbox is the only option, I got that same sad feeling when first learning about the Nissan GTR. This car looks fantastic, sounds beautiful, and has a nice functional layout to the controls. For a soft top convertible, the blind spot detection is a nice touch (my wife's eclipse spyder has bad blind spots that really need attention). Oh well, maybe some day a car maker will design a car this nice that doesn't insult my driving ability*.

* For those that argue a proper dual clutch will shift faster than my left foot / right hand (left hand drive), you are most likely correct, but that doesn't concern me. It's just a personal preference and a deal breaker when I can't get the transmission of my choice when I'm paying all that money for a vehicle.

Yea its disappointing but makes sense. The take rate of proper manuals are fairly low compared to automatics and DCTs. Its hard for a company like Jaguar to have such a low volume option while they're working on their comeback.

I was intrigued until slide 13. Reading that an automatic gearbox is the only option, I got that same sad feeling when first learning about the Nissan GTR. This car looks fantastic, sounds beautiful, and has a nice functional layout to the controls. For a soft top convertible, the blind spot detection is a nice touch (my wife's eclipse spyder has bad blind spots that really need attention). Oh well, maybe some day a car maker will design a car this nice that doesn't insult my driving ability*.

* For those that argue a proper dual clutch will shift faster than my left foot / right hand (left hand drive), you are most likely correct, but that doesn't concern me. It's just a personal preference and a deal breaker when I can't get the transmission of my choice when I'm paying all that money for a vehicle.

Or, for just a few thousand more you can get a restored e-type convertible. One of the most beautiful cars ever made with a wonderful engine and decent suspension. Sure the electrics are terrible from the factory but that all got sorted out during the restoration. Of course the 265 HP i6 only gives you a 7 second 0-60 time but that's a small price to pay for a car that only increases in value.

Textfield,

If you want a car like that you can build it with existing tech, just don't expect a decent ping time on your wifi. Also gaming while driving would be illegal as would be obstructing the front windows, windshield, and rear window, but your passengers could play.

I thought this was a tech site. Here is the only review a tech site should give the F-Type. Its infotainment system is 4 years behind its competition. Bam DONE.

vertexx said:
Grandmastersexsay said:

In your rush to be condescending you failed to realize we are talking about the acceleration of the vehicle, not the instantaneous rate of acceleration. The instantaneous rate of acceleration tells us nothing of importance for this discussion. We need the acceleration of the vehicle for an amount of time or for a specific distance. In other words we need Force × Distance which equals work. This is the work done by the tires though, not the engine. Torque produced by the engine can only translate to force at the tire, because, as you mentioned, torque refers only to rotational force. On the other hand, power produced by the engine translates to the work done by the tire. This is why power dictates how fast a car accelerates over a distance.

I can understand why you are confused, as this is not the easiest subject matter to grasp. Just try to picture a bicycle geared to produce 1000 ft lbs at the wheel, and you will realize the force at the tire is not what is responsible for acceleration, but is instead responsible for the instantaneous rate of acceleration.

L M A O.... Wow... Who is condescending? I won't even get into it, but you are wrong in so many ways, and the details don't pertain to this article. Perhaps review your high school physics and then come back to discuss in another forum....

Neither of you is using the math required, though both have a point. Low end torque ties in closely with suspension geometry, weight transfer, and tire grip. Meanwhile horsepower mainly applies once the tires have full grip and the engine is fighting only inertia and wind resistance. This is why cars with massive torque will win a short drag while cars with mass horsepower will win a longer one, for example a quarter mile versus a half mile drag race. Simply put torque gets you up and moving, then horsepower takes over. Either way you want both.

I'd rather have a Model S, or a Volt

JLR owned by TATA is redefining luxury and sporty to the leading car makers from germany, italy and japan

first jag i've liked in about 50 years.

Carbon carbon carbon

rashaen said:
vertexx said:
Grandmastersexsay said:

In your rush to be condescending you failed to realize we are talking about the acceleration of the vehicle, not the instantaneous rate of acceleration. The instantaneous rate of acceleration tells us nothing of importance for this discussion. We need the acceleration of the vehicle for an amount of time or for a specific distance. In other words we need Force × Distance which equals work. This is the work done by the tires though, not the engine. Torque produced by the engine can only translate to force at the tire, because, as you mentioned, torque refers only to rotational force. On the other hand, power produced by the engine translates to the work done by the tire. This is why power dictates how fast a car accelerates over a distance.

I can understand why you are confused, as this is not the easiest subject matter to grasp. Just try to picture a bicycle geared to produce 1000 ft lbs at the wheel, and you will realize the force at the tire is not what is responsible for acceleration, but is instead responsible for the instantaneous rate of acceleration.

L M A O.... Wow... Who is condescending? I won't even get into it, but you are wrong in so many ways, and the details don't pertain to this article. Perhaps review your high school physics and then come back to discuss in another forum....

Neither of you is using the math required, though both have a point. Low end torque ties in closely with suspension geometry, weight transfer, and tire grip. Meanwhile horsepower mainly applies once the tires have full grip and the engine is fighting only inertia and wind resistance. This is why cars with massive torque will win a short drag while cars with mass horsepower will win a longer one, for example a quarter mile versus a half mile drag race. Simply put torque gets you up and moving, then horsepower takes over. Either way you want both.

Thanks for bringing the conversation full retard. I love being told I'm wrong by a guy whose education on the subject matter is derived solely from watching Spike TV on Sunday afternoons. Please tell me what kind of math I should be using? Long division?

Just wanted to point out that the discussion on torque and hp, it's easy to find a solution by looking at real world.

The answer is not torque or HP, HP is just used to describe the work that can be done. The answer is actually the formula itself describes the potential speed of the car, factor in weight. The formula itself is the answer but who is going to explain that to people, it's just much easier to say a higher HP car is generally faster than a lower HP car.

"Grandmastersesay". Higher torque gives you higher acceleration, not horsepower. Horsepower gives you how fast you can go, in other words top speed. As you go faster, the amount of torque reduce and the amount of horsepower increase,

Just wanted to point out that the discussion on torque and hp, it's easy to find a solution by looking at real world.

The answer is not torque or HP, HP is just used to describe the work that can be done. The answer is actually the formula itself describes the potential speed of the car, factor in weight. The formula itself is the answer but who is going to explain that to people, it's just much easier to say a higher HP car is generally faster than a lower HP car.

Unbelievable this won't die......

The acceleration of a car is simply this: A = Tw/(Rw*M), where A = Acceleration, Tw = Torque at the wheel axle, Rw = Radius of the Wheel, and M = Mass of the car. This is of course ignoring mechanical friction, wind friction, and potential tire slippage. It is easily derived from the first equation anyone learns about acceleration, F=MA, where Torque/Radius is substituted in for Force. You don't see Power in this equation - this is the formula for Acceleration, period. If you want instantaneous acceleration, look at torque applied at an instant. If you want acceleration over time, look at torque over time.

Power is a derived property. You cannot measure power directly in ANY system. It is always derived from at least two measurements. In the case of a car, it is Torque and RPM. In the case of electrical power, it is Voltage and Current. Power does not tell you how much current will flow through a wire; voltage does.

Where Power is useful is it shows the capacity for doing work (hence it's definition = rate of doing work). So, we want to know an engine's general capability for pushing a car, power is useful. If an engine has a low Torque but high RPM, that Torque can be Amplified through a transmission by reducing the RPM. Energy is conserved but Torque increases as RPM decreases. It is the same as a transformer in an electrical circuit. You trade voltage for current but power stays constant (neglecting losses of course).

This whole sidetracked discussion started when one guy basically told another guy he was a complete idiot for saying Torque > Power, when his attack started out on the right track but then ended with a bunch of completely false statements.

Power is derived from Torque and RPM. But Power does not accelerate a vehicle. Torque does. No matter how much power you have in the engine, you have to ultimately translate the power into torque at the wheel; otherwise you're going nowhere.

Really, Power came into popular use for Automobiles in the 70's - 80's primarily driven by marketing. In the 60's and early 70's engines were always sold based on Torque. However, as engines were getting smaller, it was not good marketing to have this year's model have less torque than last year's. At the same time, RPMs were increasing. This made the transition to marketing engines based on power much more attractive.

This is not to imply that power is not an important property of a vehicle, because it is. Just don't mistake what actually makes the vehicle move. For a high-end sports car on a track, you can use high RPMs reduced through a transmission to amplify your torque at the wheel. But for every-day driving, when you step on the gas, good low-end torque makes a car much more drive-able.

vertexx said:
Just wanted to point out that the discussion on torque and hp, it's easy to find a solution by looking at real world.

The answer is not torque or HP, HP is just used to describe the work that can be done. The answer is actually the formula itself describes the potential speed of the car, factor in weight. The formula itself is the answer but who is going to explain that to people, it's just much easier to say a higher HP car is generally faster than a lower HP car.

Unbelievable this won't die......

The acceleration of a car is simply this: A = Tw/(Rw*M), where A = Acceleration, Tw = Torque at the wheel axle, Rw = Radius of the Wheel, and M = Mass of the car. This is of course ignoring mechanical friction, wind friction, and potential tire slippage. It is easily derived from the first equation anyone learns about acceleration, F=MA, where Torque/Radius is substituted in for Force. You don't see Power in this equation - this is the formula for Acceleration, period. If you want instantaneous acceleration, look at torque applied at an instant. If you want acceleration over time, look at torque over time.

Power is a derived property. You cannot measure power directly in ANY system. It is always derived from at least two measurements. In the case of a car, it is Torque and RPM. In the case of electrical power, it is Voltage and Current. Power does not tell you how much current will flow through a wire; voltage does.

Where Power is useful is it shows the capacity for doing work (hence it's definition = rate of doing work). So, we want to know an engine's general capability for pushing a car, power is useful. If an engine has a low Torque but high RPM, that Torque can be Amplified through a transmission by reducing the RPM. Energy is conserved but Torque increases as RPM decreases. It is the same as a transformer in an electrical circuit. You trade voltage for current but power stays constant (neglecting losses of course).

This whole sidetracked discussion started when one guy basically told another guy he was a complete idiot for saying Torque > Power, when his attack started out on the right track but then ended with a bunch of completely false statements.

Power is derived from Torque and RPM. But Power does not accelerate a vehicle. Torque does. No matter how much power you have in the engine, you have to ultimately translate the power into torque at the wheel; otherwise you're going nowhere.

Really, Power came into popular use for Automobiles in the 70's - 80's primarily driven by marketing. In the 60's and early 70's engines were always sold based on Torque. However, as engines were getting smaller, it was not good marketing to have this year's model have less torque than last year's. At the same time, RPMs were increasing. This made the transition to marketing engines based on power much more attractive.

This is not to imply that power is not an important property of a vehicle, because it is. Just don't mistake what actually makes the vehicle move. For a high-end sports car on a track, you can use high RPMs reduced through a transmission to amplify your torque at the wheel. But for every-day driving, when you step on the gas, good low-end torque makes a car much more drive-able.

You are just wrong.

You can not calculate how much a vehicle will accelerate in a given amount of time, or over a specific distance, with just force. The simple idea of applying that force for a period of time changes it from being force to being work, and power is the capacity to do work.

The force accelerates the vehicle, but you can't have the vehicle accelerate without doing work to it. Your way of thinking about it is overly simplistic.

If what you were saying were true, you would have the greatest acceleration when the engine is making peak torque, while in reality you have the greatest acceleration at the engines peak power. That should end the discussion right there. A vehicle has the greatest amount of acceleration at its peak power.

Go look at power curves. Torque almost always peaks well before power does. Horsepower = (Torque x RPM)/5252. Increasing RPM generates as much power as increasing torque. This is why top fuel dragster have close to a 10k RPM red line. They sacrifice torque to make more power, and all they care about is acceleration.

The only reason low end torque makes a car more drivable is because you then have more low end power.

I'll give you credit for at least thinking about it, unlike the rest these jabronis.

Grandmastersexsay said:
You are just wrong.
Exactly which statement in any of my posts do you think is incorrect?

Grandmastersexsay said:
You can not calculate how much a vehicle will accelerate in a given amount of time, or over a specific distance, with just force.
I just did. Are you trying to tell Newton his equation is "Just wrong"? What equations are you using. Yes, you can actually calculate acceleration based on power, but only if you know the speed or RPM. You have to take the RPM or Speed out of the power in order to get acceleration. The equation for a car's acceleration based on Power is this: A = 375*Pe/(Speed*Mass), where Pe is power currently applied by the engine, and Speed is the vehicle speed in MPH. Notice that you need to take the speed component out of Power in order to get Acceleration. This is because Acceleration is caused by Force or Torque, not by Power.

Grandmastersexsay said:
The simple idea of applying that force for a period of time changes it from being force to being work, and power is the capacity to do work.
You are partially correct here. This is where you start to confuse yourself. You don't change force into work. Work is defined as force applied over a given distance. (Work = Force * Distance)
Power is defined as the rate of doing work (Work/Time).

Grandmastersexsay said:
The force accelerates the vehicle, but you can't have the vehicle accelerate without doing work to it. Your way of thinking about it is overly simplistic.
You are correct. Applying the force over a distance accelerates the vehicle AND performs work in doing so. Yes, I am simplifying it to the core element that causes acceleration. However, don't mistake my simplifying it for lack of knowledge on the subject.

Grandmastersexsay said:
If what you were saying were true, you would have the greatest acceleration when the engine is making peak torque, while in reality you have the greatest acceleration at the engines peak power. That should end the discussion right there. A vehicle has the greatest amount of acceleration at its peak power.
I have not talked about Engine Torque. I have talked about Torque at the Wheel. You are correct in that you obtain the greatest acceleration at the engine's peak power. However, this is because this power is translated to maximum Torque at the wheel by reducing the RPMs from the engine and amplifying Torque. Peak Torque at the wheel ultimately causes the maximum acceleration.

Grandmastersexsay said:
Go look at power curves. Torque almost always peaks well before power does. Horsepower = (Torque x RPM)/5252. Increasing RPM generates as much power as increasing torque.
Yes, this is true. Power increases as RPM increases. Torque does not. I've never disputed this.

Grandmastersexsay said:
This is why top fuel dragster have close to a 10k RPM red line. They sacrifice torque to make more power, and all they care about is acceleration.
You are correct that top fuel dragsters rev the engines up to 10k RPM. But that power needs to be translated to applied Torque at the wheel. Otherwise, they would not go anywhere. In fact, RELATIVELY speaking, top fuel dragster engines are optimized for maximum Torque - NOT RPM. Think about it. This reviewed F-type has a peak power of 495 HP at 6,500 RPM and a peak Torque of 460 lb-ft from 2,500-5,500RPM. A top fuel dragster engine has a peak power of ~8,000 HP, and Torque in excess of 5,000 lb-ft in the range of 8,000-10,000 RPM. So compared with the Jaguar, the dragster has only 50% more RPMs than the Jaguar but over 10 times (that's >1,000%) of the torque. It therefore obtains much more Power from it's Torque than from RPM compared with the Jaguar. For the other extreme, compare this to a Formula-1 engine, which has it's peak power of 755 HP at 22,000 RPM, with only 206 lb-ft of Torque, even less Torque than the Jaguar.

The dragster needs to Accelerate, and therefore is built for maximum Torque relative to other cars. The F-1 is optimized for top Speed relative to its Power, and therefore has the extremely high RPMs. Your own example proves my point.

Grandmastersexsay said:
The only reason low end torque makes a car more drivable is because you then have more low end power.
This is not correct. The reason low end torque makes a car more driveable is that you don't need to rev the engine up in order to use RPMs to jack-up your Torque at the wheel. You can get Torque applied at the wheel directly from Torque at the engine. Yes, that car will also happen to have more low-end power. But that is only because it has more low end Torque. I can't emphasize enough - Power is derived from Torque, not vice-versa.

Grandmastersexsay said:
I'll give you credit for at least thinking about it, unlike the rest these jabronis.
Dude, you really need to chill out. I have never said you were wrong in saying Power determines the overall capacity for doing work. What I have said is the Power is a derived property. You can't measure it. And you don't apply Power directly to anything in any system. Power needs to exercised in the form of some force or potential in order to get anything done. You were the one who jumped in somebody's shorts, saying that Torque has nothing to do with Acceleration, when it has everything to do with acceleration.

While I am relatively new to the PC enthusiast scene as a hobby I've adopted over the last year, on this subject, I happen to know what I'm talking about. My credentials on the subject include degrees in Applied Physics and Mechanical Engineering, a Master's degree in Systems Engineering, a former Nuclear Engineer in the U.S. Navy, and an entire career in electrical, mechanical and thermal systems engineering. So, I'm afraid that on this subject, you giving me credit is just plain ridiculous.

I'm here to learn on these forums. Perhaps you can learn a few things as well.

vertexx said:
Grandmastersexsay said:
You are just wrong.
Exactly which statement in any of my posts do you think is incorrect?

Grandmastersexsay said:
You can not calculate how much a vehicle will accelerate in a given amount of time, or over a specific distance, with just force.
I just did. Are you trying to tell Newton his equation is "Just wrong"? What equations are you using. Yes, you can actually calculate acceleration based on power, but only if you know the speed or RPM. You have to take the RPM or Speed out of the power in order to get acceleration. The equation for a car's acceleration based on Power is this: A = 375*Pe/(Speed*Mass), where Pe is power currently applied by the engine, and Speed is the vehicle speed in MPH. Notice that you need to take the speed component out of Power in order to get Acceleration. This is because Acceleration is caused by Force or Torque, not by Power.

Grandmastersexsay said:
The simple idea of applying that force for a period of time changes it from being force to being work, and power is the capacity to do work.
You are partially correct here. This is where you start to confuse yourself. You don't change force into work. Work is defined as force applied over a given distance. (Work = Force * Distance)
Power is defined as the rate of doing work (Work/Time).

Grandmastersexsay said:
The force accelerates the vehicle, but you can't have the vehicle accelerate without doing work to it. Your way of thinking about it is overly simplistic.
You are correct. Applying the force over a distance accelerates the vehicle AND performs work in doing so. Yes, I am simplifying it to the core element that causes acceleration. However, don't mistake my simplifying it for lack of knowledge on the subject.

Grandmastersexsay said:
If what you were saying were true, you would have the greatest acceleration when the engine is making peak torque, while in reality you have the greatest acceleration at the engines peak power. That should end the discussion right there. A vehicle has the greatest amount of acceleration at its peak power.
I have not talked about Engine Torque. I have talked about Torque at the Wheel. You are correct in that you obtain the greatest acceleration at the engine's peak power. However, this is because this power is translated to maximum Torque at the wheel by reducing the RPMs from the engine and amplifying Torque. Peak Torque at the wheel ultimately causes the maximum acceleration.

Grandmastersexsay said:
Go look at power curves. Torque almost always peaks well before power does. Horsepower = (Torque x RPM)/5252. Increasing RPM generates as much power as increasing torque.
Yes, this is true. Power increases as RPM increases. Torque does not. I've never disputed this.

Grandmastersexsay said:
This is why top fuel dragster have close to a 10k RPM red line. They sacrifice torque to make more power, and all they care about is acceleration.
You are correct that top fuel dragsters rev the engines up to 10k RPM. But that power needs to be translated to applied Torque at the wheel. Otherwise, they would not go anywhere. In fact, RELATIVELY speaking, top fuel dragster engines are optimized for maximum Torque - NOT RPM. Think about it. This reviewed F-type has a peak power of 495 HP at 6,500 RPM and a peak Torque of 460 lb-ft from 2,500-5,500RPM. A top fuel dragster engine has a peak power of ~8,000 HP, and Torque in excess of 5,000 lb-ft in the range of 8,000-10,000 RPM. So compared with the Jaguar, the dragster has only 50% more RPMs than the Jaguar but over 10 times (that's >1,000%) of the torque. It therefore obtains much more Power from it's Torque than from RPM compared with the Jaguar. For the other extreme, compare this to a Formula-1 engine, which has it's peak power of 755 HP at 22,000 RPM, with only 206 lb-ft of Torque, even less Torque than the Jaguar.

The dragster needs to Accelerate, and therefore is built for maximum Torque relative to other cars. The F-1 is optimized for top Speed relative to its Power, and therefore has the extremely high RPMs. Your own example proves my point.

Grandmastersexsay said:
The only reason low end torque makes a car more drivable is because you then have more low end power.
This is not correct. The reason low end torque makes a car more driveable is that you don't need to rev the engine up in order to use RPMs to jack-up your Torque at the wheel. You can get Torque applied at the wheel directly from Torque at the engine. Yes, that car will also happen to have more low-end power. But that is only because it has more low end Torque. I can't emphasize enough - Power is derived from Torque, not vice-versa.

Grandmastersexsay said:
I'll give you credit for at least thinking about it, unlike the rest these jabronis.
Dude, you really need to chill out. I have never said you were wrong in saying Power determines the overall capacity for doing work. What I have said is the Power is a derived property. You can't measure it. And you don't apply Power directly to anything in any system. Power needs to exercised in the form of some force or potential in order to get anything done. You were the one who jumped in somebody's shorts, saying that Torque has nothing to do with Acceleration, when it has everything to do with acceleration.

While I am relatively new to the PC enthusiast scene as a hobby I've adopted over the last year, on this subject, I happen to know what I'm talking about. My credentials on the subject include degrees in Applied Physics and Mechanical Engineering, a Master's degree in Systems Engineering, a former Nuclear Engineer in the U.S. Navy, and an entire career in electrical, mechanical and thermal systems engineering. So, I'm afraid that on this subject, you giving me credit is just plain ridiculous.

I'm here to learn on these forums. Perhaps you can learn a few things as well.

Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps you are just another jabroni.

We can talk about torque at the wheel, or torque at the engine. It doesn't matter, it is all the same. The transmission simply acts as a torque multiplier.

Let's say we wanted to accelerate a 100 lb object at 33 ft/s^2 for 10 seconds.

If you are not familiar with imperial units:
First, 1 slug ~ 33 lb (lb mass, not lb force)
100 lb ~ 3 slug

F = m*A = 3 slug * 33 ft/s^2 = 100 lbf/s^2 = 100 lb

Here is where you fail to understand what's going on. We need to accelerate for 10 seconds. In other words we will accelerate for a distance, which means we will be doing work(W=F*D), and we do that work in a certain amount of time.

So first we'll use our position formula to calculate the distance traveled.

D = (1/2) * A * t^2 = (1/2) * 33 ft/s^2 * 100 s^2 = 1650 ft

That means we are applying a force of 100 lb for a distance of 1650 ft over a span of 10 seconds.

(100 lb * 1650 ft) / 10 s = 16500 ft*lb/s

Interesting units aren't they. Kind of looks like the units for horsepower.

1 hp = 550 ft*lb/s

(6500 ft*lb/s)/(550 ft*lb/s) = 30 hp

So to accelerate 100 lb at 33 ft/s^2 for 10 seconds we would need 30 hp.

Grandmastersexsay said:

So to accelerate 100 lb at 33 ft/s^2 for 10 seconds we would need 30 hp.
Absolutely correct. Everything in your last post is completely correct. Maybe you are learning something. Good.

Grandmastersexsay said:
Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration, not torque.
This statement is false.

Just as you indicated here, Force (or Torque) dictates your acceleration: You need 100lbs of force to accelerate a 3 slug body at 33ft/s^2.
Grandmastersexsay said:
F = m*A = 3 slug * 33 ft/s^2 = 100 lbf/s^2 = 100 lb

So, let me hear that again, how much FORCE do you need to cause an ACCELERATION of 33ft/s^2? I don't care how much POWER you have, you need to apply 100 lbs of force to cause that acceleration. Yes.

Unfortunately, in your circular logic, you are now answering a completely different question:
Grandmastersexsay said:

So to accelerate 100 lb at 33 ft/s^2 for 10 seconds we would need 30 hp.

So now you're throwing in rate of doing work. So, duhh, yes, that is Power.

So, congratulations, you finally have a post with 100% accurate information. Just don't start talking yourself in circles again. Enjoy.....
!