RE: Rodin Cars introduces V10 as bonkers crate engine
Discussion
Gary C said:
Guybrush said:
Yes, just to reinforce, in most situations (on the road particularly), low down torque is more important if you want to get a move on. An example comes to mind, I had a sports tourer bike whose torque was twice as much at 2000 rpm as a Yamaha R6 at 10,000 rpm, so in most instances I was off in the distance before the R6 rider had changed down two or three years to get the engine sufficiently stoked up to get moving. After a while of course, the R6 would catch up - if the road was long and straight enough.
Two or three years !Thats one slow change.
Of course the R6 rider should be riding with the engine spinning much faster all the time rather than languishing at low revs. An RX8 is a prime example of a car that should be kept at unusually high revs more of the time but the turbo which can fill cylinders at higher revs can also over fill them at lower revs and people just don't seem to want to rev an N/A engine these days.
Me, I love them. The 4AGE in the MR2 was perfect. Journalists complained (and sheep trotted out the line) that it was slow low down, the answer was, rev it. Similar thing with the 4U-GSE, its flat spot makes it feel underwhelming, so rev it !
740EVTORQUES said:
Several people have put Audi V8s in Ultimas, I wonder if this would fit. Pretty awesome if it would.
I am pretty sure it would go in without much hassle, just the gearbox / transaxle issue to sort out with an adapter etc.The Cosworth T50 V engine from the GMA is running in the ultima development ultimas.
I can’t remember if the Mac F1 engine was ever under the actual clam shell but that was a very early Ultima
Gary C said:
I would dispute that phrase.
Because it fails to specify where you measure it.
I can develop 160nM on my pushbike at the crank, but I couldn't out accelerate an R6 because the power is so low.
And pretty much everyone who writes the phrase is trying to suggest that it’s torque at the crank that matters, when it obviously doesn’t.Because it fails to specify where you measure it.
I can develop 160nM on my pushbike at the crank, but I couldn't out accelerate an R6 because the power is so low.
Ken_Code said:
Gary C said:
I would dispute that phrase.
Because it fails to specify where you measure it.
I can develop 160nM on my pushbike at the crank, but I couldn't out accelerate an R6 because the power is so low.
And pretty much everyone who writes the phrase is trying to suggest that it’s torque at the crank that matters, when it obviously doesn’t.Because it fails to specify where you measure it.
I can develop 160nM on my pushbike at the crank, but I couldn't out accelerate an R6 because the power is so low.
The context of the sentence I wrote was:
"The instantaneous rate of acceleration is therefore directly proportional to the instantaneous torque at the driven wheels.
The statement that 'torque that produces acceleration' is correct.
It needs to be caveated though, by saying that the power output is a measure of how well the car can sustain that torque as the road speed rises.
It's worth saying it again in different terms, the rate of acceleration is the instantaneous power divided by the road speed."
Much of what you are both protesting about what has been posted on this thread is semantics.
Yes, comparing peak crank torque values doesn't tell the whole story.
Go back 5 years and you'll find I'm the poster who has been repeatedly pointing out that comparing EV motor torque values is even more spurious, given EV motor rev ranges are more random than ICE engine rev ranges and the final drive ratio in EVs can be just about any ratio that suits the design spec.
However, neither does simply comparing peak power tell the whole story either, especially if the engine is lacking in power for most of its rev range and only comes on song right at the top.
If I said the 'area under the driven wheel torque vs road speed curve' I've not mentioned power, and yet....
GT9 said:
Ken_Code said:
Gary C said:
I would dispute that phrase.
Because it fails to specify where you measure it.
I can develop 160nM on my pushbike at the crank, but I couldn't out accelerate an R6 because the power is so low.
And pretty much everyone who writes the phrase is trying to suggest that it’s torque at the crank that matters, when it obviously doesn’t.Because it fails to specify where you measure it.
I can develop 160nM on my pushbike at the crank, but I couldn't out accelerate an R6 because the power is so low.
if you had said the phrase was 'essentially correct' then that would be ok,
GT9 said:
Except I didn't.
The context of the sentence I wrote was:
"The instantaneous rate of acceleration is therefore directly proportional to the instantaneous torque at the driven wheels.
The statement that 'torque that produces acceleration' is correct.
It needs to be caveated though, by saying that the power output is a measure of how well the car can sustain that torque as the road speed rises.
It's worth saying it again in different terms, the rate of acceleration is the instantaneous power divided by the road speed."
Much of what you are both protesting about what has been posted on this thread is semantics.
Yes, comparing peak crank torque values doesn't tell the whole story.
Go back 5 years and you'll find I'm the poster who has been repeatedly pointing out that comparing EV motor torque values is even more spurious, given EV motor rev ranges are more random than ICE engine rev ranges and the final drive ratio in EVs can be just about any ratio that suits the design spec.
However, neither does simply comparing peak power tell the whole story either, especially if the engine is lacking in power for most of its rev range and only comes on song right at the top.
If I said the 'area under the driven wheel torque vs road speed curve' I've not mentioned power, and yet....
Torque at the wheels at a given road speed is not a function of engine torque.The context of the sentence I wrote was:
"The instantaneous rate of acceleration is therefore directly proportional to the instantaneous torque at the driven wheels.
The statement that 'torque that produces acceleration' is correct.
It needs to be caveated though, by saying that the power output is a measure of how well the car can sustain that torque as the road speed rises.
It's worth saying it again in different terms, the rate of acceleration is the instantaneous power divided by the road speed."
Much of what you are both protesting about what has been posted on this thread is semantics.
Yes, comparing peak crank torque values doesn't tell the whole story.
Go back 5 years and you'll find I'm the poster who has been repeatedly pointing out that comparing EV motor torque values is even more spurious, given EV motor rev ranges are more random than ICE engine rev ranges and the final drive ratio in EVs can be just about any ratio that suits the design spec.
However, neither does simply comparing peak power tell the whole story either, especially if the engine is lacking in power for most of its rev range and only comes on song right at the top.
If I said the 'area under the driven wheel torque vs road speed curve' I've not mentioned power, and yet....
It’s a function of engine power.
legalman58 said:
Very pretty- but in the real world unless you are as rich as Jeff Bezos will you really want to rev the engine as high as 8500 to get 391 ft pounds of torque - and we all know it is torque that produces acceleration where BHP is relevant for a high top speed?
I stopped buying Ferraris a long time ago as a matter of principle after I was charged £2,500 for 2 head gaskets for an admittedly old V12 I was having re built
My latest Sunday toy arrives in 2 weeks- and the engine is a lovely lazy Yank V8- producing 500 ft pounds of torque at only 1600 revs
I was speaking to the Bodyshop owner when he was spraying my car- and he showed me 2 Ferrari wing mirrors for a normal Ferrari ( as opposed to a very rare or very old classic Ferrari)
The cost of just buying the 2 wing mirrors was more than the cost to me of buying and having shipped from the USA to the UK my entire engine and gearbox!
Sorry but I cannot get excited about cars that will cost a fortune to run
Clarkson was so right when he once said words to the effect that when you drive a Ferrari part of you is always terrified that it may have a mechanical issue that will cost you one or two kidneys
Tq is meaningless without rpm which in turn gives you the power.. its all about the power mate.. not Tq.I stopped buying Ferraris a long time ago as a matter of principle after I was charged £2,500 for 2 head gaskets for an admittedly old V12 I was having re built
My latest Sunday toy arrives in 2 weeks- and the engine is a lovely lazy Yank V8- producing 500 ft pounds of torque at only 1600 revs
I was speaking to the Bodyshop owner when he was spraying my car- and he showed me 2 Ferrari wing mirrors for a normal Ferrari ( as opposed to a very rare or very old classic Ferrari)
The cost of just buying the 2 wing mirrors was more than the cost to me of buying and having shipped from the USA to the UK my entire engine and gearbox!
Sorry but I cannot get excited about cars that will cost a fortune to run
Clarkson was so right when he once said words to the effect that when you drive a Ferrari part of you is always terrified that it may have a mechanical issue that will cost you one or two kidneys
MyV10BarksAndBites said:
legalman58 said:
Very pretty- but in the real world unless you are as rich as Jeff Bezos will you really want to rev the engine as high as 8500 to get 391 ft pounds of torque - and we all know it is torque that produces acceleration where BHP is relevant for a high top speed?
I stopped buying Ferraris a long time ago as a matter of principle after I was charged £2,500 for 2 head gaskets for an admittedly old V12 I was having re built
My latest Sunday toy arrives in 2 weeks- and the engine is a lovely lazy Yank V8- producing 500 ft pounds of torque at only 1600 revs
I was speaking to the Bodyshop owner when he was spraying my car- and he showed me 2 Ferrari wing mirrors for a normal Ferrari ( as opposed to a very rare or very old classic Ferrari)
The cost of just buying the 2 wing mirrors was more than the cost to me of buying and having shipped from the USA to the UK my entire engine and gearbox!
Sorry but I cannot get excited about cars that will cost a fortune to run
Clarkson was so right when he once said words to the effect that when you drive a Ferrari part of you is always terrified that it may have a mechanical issue that will cost you one or two kidneys
Tq is meaningless without rpm which in turn gives you the power.. its all about the power mate.. not Tq.I stopped buying Ferraris a long time ago as a matter of principle after I was charged £2,500 for 2 head gaskets for an admittedly old V12 I was having re built
My latest Sunday toy arrives in 2 weeks- and the engine is a lovely lazy Yank V8- producing 500 ft pounds of torque at only 1600 revs
I was speaking to the Bodyshop owner when he was spraying my car- and he showed me 2 Ferrari wing mirrors for a normal Ferrari ( as opposed to a very rare or very old classic Ferrari)
The cost of just buying the 2 wing mirrors was more than the cost to me of buying and having shipped from the USA to the UK my entire engine and gearbox!
Sorry but I cannot get excited about cars that will cost a fortune to run
Clarkson was so right when he once said words to the effect that when you drive a Ferrari part of you is always terrified that it may have a mechanical issue that will cost you one or two kidneys
Sadly, this is one of those subjects which crops up every so often. I was once in the camp that tq is what accelerates a vehicle. I argued vehemently that it was tq. Then a colleague with more intelligence than me explained why I was wrong. I went away and thought about it. Took a while for me to realise I was wrong.
740EVTORQUES said:
Several people have put Audi V8s in Ultimas, I wonder if this would fit. Pretty awesome if it would.
Would easily fit. Many years ago a company was going to build an M5 V10 powered Ultima, they got the engine and SMG gearbox into the car without much trouble, and had it running on the M5 electronics, with most go the M5 electronics on two sheets of 8 x 4 by the side of the car.Ken_Code said:
Torque at the wheels at a given road speed is not a function of engine torque.
It’s a function of engine power.
It’s a function of engine power.
Semantics again.
You don’t need to school me in the relationships between torque and power btw, I’ve been designing powertrains for a few decades now, so I’m good thanks.
And it’s not the rated power is it unless you happen to be at the right rpm…
It’s a function of the engine torque multiplied by the gear ratio, multiplied by the final drive ratio, minus some losses.
The engine power is not known unless you know the rpm and the engine’s instantaneous torque.
We can go around the houses on this all day Ken.
Both you and Gary jumped down someone’s throat because they mentioned the engine’s rated crank torque as being modest and high up the rpm range and that it would probably be necessary to properly rev the engine to get the most out of it.
Without getting bogged down again in semantics, and based on the likely transmission the NA version of this engine will be connected to, do you disagree with that sentiment?
pycraft said:
mrclav said:
But the electric motor is more efficient so therefore is less profligate and wasteful of energy/resources - that is indisputable.
Well, duh!Give me that wasteful profligacy any day! That's the point! It's like arguing that an AK47 is more efficient killing machine than a T-rex. I'm sure it is, but a T-rex is WAY cooler.
A Tesla is an efficient way of achieving effective results and remarkable numbers; it is the Stock Aitkin Waterman of the automotive world. This V10 is Keef. I know which I'd rather listen to.
I don't particularly care for ICE in a car where I want quiet and luxury. I want silence, smoothness and more torque than pretty much any ICE can muster. For city driving, I won't own an ICE'd car ever again.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff