Ford celebrates GM's 100th

[black88gt]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v378/mark02/whq_skv9814.jpg

thought this was quite classy of ford

[DustinsDuster]

or a practical joke by an employee

[Drifte]

Do you think the big Blue oval causes the building to malfunction like that?

[DustinsDuster]

Ford: at least they circled the problem...

[Urban Legend]

Come on Dustin, you know most of the fastest cars on this board are Fords!!

[Domestic Disturbance]

who wants to bet that building has oil starvation on the 1st floor. nice pic tho

[K-ville]

who wants to bet that building has oil starvation on the 1st floor. nice pic tho

No that would be the Mitsubishi building that also cost three time as much to build! :butthead:

[Domestic Disturbance]

haha I'll agree to that

[xci.ed6]

Why all the fighting over who's better (GM/ford/Mitsubishi)? Even if everyone you are correct, that still only puts you in 2nd place, which is still a loss.

Honda ftmfw

[Domestic Disturbance]

cause its fun to poke fun at each other. Kind of like how you think honda is number one lolasaurus

[K-ville]

cause its fun to poke fun at each other. Kind of like how you think honda is number one lolasaurus

I agree this hasnt been people stabin at each other its been people havin fun poking at brands that are all good and all have a good product in one way or another

[DustinsDuster]

of course Honda is number 1- i mean really, who needs torque, RWD, and speed? that shit's for the birds...

[xci.ed6]

of course Honda is number 1- i mean really, who needs torque, RWD, and speed? that shit's for the birds...

God fucking damnit, when will you fucking grow a couple brain cells and learn that torque means NOTHING!!!

It's like being good at eating pussy and having a small cock!

[K-ville]

of course Honda is number 1- i mean really, who needs torque, RWD, and speed? that shit's for the birds...

God fucking damnit, when will you fucking grow a couple brain cells and learn that torque means NOTHING!!!

It's like being good at eating pussy and having a small cock!
u must be kidding! please tell me your kidding

[DustinsDuster]

he's not. we've been through this. it's even worse when he admits that horsepower is completely dependant on torque, but then still claims torque doesn't matter....

[black88gt]

go dig up that thread where we had this discussion, you just stopped answering

still awaiting a reply to my last post

[Domestic Disturbance]

gotta make up 'facts' that challenge whats proven to make pretend sense standing up for what you though haha

[69gt4speed]

def need one of these exhaust systems. Btw a s2000 is rwd. And it can make tq w a turbo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTkZ40Yc ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTkZ40Ycdzw&feature=related)

Yea I can do that w soundforge too. raise a octave. Maybe I'll do that under the 5 in one bridge got a x pipe which raises it anyway.

[xci.ed6]

yeah i did stop responding, and i'm not going to argue it anymore. I'll just wait for one of you dip-shits to open a fucking physics book.

[Drifte]

Is this the part in the book where it says the measurement of torque is simply part of the equation? I couldnt understand my physics professor, he was from one of those other countries and had a beard. looked like osama...

[black88gt]

yeah i did stop responding, and i'm not going to argue it anymore. I'll just wait for one of you dip-shits to open a fucking physics book.

i missed the part where you can take torque out of the equation to compute horsepower and come up w/ something that isnt 0

[Domestic Disturbance]

looks like someone has a God complex. Why do most honda people always act above everyone else

[xci.ed6]

Is this the part in the book where it says the measurement of torque is simply part of the equation? I couldnt understand my physics professor, he was from one of those other countries and had a beard. looked like osama...


we have a winner!

[xci.ed6]

looks like someone has a God complex. Why do most honda people always act above everyone else

the others I can't speak for, but for myself, i wouldn't call it a complex.

[xci.ed6]

yeah i did stop responding, and i'm not going to argue it anymore. I'll just wait for one of you dip-shits to open a fucking physics book.

i missed the part where you can take torque out of the equation to compute horsepower and come up w/ something that isnt 0

getting closer, now what are the other parts of the power equation?

[Drifte]

http://www.engineersedge.com/motors/images/rotati3.jpg

[allgo]

def need one of these exhaust systems. Btw a s2000 is rwd. And it can make tq w a turbo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTkZ40Yc ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTkZ40Ycdzw&feature=related)

Yea I can do that w soundforge too. raise a octave. Maybe I'll do that under the 5 in one bridge got a x pipe which raises it anyway.


I watched that for about 1 minute,and all it sounds like a typical pile,. lots of noise and no speed!!! If you watch closely when he is hammering on it, a jogger runs by the car..lol

[Drifte]

the s2k sounds neat but anyone with movie maker can have a car that sounds like that.

[black88gt]

[quote="xci.ed6":f3h2pu96]yeah i did stop responding, and i'm not going to argue it anymore. I'll just wait for one of you dip-shits to open a fucking physics book.

i missed the part where you can take torque out of the equation to compute horsepower and come up w/ something that isnt 0

getting closer, now what are the other parts of the power equation?[/quote:f3h2pu96]

RPMs

a mix of both is best, but im curious as to how you can get away w/ 0 torque

you would be able to to exactly 0 work

fuckn shit torque is so meaningless

[DustinsDuster]

looks like someone has a God complex. Why do most honda people always act above everyone else

the others I can't speak for, but for myself, i wouldn't call it a complex.

of course you wouldnt...

[xci.ed6]

[quote="xci.ed6":3q1xws28]yeah i did stop responding, and i'm not going to argue it anymore. I'll just wait for one of you dip-shits to open a fucking physics book.

i missed the part where you can take torque out of the equation to compute horsepower and come up w/ something that isnt 0

getting closer, now what are the other parts of the power equation?

RPMs

a mix of both is best, but im curious as to how you can get away w/ 0 torque

you would be able to to exactly 0 work

fuckn shit torque is so meaningless[/quote:3q1xws28]


exactly. 0 rpm = 0 power, 0 tq = 0 power, thus the only logical thing to argue is power, since it is a combination of both. As always though, peak numbers still speak little of total potential.

[69gt4speed]

No wonder he's screwed up Osama taught you guys I fkn hate that.

As far as I know
the power output of an engine is expressed as its torque multiplied by its rotational speed of the axis. So w no tq you have no hp plain and simple, if you have small tq you need to rev the crap out of it to make any power if the engine is suitable to do that. Best case scenerio via motorcycles a 600 say yamaha r6 you need 14k to make max power. You take a 1000 r1 it smokes the r6 because the tq is more at lower rpms and tq still stays higher than r6 at higher rpms because displacement is larger. Other words what engine can take in most air w proper fuel w/o flying apart wins. Which is quicker and faster? R1 or R6? A 4000 cc engine will take in x2 the amount of air as a 2000 cc engine if all else equal. The only way around this is maybe rpms or better, n2o or forced induction for the smaller engine if it doesn't come apart. Why do you think displacement is always limited in racing? They either flat limit you or make you carry xx # more. This has nothing to do w amount of cylinders just for practical engineering it's better to up cylinders as displacement increases.

[xci.ed6]

how much weed did you smoke before you typed that reply?

[Domestic Disturbance]

made more sense than your fairy bullshit

[69gt4speed]

how much weed did you smoke before you typed that reply?
I give up you are too dense to comprehend basic science. I can see even if you discover you are wrong u would never admit it. Go hang out w mufflover and take turns arguing over the bicycle. And for your info weed I haven't done in +30 yrs, I worked for the gov. They had random drug tests back then.

So you cannot admit the formula of hp is equal to
tq x rpm's divided by 5252. As you see 5252 is a constant, the only variables is tq and rpms. If you could have zero tq, any rpm's x 0 = zero hp, simple math. zero x any number = zero. If you have 10000 zeros it is equal to zero. If you open windows calculator take 0 (tq) x 10000 (rpms) and divide it by 5252, you get zero. Arhhh the world is wrong..... It's a microsoft plot. :yawinkle:

[xci.ed6]

yeah, i know the formula for power, and for horsepower. my point is you started on one subject and rambled to another, never proving a damn thing.

we are not arguing displacement.

my point has always been that * x 0 = 0

here's a good comparison. These two bikes have identical gearing, tires, etc... Which is faster?

1) 87.2hp @ 12,000rpm 42.8lb/ft @ 10,000rpm 446lb
2) 86.9hp @ 11,750rpm 43.6lb/ft @ 9750rpm 459lb

Yeah. Torque is teh lose because bike 1 is faster (CBR600F3 vs. CB600F6, they share platforms but the f6 is tuned for torque). I never said a damn thing about displacement, but your argument is that the R1 is faster than the R6 because it has more torque. No, it is because it has more HP under the curve, because it has more displacment. If you want me to find more examples comparing the same displacement, it's not hard. Any sportbike that has a naked version will be the same. The naked will be the same or lighter weight, higher tq, lower hp, and slower.

[Mufflover]

how much weed did you smoke before you typed that reply?
I give up you are too dense to comprehend basic science. I can see even if you discover you are wrong u would never admit it. Go hang out w mufflover and take turns arguing over the bicycle. And for your info weed I haven't done in +30 yrs, I worked for the gov. They had random drug tests back then.

So you cannot admit the formula of hp is equal to
tq x rpm's divided by 5252. As you see 5252 is a constant, the only variables is tq and rpms. If you could have zero tq, any rpm's x 0 = zero hp, simple math. zero x any number = zero. If you have 10000 zeros it is equal to zero. If you open windows calculator take 0 (tq) x 10000 (rpms) and divide it by 5252, you get zero. Arhhh the world is wrong..... It's a microsoft plot. :yawinkle:


Hey 69gt4speed why dont you go fuck yourself you old ass fart.

[black88gt]

my point has always been that * x 0 = 0


so you cant say that torque is meaningless

[Domestic Disturbance]

probably the shallowest comparison to prove torque meaningless. go tell the top fuel guys their torque is overrated.

[DustinsDuster]

i dont think there has been a single person in the entire argument who said that cars with more torque will be faster. our point was very simple- torque DOES matter. be it a little or a lot, it does not matter. it still matters.

[K-ville]

yeah, i know the formula for power, and for horsepower. my point is you started on one subject and rambled to another, never proving a damn thing.

we are not arguing displacement.

my point has always been that * x 0 = 0

here's a good comparison. These two bikes have identical gearing, tires, etc... Which is faster?

1) 87.2hp @ 12,000rpm 42.8lb/ft @ 10,000rpm 446lb
2) 86.9hp @ 11,750rpm 43.6lb/ft @ 9750rpm 459lb

Yeah. Torque is teh lose because bike 1 is faster (CBR600F3 vs. CB600F6, they share platforms but the f6 is tuned for torque). I never said a damn thing about displacement, but your argument is that the R1 is faster than the R6 because it has more torque. No, it is because it has more HP under the curve, because it has more displacment. If you want me to find more examples comparing the same displacement, it's not hard. Any sportbike that has a naked version will be the same. The naked will be the same or lighter weight, higher tq, lower hp, and slower.

Tell me why a 2007 GSXR1000 pulls around 175hp with about 85ftlbs at a dry weight of 379 pounds will get pulled all day long by a busa making 160hp and 95+ftlbs weighing 478 pounds?

[xci.ed6]

if by shallowest you mean the least bullshit.

you're argument was that more torque = better. better = faster, thus your argument is that more torque = faster.

[allgo]

if by shallowest you mean the least bullshit.

you're argument was that more torque = better. better = faster, thus your argument is that more torque = faster.

Here is one for you, my car = big power=blow your junk honda away = domestics dominate!!

[Fire Hawk]

if by shallowest you mean the least bullshit.

you're argument was that more torque = better. better = faster, thus your argument is that more torque = faster.

Here is one for you, my car = big power=blow your junk honda away = domestics dominate!!

8) So True

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html The end all, be all! :suspect:

[Domestic Disturbance]

dude nice try. everyones arguement that the more torque the better. no one said tq>hp is the best...

[DustinsDuster]

if by shallowest you mean the least bullshit.

you're argument was that more torque = better. better = faster, thus your argument is that more torque = faster.

are you honestly trying to tell me that all things being equal, a car that makes 500hp and 500ft/lbs of torque will run slower than a car than a car with 500hp and 350ft/lbs?

[K-ville]

if by shallowest you mean the least bullshit.

you're argument was that more torque = better. better = faster, thus your argument is that more torque = faster.

Here is one for you, my car = big power=blow your junk honda away = domestics dominate!!

Thats funny I think we should all give up on this torque thing because you can fix a car you can fix a broken leg or you can fix a bike but you cant fix stupid!

[Drifte]

This is ridiculous, no one is hearing what people are saying here. Its entirely a mis communication this thread. xci.ed6 is not saying torque cannot exist, and dustinsduster is not saying its the most important. However a lot of people THINK its the most important, its simply part of the equation. Low torque high hp cars dont have traction problems, thats half the battle of getting a domestic down the track.

"are you honestly trying to tell me that all things being equal, a car that makes 500hp and 500ft/lbs of torque will run slower than a car than a car with 500hp and 350ft/lbs?"

Depends, this is a never ending battle when people are not specific. Assuming both cars are identical weight, suspension, tires, displacement. Then in what way faster, 1/4 mile, top speed, circle track...

Now more than likely the lower torque vehicle is also a lot lighter, and revs a lot higher. I have no examples, nor the free time to find these 2 examples.

But I think everyone understands at this point, high rpm is for going fast, high torque is for spinnin tires, or moving that heavy iron down the road.

[Domestic Disturbance]

torque - better than hearing a whining 9k blat from a torqueless engine. that is not opinion, it is law.

and you can quote me on that

[Drifte]

I kinda like the sound of indy cars, and motorcycles.

Is this whole car situation figured out yet?

[Fire Hawk]

according to the link I posted you want torque as high up in the power band as possible to take advantage of the horsepower it help generates. You take advantage of all that torque with gearing.

[z28z34man]

another good point for torque is rpms is way harder than than torque on the rotating assembly of an engine with the possible exception or a wankel. it takes a lot of strength to accelerate a mass to a very high speed stop it accelerate it the other direction stop it again and repeat.