hp versus torque

[oasis]

Wow, 32 people viewing this sub-forum ... Anyway, ...

I have heard, "People buy horsepower; people drive torque."

I have seen calculations where HP and torque are related by RPM's and some factor of 5252 (or 1/5252 depending which way the formula goes).

I have (water-cooled) a 2.0 ("two-point-slow"), a 1.8T, and a TDI. The TDI has less HP than the 2.0 but nearly the same torque as the 1.8T.

I have seen HP numbers bandied about with Type I and Type IV engines.

What makes an engine more torquey? Why are certain engines more prone to being torquey?

I have read the passages on the Subaru conversions (thanks, ricola, for the link at all who have contributed to the main current thread), and it seems way too involved for my skills and beyond the scope of anyone I know.

I am still leaning towards a Type IV but I am still trying to justify the initial cost over a fancy Type I. (I understand many of the advantages of longevity, etc. I am more interested in understanding the HP v. torque dynamic.)

[beetle1303]

this should justify your last question:
In a very simple and not at all scientific way:
torque is what you feel when you step on the throttle/gas from standstill
and
Hp is the engines ability to make the car travel at a given speed

Anyway torque is what makes your car going.

read:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question622.htm
and
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/horsepower.htm

There are many factors that can make an engine "more torqueier" than others

Consider this: fitting larger valves on an engine will improve top end hp
example: 1776 cc t1 with o44 heads and the same engine with 040 heads. The second one will produce more torque and less top end power.
Main factors:
Configuration ( in-line, V, boxer)
Displacement
Camshaft (timing, duration, lift)
valve train(stock 1:1, 1.25:1, 1.4:1 etc)
fuel supply and type (single carb,two singles, twin carbs fuel injection)
Induction (forced-NA)

thats pretty much

Also something that can differ the torque feeling is the gearing...

Chris

[oasis]

Thank you very much. A lot was answered and understood.

[73notch]

thats why you turbo, you get tons of both.

[oasis]

Originally Posted by 73notch

thats why you turbo, you get tons of both.

Why turbo-charge rather than supercharge?

I've done some research for my 2002 Cabrio with the very reliable and undynamic 2.0. The power bands I have seen with supercharging look more similar (although obviously greater) to stock than different configurations of turbo-charging. Plus, there is no need for an intercooler and no turbo lag*.

(* - For the record, I experience no noticable lag with my wife's TDI which I love, but I find the lag in my dad's Passat with a 1.8T very disquieting. Once the latter kicks in, it is nice but it seems so undecided in normal day-to-day driving. I wouldn't want that profile for my Super.)

[oicdn]

Supercharging is BRUTAL on the bottom end. Rather than a ramp up in the power curve, it's all instantaneous as soon as you hit the throttle.

Although nice, the versatility isn't there. Takes power to make power. You have more options with a turbo, and is a friendlier in terms of configuring/customization.

I'm a turbo guy...I've thought about supercharging in my ricer days, and couldn't justify the cost on the minimal power. And the idea of a belt/pulley determining everything was somewhat unsettling....simpler, but it's just lacking the RAW power a turbo has....