I have been arguing over power, torque, curb weight and 0-60 times with kids in my dorm and finding all the info to prove them wrong takes too much time and effort. My dad told me about a web-site that he recently saw posted in a thread here that had just about every car ever made listed with a power rating etc. If anyone knows what I am talking about and has the web address I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks,
-Pete

__________________
Pete

1986 Euro Black Metallic 190E 2.3 16V

There is a fairly good variety of autos listed here....

http://www.fantasycars.com/

Not sure I agree with all their stats, though.

Just ask owners of late-model Ford Mustang SVT Cobras! They were rated higher than they were proven to have, which led to a class-action suit.

One the other hand, what about the new Neon pocket rocket? I can't recall the exact model nomenclature, but I can tell you they are 30-40+HP healthier than the manufacturer claims. This leads to other reasonably fast cars being spanked by those pesky Neons!

Bottom line - I think the best way to figure out true comparable horsepower numbers is to plug 1/4 mile times & trap speeds (and vehicle weight) into one of the online Horsepower calculators. This way, a car's true ability to go fast is baselined, a a legitimate comparison made.

Just my $.02

__________________
"If God had meant for us to walk, why did he give us feet that fit car pedals?" Sir Sterling Moss

Michael
2014 E63S Estate
2006 SLK55
1995 E500
1986 Porsche 944 turbo

hey Pete how's the euro 16v running for ya, havin fun

Dave

86 190E 16v

you'll want this then

Quarter mile rivals

go File -> save as...
and you won't even have to be connected to browse at your leisure!

__________________
190E's:
2.5-16v 1990 90,000m Astral Silver
2.0E 8v 1986 107,000m Black 2nd owner
http://www.maylane.demon.co.uk/190esmall.jpghttp://www.maylane.demon.co.uk/190esmall2.jpg

Isn't what we are really after High sustained forward motion G forces.

G Machines!

I know this is an old original post, but incase the conversation's still going (as I see a recent post)... I'm jumping in now because mastering this was sort of a hobby of mine for a few months.

It's mostly in the Physics of Racing Series ... a.k.a. PhoRS (chick here) . And the links at the bottom.

I used the formulas outlined in this series plus some more taken from the other places to create a parameterized spreadsheet that allows me to calculate the effect on 0-60 times [or m-n times] of my C43 if I changed my rear differential, outer rear tire diameter, torque curve, etc.

It all boils down to weight, torque, redline, and gearing. Also, when you talk torque at an rpm, that's power. Power is simply a relation of torque and motion, or revolution in this case. Specifically,
Horsepower = Torque * RPM / 5252

(If anyone attempts to tell you it's anything else, they're plain wrong. Any if you ever see a Dyno Graph showing both power and torque with the same vertical axis that doesn't cross at 5252, that's wrong too.)

Now here's the important parts determining 0-60 times, i.e. acceleration:

1) The rate of change in velocity, i.e. acceleration, is linearly related to the torque curve, not the power curve. The wider the maximum torque curve, the longer the car will pull hard and fast in a gear. Said the other way, the car pulls hardest/fastest when the torque curve peaks.

2) All things being equal it's better to create your maximum torque at higher RPMs because you can then take advantage of gearing (again, Torque at an RPM is Horsepower).

The higher the redline is, the longer you can run in a lower gear, giving you the advantage of torque multiplication in the lower gears while travelling to/at a higher linear velocity; that higher torque multiplication of a lower gear, longer, then directly translates to more linear force at the wheel's contact patch (through the driveshaft, differential, axles, to the wheels/tires).

Put simply, that's why the latest M3 with max torque in at only 262 ft-lb and power at only 333hp can be so quick; beating out many cars with torque/power in the 300's and 400's. The car's really not that light at all either; over 3500 lbs with the driver. But the M3's redline is 8000 rpm! (that's 33% higher than the 6000rpm most hi-perf cars are) And it produces a significant amount of its torque up to that So it can be geared down (1:3.64 final ratio) and pull longer in the lower of the 6 gears, taking advantage of the force multiplication in the gearbox, that then translates directly to force to the contact patch of the tires to the road.

The weight of the car is certainly not irrelevant, and I'm not attempting to imply it doesn't matter. Of corse a lighter car is more advantageous to a heavy car ... if all things [torque curve, redline, and gearing] are equal that is.

You can make up for a heavier car with:
a) increased torque over a wide, flat, rpm range (brute force method, favored by MB )
b) increase the redline while still producing significant torque at the higher RPM ...allowing you to increase the gear ratio, and thus the amount of force multiplication to the wheels the higher gear ratio offers, since you can remain in the gear longer at the higher rpm.

Additional references:

Great real world torque to hp discussion
(I had to read the part about "better to make torque at high rpm..." part a few times before it really clicked, then it all fell into place.)

Technical discussion of torque to hp relationship

Additional equations

Thanks guys, those sites are great.

MBC43AMG - That information is really cool stuff. My father had explained a lot of that to me before, but he never knew off the top of his head the constant that you divide torque x rpm to get horsepower. He explained the concept to me so I would understand that torque is what kicks you in the ass when you romp on it. Unfortunately most of the kids at this school are stubborn and only care about 3 things when it comes to cars: Horsepower (because its the biggest concern of Car&Driver), 0-60 (because of The Fast and The Furious), and $$$$, which leads them to one conclusion...a japanese car gets you close enough to the real thing.

Dave - I got your private message and I would like to send you an e-mail because I typed too much for a private message so I saved it. The 16V is in beautiful shape. It runs flawlessly and the body is now 100% rust-proof. Unfortunately I snapped my left rear CV joint today and I am at school so I don't have a place to put it to work on it. It's currently parked on the street about a block from my dorm.

Thanks again
-Pete

__________________
Pete

1986 Euro Black Metallic 190E 2.3 16V