Horsepower or torque

[Silvertip]

We often see TV commercials and printed adds about about brand "X" has more horsepower and/or torque than brand "y". Here's an interesting very real comparison of new vs old technology. Honda Ridgeline (225 HP/250 lb/ft of torge vs a 2002 Chevy S10 (190 HP/250 lb/ft of torque and towing capability. 375 mile trip, both vehicles travel together, obviously same speeds, 80% freeway, 20% paved secondary roads. Both towing 16.5 ft boats, 40 HP motors (two strokes), same equipment. Weights are just under 3000#. Honda = 14 MPG. Required 3rd gear and transmission still hunted. RPM at 68 MPH = 4000.<br />S-10 = 17 MPG, towed in overdrive. Torque converter released only on steepest hills. Did not shift out of overdrive. RPM = 2200 at 68 MPH.<br />I consider the S-10 old technology (apparently that's not a bad thing). Apparently it is still true that "there is no substitute for cubic inches". The Honda owner is not happy. To be fair, the Ridgeline has some really neat features and undoubtedly is a nice vehicle. However, think carefully if you intend to tow with it -- especially at freeway speeds.

 

[JB]

Re: Horsepower or torque

What is the weight and gearing of the two vehicles?<br /><br />I suspect that the S-10 is a LOT lighter than the Ridgeline and is geared to tow, whereas the Ridgeline is loaded with compromises like most modern light "trucks".

 

[Silvertip]

Re: Horsepower or torque

The Ridgeline obviously geared to tow. It has 4.33 gears which accounts for 4000 RPM at freeway speeds out of overdrive. At those revs, it will suck gas. The S-10 had 3.73 gears. The Hondas torque is reached at a very lofty 4000 RPM so one will pay the price in gas mileage. The S-10 torque is reached down low between 2000 and 2500 RPM. The S-10 was also a four-door crew cab. I don't have the vehicle weight differences at my fingertips but I doubt its significant enough to warrant 3 MPG difference.

 

[rogerwa]

Re: Horsepower or torque

They had a review of the ridgeline in the last issue of Trailerboats. That was a much bigger boat they were towing than what you were towing (Searay 200 Select BR 4120lbs). they thought it capable, but I still would be suspect towing something that large with a v6.<br /><br />They showed an MPG of 11.4 towing this rig.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: Horsepower or torque

I just checked Hondas web site and they list the Hondas weight at 4503. The Chevy web site doesn't list the S-10 any longer but the Colorado crew cab 4WD is listed at 4100. The S-10 and Colorado will be fairly close as the Vortec V6 is considerably heavier than the Colorado I-5. At any rate, the weight difference should not account for 3 MPG. That wasn't the point of my post anyway. It's the fact the Honda will be reving like nuts pulling anything. If it lasts, great. The vehicle in question was purchased by a family who owns over the road trucks so I think they know a little about towing. As I mentioned, they were not impressed with its performance as a tow vehicle. Otherwise, nice vehicle.

 

[DJ]

Re: Horsepower or torque

Two things to consider.<br /><br />Torque gets the load going.<br /><br />Horsepower keeps it going.<br /><br />However, those two play in harmony.<br /><br />At speeds over 60 MPH, the required HP raises exponentially for every one MPH. That is due to wind resistance. Wind resistance will take a tow vehicle to its knees.<br /><br />Look for a vehicle with the FLATTEST torque curve you can find. Nevermind HP, as long as its in the same ballpark.<br /><br />A V-8 running at 2500 RPM, with a flat torque curve, will be MUCH more pleasing to drive than a vehicle with lots of HP at a peaky RPM.<br /><br />No matter how you look at it, RPM uses fuel. It's a matter of physics.<br /><br />There is NO replacement for engine DISPLACEMENT when it comes to towing.<br /><br />With that said, I HATE driving a tow vehicle that requires the engine to scream. It's un nerving.<br /><br />Even MORE important, look at brake size as opposed to vehicle weight. STOPPING it is FAR more important than getting it to move.

 

[Realgun]

Re: Horsepower or torque

DJ there was a test done with the V-8 Toyota Tunda. The guy hated it and said it had no power to pull naything. He took it to a tuner guy to gain HP/Torque. The tuner guy did nothing to it but he went along on a ride with the guy and told him to not let the revs drop below 3500. He was so impressed with the guy and asked him how did he do it? He told him that the Foreign engenners like to use rpms no Displacment to make their power. <br />This was written up on MotorTrend a while back when the t-100 or Tundra first came out.<br /><br />Basically that Honda motor will turn 4000 rpm for 100,000 mile with no problems as thats what they are designed to do.<br /><br />Personally I like to have the V-8 with some grunt or even the S-10 with the V-6. That 5 in the Canyon is not up to power unless you like to run RPM. And yes it will run at a higher RM for 100,000 miles! See we can learn from the Japanese. <br /><br />But do we really want to?

 

[gutshot grouper]

Re: Horsepower or torque

Bunch of well meaning but ill informed theories about hp and torque, an engine with a flat torque curve loses hp quickly as rpm drops, simple enough to understand when you consider that the formula for hp is torque times rpm divided by a constant. Diesel engines have much greater torque rise as rpm drops, consequently the hp curve is flatter making them seem stronger for a comparable hp rating, Simpleton in Raleigh

 

[Silvertip]

Re: Horsepower or torque

So how are we misinformed? Any engine can have its torque rise, HP rise, and torque band width manipulated through a number of techniques including variable valve timing and cam lobe profiles, to name just a couple. And there is not arguement that HP and torque can only be manipulated within certain limits -- displacement being one of them. Honda chose to develop its power and torque at extremely high RPM (typical for a smaller displacement motor) which is not so much an engineering achievement as it is a necessity with a 3.5 liter displacement. GM took the low road. This was simply a very real example of the capabilities of two test subjects, not an attack on Honda or GM. Gas engines have a very wide RPM range (6500 RPM in the case of the Honda) and 5500 in the GM Vortec V6). In the Honda, HP and Torque are at extremely high RPM hence the need for deep axle ratios and hence the high fuel consumption. The GM V6 develops is torque at much lower RPM which enables use of axle ratios that allow the engine to loaf at freeway speeds. I would buy a mid size diesel truck in a heartbeat if one was available with say a 3.5L inline 5 or 6 cylinder and 275 lb/ft of torque and a five speed automatic. Small engines reving like nuts at freeway speeds, like others have pointed out, are not comfortable or enjoyable to tow with. And just for the record, a steam engine develops maximum torque at near zero RPM.

 

[WSUDERMAN]

Re: Horsepower or torque

Originally posted by Realgun:<br /> ...He told him that the Foreign engenners like to use rpms no Displacment to make their power. <br />This was written up on MotorTrend a while back when the t-100 or Tundra first came out.<br /><br />Basically that Honda motor will turn 4000 rpm for 100,000 mile with no problems as thats what they are designed to do.<br /><br />Personally I like to have the V-8 with some grunt or even the S-10 with the V-6. That 5 in the Canyon is not up to power unless you like to run RPM. And yes it will run at a higher RM for 100,000 miles! See we can learn from the Japanese. <br /><br />But do we really want to?

Interesting. We should all be careful about over generalizing car/truck manufactures. Typically I would agree foreign car makers like higher rpms, however in the case you cited, the Tundra it is not true.<br /><br />2001 tundra v8 (t100 did not come with a v8)<br />max torque 315 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm<br /><br />2001 GMC Sierra 325 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm<br /><br />The technology used in the valve train can affect the torque curve greatly, OHV(EDIT: OHC...) are much better at making a low and high end torque and Variable valve timing systems are even better. But they all have a trade off, the lower the torque peak, the lower the max hp will be. It’s a choice the manufacture makes, we just need to be educated about it. HP is derived from torque. No torque, no HP. Know Torque, Know HP. <br /><br />Torque = hp / rpm * 5252<br /><br />It’s easy to see how a higher rpm peak for the torque curve can greatly improve the hp number.<br />And we all know that high HP numbers help sell cars these days...

 

[WSUDERMAN]

Re: Horsepower or torque

Almost forgot, the Ridgeline 255 lb-ft @4500 rpm...

 

[tommays]

Re: Horsepower or torque

well just to throw it in i owned two GEO metros <br /><br />one with the orginal 50 hp 3 cylinder motor<br /><br />and the second had the wiz bang dual over head cam screaming 4 cyl 85 hp motor<br /><br />they both got about 49 mpg not to hard on a 2200 pound car<br /><br />it was allmost inpossable to drive the 4 cylinder motor in traffic with out frying the clutch<br /><br />the 3 cylinder on the other hand was allmost inpossable to stall it had and allmost diesel like power band<br /><br />so in the end you had a 35 more HP that was useless on identical cars same 5 speed tranny ratios everything<br /><br /><br />tommays

 

[Silvertip]

Re: Horsepower or torque

There ya go! Theory and Practice! It's great that a Honda will run 4000 RPM for 100,000 miles. This owner found it very undesireable, inefficient, and he spent a bunch of money on something he thought would be a great mid-size tow vehicle.

 

[Realgun]

Re: Horsepower or torque

2001 Ford F-150 350Ft/lbs @ 2500rpm. OHC.

 

[Mark42]

Re: Horsepower or torque

I have to comment: <br /><br />The basic making of a torque motor is a long throw crankshaft. Long throw crankshafts give the piston a greater leverage advantage over short throw crankshaft engines and make more torque over a wider rpm range because of it. But they don't have high rpm range. The short throw crank engines have less mass to throw around in the crank and rods and pistons so they run higher rpms easier, where they make their hp and torque. <br /><br />It's the internal design of the motor that gives it its ultimate operation characteristics. As most truck owners can tell you, it is much more pleasant to operate a heavy truck with a low rpm torque monster rather than the high rpm screamer.<br /><br />A good example is the old Chrysler slant 6. One of the longest stroke engines ever made, the motor was used in various configurations from Dodge Darts to dump trucks and it didn't make more than 200 hp (old ratings) it tip top condition. <br /><br />I just can't imagine trying to tow with a vehicle that every time you let off the gas and coast down a few miles per hour you need to downshift and hit the gas to bring the speed back up. <br /><br />Just my 2¢.

 

[fishingdan]

Re: Horsepower or torque

I own a Honda Pilot and tow the boat pictured. This boat/motor/trailer combo is very light and there is no issue towing it. That said, the Honda Pilot,Ridgeline and Acura MDX are basically built on the Honda minivan platform. These are surbaban family vehicles. These are front wheel drive vehicles bascially designed for moving families to soccer games, stores, drop kids off at school, etc. They have excellent all-wheel drive capability, but again, it is all-wheel drive targeted to the vehicle's designed purpose. <br /><br />Bottom line, there are much better tow vehicles out there. The baseline Ford Explorer with the 4.0 v6 is a much more capable tow vehicle.

 

[QC]

Re: Horsepower or torque

I can't believe I missed this!!!! My favorite topic. I feel like LubeDude missing an oil thread, NautiJohn missing anything about tabs, Boomyal missing something about Ford valve trains . . . <br /><br />First, gutshot grouper is actually right (though he could have stated it better). DJ's assertion that you want a flat torque curve, though commonly held, is incorrect. What you want is a flat (or flatter) HORSEPOWER curve. The way you get that is steep torque rise (usually expressed as a percentage and it is the difference between torque at rated bhp RPM and peak torque), which with few exceptions will offer better drivability and the opportunity to use a lower numeric axle ratio if compared to an engine with less torque rise (flatter torque curve on a graph). Please read carefully as this is correct, I guarantee it. But if the torque rise PERCENTAGE is the same, and the RPM is higher you can have the same drivability if geared correctly. This assumes that both engines have the same rated bhp. This explanation is a little too simplistic as the RPM between the two points (peak torque and rated bhp) needs to be considered as well.<br /><br />I am however not inclined to say that high revving, lower torque engines are bad or the reverse. It is the overall combination that makes the vehicle: engine, gear ratio, tire size, transmission etc. I agree that engines running at high revs are unnerving, but imagine if you couldn't hear it and the speeds up the grades were the same and startability was decent, I would suggest that we would be equally happy. (Fuel economy is a whole different discussion although RPM enters into it. Here's one that will drive you crazy, throttled engines get their best fuel economy at WOT. BTW, I didn't say boats or wheeled vehicles, I said engines )<br /><br />Another misconception is that the vehicle with the higher engine out torque number will always be the better tow vehicle. In reality it is torque at the wheels, not the engine, that ultimately matters for startability i.e. gearing. If you have the same vehicle with two different engines, one with half the peak torque at the same RPM as the other, they can have equal startability if the lowest available gear (+ rear-end ratio and tire size) is double numerically on the lower torque engine. This would theoretically give equal torque to the wheels . . .<br /><br />It all comes down to the formula mentioned and written here by others. bhp = torque x RPM divided by 5252 and the reverse for torque. Basically, if you have more torque at a given RPM than something else, you have more bhp available to do work. 78fourwinns is all over this, with one addition: you cannot separate any of the pieces: torque, bhp or . . . RPM. I use the example of torquing main bearings. Let's say we (your arm) can develop 300 lb/ft torque. By some peoples' logic (thankfully not in this thread) then we should individually be able to outrun, both the S10 and the Ridgeline pulling the same load. Absolute idiocy right? But how many times have you heard someone say "torque is all that matters"? What's missing? . . . . RPM

 

[craze1cars]

Re: Horsepower or torque

I'm a firm believer in grossly oversizing my tow vehicles. But then again I'm old and crotchety, so my opinion is meaningless. But nonetheless I spit it out anyway...my tow vehicle crawls along at about 2,200 rpm at 75mph under 5,000 lb loads with the cruise control set, and hardly ever need to shifts itself out of OD except for the steepest grades. And as a nice little side benefit, I can actually make a successful emergency stop when necessary. I'd love to see some of these little V-6's (foreign/domestic, doesn't matter) with their car-grade brake systems bring that full 5,000 lb load-rated capacity to safe, fast stop while you're barreling down a mountainside. I feel much safer in my properly equipped 3/4 ton crew cab, thank you very much...<br /><br />As for fuel economy? I own energy stocks, so it's just like paying myself when I pull up to the pump and hand them another C-note to fill the reserve tank, right?

 

[05GlastronSX]

Re: Horsepower or torque

im with crazycars on this one...if your towing anything that has a noticable amount of weight to it, get the biggest and the best. i tow my rig(3200 lbs, plus 4 people, a dogg and tons of luggage) with my 2003 gmc yukon w/ a 5.3. on the highway in 100 degree weather, my truck with tow/haul on or off turns 2200-2300 rpms at 75 mph and can easily get up and go and also come to a safe stop relitivly fast for the amount of weight being hauled/towed plus the transmission never hunts due to tow/haul mode. I tryed towing all of this with once with my 1999 dodge grand caravan with the biggest engine avalible at the time (3.8) and it STRUGGLES to put that horribly... you have to floor it almost all the time. granted its not a tow vehicle, but thats my point, dont tow anything thats relitivly heavy with something that is not suited for pulling or hauling any decent amount of weight. even with the largest v-6 it struggled to pull. i can not imagine anything less..

 

[QC]

Re: Horsepower or torque

Oh Crazy 1,<br /><br />I agree. I tow with a 2003 Expedition and my load is probably around 4500 lbs. Runs excellent, stays at low RPM etc. It also stops well, although IF the trailer brakes are right, they should all stop. I am just into clarifying this bhp and torque thing as it has bugged me since I was 14, and I have spent a lot of time trying to figure it out.<br /><br />I had a Japanese V6 in a '93 Trooper and it towed very well. I was only pulling around 3500 lbs then, but the higher revs really didn't bug me as the engine sang very nicely. I have always mashed the throttle when I need it, if it downshifts and pulls the load, so be it. I just figure that they wouldn't give you the power and ability to downshift if the platform wouldn't handle it for at least a little while. So far I haven't blown any engines or trannys. Knock on fiberglass? sheet metal? cast iron? Whatever . . .<br /><br />A guy once told me "so what if you spend $10 more in fuel over a weekend". Makes all the sense in the world to me whether it is the boat or the truck.