FAQ : Horsepower VS Torque
02-15-2006, 07:00 AM
#41
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,726
The scientific definition is good and all.
Let's leave it at "power is the ability to do work."
Let's also agree to leave gearing out of this for the moment. Since it seems we have to simplify a lot in order to have everyone understand, it'd probably be best if we work with identical engines with only different amounts of torque and power.
However, what I honestly don't get is how this is even a debate. It'd be best to take what senseiturtle wrote and combine with engifineer's stuff and take out the rest.
Like has been said, there's no argument of torque over hp et vice versa. HP can't exist without tq. The issue though is where to make how much torque.
If we decide to focus on the issue of where to make how much torque to either go fast or live daily, then it can be a debate. As it is, all that needs be said has been said regarding the facts of torque and power.
Let's leave it at "power is the ability to do work."
Let's also agree to leave gearing out of this for the moment. Since it seems we have to simplify a lot in order to have everyone understand, it'd probably be best if we work with identical engines with only different amounts of torque and power.
However, what I honestly don't get is how this is even a debate. It'd be best to take what senseiturtle wrote and combine with engifineer's stuff and take out the rest.
Like has been said, there's no argument of torque over hp et vice versa. HP can't exist without tq. The issue though is where to make how much torque.
If we decide to focus on the issue of where to make how much torque to either go fast or live daily, then it can be a debate. As it is, all that needs be said has been said regarding the facts of torque and power.
02-15-2006, 07:13 AM
#42
Senior Member
Team Sushi
SL Member
Team N.V.S.
Scion Evolution
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Posts: 4,322
Originally Posted by kungpaosamuraiii
The scientific definition is good and all.
Let's leave it at "power is the ability to do force."
Let's also agree to leave gearing out of this for the moment. Since it seems we have to simplify a lot in order to have everyone understand, it'd probably be best if we work with identical engines with only different amounts of torque and power.
However, what I honestly don't get is how this is even a debate. It'd be best to take what senseiturtle wrote and combine with engifineer's stuff and take out the rest.
Like has been said, there's no argument of torque over hp et vice versa. HP can't exist without tq. The issue though is where to make how much torque.
If we decide to focus on the issue of where to make how much torque to either go fast or live daily, then it can be a debate. As it is, all that needs be said has been said regarding the facts of torque and power.
Let's leave it at "power is the ability to do force."
Let's also agree to leave gearing out of this for the moment. Since it seems we have to simplify a lot in order to have everyone understand, it'd probably be best if we work with identical engines with only different amounts of torque and power.
However, what I honestly don't get is how this is even a debate. It'd be best to take what senseiturtle wrote and combine with engifineer's stuff and take out the rest.
Like has been said, there's no argument of torque over hp et vice versa. HP can't exist without tq. The issue though is where to make how much torque.
If we decide to focus on the issue of where to make how much torque to either go fast or live daily, then it can be a debate. As it is, all that needs be said has been said regarding the facts of torque and power.
02-15-2006, 04:31 PM
#43
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by djct_watt
Originally Posted by killerxromances
An easy way to think as far as just the whp wtq debate is this. Whp is the power of your car, wtq is how much "strength" the power has.
Torque is no different of a measurement than the maximum amount of weight you can lift. It takes more power to move 50 lbs 10 feet in 10 seconds than it does in 30 seconds. Torque says absolutely nothing about how quickly you can apply your force. That's where HP comes into play. HP is a measurement using time, defined by revolutions per minute. The higher your engine can rev, the more power it can make with the same amount of torque.
I'm sorry to say, but in this thread, engifineer is the only one who has been consistently correct. And since I constantly argue with him, that says a LOT. He know EXACTLY what he is talking about.
I don't know, i'm tired right now so i'm done with this post.
02-15-2006, 05:14 PM
#44
Banned
SL Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 143
Let's leave it at "power is the ability to do force."
Either you never had a high school level physics course, or you are simply on something. Power is the time derivative of energy. The relationship between force and power is force*distance/time=power. After making that boneheaded remark above, you've lost all credibility in my book.
02-15-2006, 11:27 PM
#45
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,726
My mistake! I meant to write "power is the ability to do force over distance" as in "power is the ability to do work."
I posted at 1:00AM. Sorry for that.
In whatever case, I still think this discussion needs some simplification. The gears multiply torque and allow for useable amounts of torque at the wheels. It's for this reason the tC can handily beat a lower weight and higher HP SVT Focus (I thought otherwise before but I saw a vid of it.. needless to say, three or four car lenghts.) Even with more useable torque earlier on, the tC, being heavier and having less power, should have lost. But we all know how hard the tC pulls and that's why it won. With the same gearing, the SVT Focus would win. So until everyone understands how torque and power relate and how it is impossible to have one without the other and most importantly, what the two figures really mean in a race, I think we should leave out all the modifiers.
To explain and educate, it'd make a lot more sense to assume two ideal engines with similar configurations with the only variable being where and how much torque is made available. But I'm not even going to use engines as comparisons. This is about as simplified as it gets; sorry if it offends physicists and/or know-it-alls.
How's this,
P = power; F = force; D = distance; T = time; W = work
So, power as we mathematically know it:
P = W/T
Work, is torque, and broken into its components becomes F times D such that
W = FD
Now substitute W for FD and we get
P = FD/T
The two figures at the end, D and T together make velocity such that
D/T = V
Substitue D/T for V
P = FV
Solve for Velocity
V = P/F
So velocity is the ratio of power per unit of force. If we agree that wheel speed is proportional to engine speed, we can see that with a higher power, there is a higher velocity, in terms of cars, a higher speed. With more weight, there is a lower velocity. This concept is intrinsic to almost everyone here that wants to go fast: more power + less weight is the sure means for faster going.
Here, though, torque has pretty much been taken out of the equation. It's still there but not as a unit of work. As you can see, torque isn't necessary for attaining a higher velocity. Torque is, however, absolutely required as torque is intrinsic to the velocity (namely the distance component of torque.)
And if I remember correctly, that, my friends, is as simple and ugly as it gets.
BTW, look at my avatar. Those are B cells.
I posted at 1:00AM. Sorry for that.
In whatever case, I still think this discussion needs some simplification. The gears multiply torque and allow for useable amounts of torque at the wheels. It's for this reason the tC can handily beat a lower weight and higher HP SVT Focus (I thought otherwise before but I saw a vid of it.. needless to say, three or four car lenghts.) Even with more useable torque earlier on, the tC, being heavier and having less power, should have lost. But we all know how hard the tC pulls and that's why it won. With the same gearing, the SVT Focus would win. So until everyone understands how torque and power relate and how it is impossible to have one without the other and most importantly, what the two figures really mean in a race, I think we should leave out all the modifiers.
To explain and educate, it'd make a lot more sense to assume two ideal engines with similar configurations with the only variable being where and how much torque is made available. But I'm not even going to use engines as comparisons. This is about as simplified as it gets; sorry if it offends physicists and/or know-it-alls.
How's this,
P = power; F = force; D = distance; T = time; W = work
So, power as we mathematically know it:
P = W/T
Work, is torque, and broken into its components becomes F times D such that
W = FD
Now substitute W for FD and we get
P = FD/T
The two figures at the end, D and T together make velocity such that
D/T = V
Substitue D/T for V
P = FV
Solve for Velocity
V = P/F
So velocity is the ratio of power per unit of force. If we agree that wheel speed is proportional to engine speed, we can see that with a higher power, there is a higher velocity, in terms of cars, a higher speed. With more weight, there is a lower velocity. This concept is intrinsic to almost everyone here that wants to go fast: more power + less weight is the sure means for faster going.
Here, though, torque has pretty much been taken out of the equation. It's still there but not as a unit of work. As you can see, torque isn't necessary for attaining a higher velocity. Torque is, however, absolutely required as torque is intrinsic to the velocity (namely the distance component of torque.)
And if I remember correctly, that, my friends, is as simple and ugly as it gets.
BTW, look at my avatar. Those are B cells.
02-16-2006, 12:03 AM
#46
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,726
Here's a pretty good discussion on torque. There's also an explanation of gearing in there I think.
http://www.yoursciontc.com/forums/in...topic=2129&hl=
For those that don't want to look, I'll quote the man for you:
If for some reason I've lost credibility with the rest of you, then I'm sure LBR's words are more than good enough for you.
http://www.yoursciontc.com/forums/in...topic=2129&hl=
For those that don't want to look, I'll quote the man for you:
Originally Posted by lo_bux_racer
There seems to be an interest in torque as a discriminator of engine performance. Torque is just a number having little to do with anything about how an engine performs.
I can hear it now. HERETIC! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!
BUT, the truth about torque is it means nothing to the car. Horsepower is everything, because it is the ability to do work (in the physics definition of work) that really separates the strong from the weak. Your gearbox and final drive ratio to alter torque to suit the application.
Example:
2004 F1 engine makes over 1000 hp at ~19,000 rpm
1991 F1 engine makes over 1000 hp at 9500 rpm
Same power output, different rpm. The 1991 engine has twice the torque of the 2004 engine, yet the cars are equally as fast. Why? The available torque at the drive wheel is identical, because the gearing is completely different. The engines just make power differently.
Another example, many diesels make ridiculous amounts of torque. some over 1000 ft-lbs. Why don't they leave everything for dead when they launch? Redline at 2500 rpm doesn't make a lot of horsepower. And no, trucks don't use diesels because they make lots of torque, it's because they are significantly more thermally efficient than gasoline engines.
If big torque numbers were important to acceleration, Top Fuel would be a contest of diesels. Obviously it isn't. Nitromethane and methanol make LOTS of horsepower in engines spinning very high rpm (for their size) power the elite classes in drag racing.
Torque is only useful when related to rpm so we can figure out how much POWER we have.
I can hear it now. HERETIC! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!
BUT, the truth about torque is it means nothing to the car. Horsepower is everything, because it is the ability to do work (in the physics definition of work) that really separates the strong from the weak. Your gearbox and final drive ratio to alter torque to suit the application.
Example:
2004 F1 engine makes over 1000 hp at ~19,000 rpm
1991 F1 engine makes over 1000 hp at 9500 rpm
Same power output, different rpm. The 1991 engine has twice the torque of the 2004 engine, yet the cars are equally as fast. Why? The available torque at the drive wheel is identical, because the gearing is completely different. The engines just make power differently.
Another example, many diesels make ridiculous amounts of torque. some over 1000 ft-lbs. Why don't they leave everything for dead when they launch? Redline at 2500 rpm doesn't make a lot of horsepower. And no, trucks don't use diesels because they make lots of torque, it's because they are significantly more thermally efficient than gasoline engines.
If big torque numbers were important to acceleration, Top Fuel would be a contest of diesels. Obviously it isn't. Nitromethane and methanol make LOTS of horsepower in engines spinning very high rpm (for their size) power the elite classes in drag racing.
Torque is only useful when related to rpm so we can figure out how much POWER we have.
02-16-2006, 01:44 AM
#47
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9,731
The last line he wrote means more than any of the rest . It still comes down to the point that you cannot say tq is not important. Comparing the measurment (HP) of the use of torque and rpm to the tq still makes no sense whatsoever. In all actuallity if you look at all the good data presented, ALL that really matters to create performance is the proper mix of tq and rpm and how you get it to the wheels. HP is the best MEASURE of how you are using them. The amount of fuel and oxidizer and the type of fuel is the most important part of a fire, the energy created is the important and easiest measure of how effectively you use those. Again, a completely in-comparable pair of items in terms of "importance".
02-16-2006, 01:44 PM
#50
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9,731
And actually, yes, they do use deisels on large trucks partially because of the massive amounts of torque they create. That large amount of torque allows them to run low rpm and still produce a good amount of hp. This is part of what gives them super long lifespans and makes them great for the type of work they are built to do.
02-17-2006, 02:58 AM
#51
Banned
SL Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 249
Re: FAQ : Horsepower VS Torque
Originally Posted by senseiturtle
"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races"
A wonderful old addage that turns out to be absolutley false. Before I start summarizing why HP matters and TQ really doesn't, let's do some background reading...
================================================== =====
Quote: "Horsepower IS the factor that determines whether you win."
http://www.heumann.com/m5/hp_torque.html
Quote: "There are no exceptions; a car running at its (net) power peak can accelerate no harder at that same vehicle speed. There is no better gear to choose, even if another gear would place the engine closer to its torque peak. You'll find that a car running at peak power at a given vehicle speed is delivering the maximum possible torque to the tires (although the engine may not be spinning at its torque peak). This derives immediately from first principles in physics."
http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html
And my favorite... the best so far... and a recommended read for all--
Quote: "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*."
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
Google "Horsepower vs. torque" if you want hundreds of other articles.
================================================== ======
After you've poked through all that, you should have a good grasp of what I'll be saying below. If not, then the below info can serve as a good cliff's notes.
Let me bring up a tC (160/163, 2900+lbs) vs. RSX-S (210/142, 2800+lbs) example to explain why HP matters. Similar vehicle weights. tC has more torque. tC has shorter gearing. So why does the RSX win? High revs, which translate to higher Horsepower. The RSXS is better able to utilize its gearing by being able to pull "longer" in each gear, per-se, through its higher revs. Therefore, its horsepower is what makes it win.
And let's compare the tC ( 160/163, 2900+lbs) vs. the EP3 Si (160/130, 2750lbs). You might be thinking "the tC has more torque to offset its weight." Well, while the tC does have more torque, and technically builds HP faster, the reason it keeps up with the EP3 in spite of its heavier weight is due to the fact that it DOES put more HP down to the wheels, stock for stock. Average dynojet dynos place the tC at the low 140s, and the EP3 at high 130's. EP3'ers might not like to hear this, but given the above articles and facts, how else would you explain it?
---- Conversely, if acceleration was based on TORQUE, not power, in addition to gearing/weight... then a tC would DEMOLISH an EP3 si, RSX-S, CelicaGTS, and several other Variable-Valve 4-bangers stock for stock.... and we'd all be getting our asses handed to us by TDI golfs (which dish out monsterous levels of torque, but little HP). Thankfully this isn't the case.
So why would anyone want a torquey motor?
Torque has an effect on launches, but not as much as one would think. The only reason torque is "nice" is that it helps to prevent bogging at high-power launches. Each time you launch, the sudden jump in engine load will cause a reduction of RPM before the motor can "push back" and accelerate the car.
Think of how your houselights dim when you turn on a big vaccuum cleaner, then come back to full brightness gradually. Your motor's torque (and therefore, power) does the same thing.
In addition, since torque is the force you feel, higher torque cars feel faster. This makes for more fun, but not necessarily more speed. Drive around the block in an Altima SE-R, and you think that your S2000 feels slow in comparison... but when that little honda goes flying by, you'll understand that the butt dyno is deceiving.
Please let me know if you should have any questions, complaints, corrections, or concerns... I'm completely willing to help out, and make any corrections if need be.
-Thanks,
Ryan T.
A wonderful old addage that turns out to be absolutley false. Before I start summarizing why HP matters and TQ really doesn't, let's do some background reading...
================================================== =====
Quote: "Horsepower IS the factor that determines whether you win."
http://www.heumann.com/m5/hp_torque.html
Quote: "There are no exceptions; a car running at its (net) power peak can accelerate no harder at that same vehicle speed. There is no better gear to choose, even if another gear would place the engine closer to its torque peak. You'll find that a car running at peak power at a given vehicle speed is delivering the maximum possible torque to the tires (although the engine may not be spinning at its torque peak). This derives immediately from first principles in physics."
http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html
And my favorite... the best so far... and a recommended read for all--
Quote: "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*."
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
Google "Horsepower vs. torque" if you want hundreds of other articles.
================================================== ======
After you've poked through all that, you should have a good grasp of what I'll be saying below. If not, then the below info can serve as a good cliff's notes.
Let me bring up a tC (160/163, 2900+lbs) vs. RSX-S (210/142, 2800+lbs) example to explain why HP matters. Similar vehicle weights. tC has more torque. tC has shorter gearing. So why does the RSX win? High revs, which translate to higher Horsepower. The RSXS is better able to utilize its gearing by being able to pull "longer" in each gear, per-se, through its higher revs. Therefore, its horsepower is what makes it win.
And let's compare the tC ( 160/163, 2900+lbs) vs. the EP3 Si (160/130, 2750lbs). You might be thinking "the tC has more torque to offset its weight." Well, while the tC does have more torque, and technically builds HP faster, the reason it keeps up with the EP3 in spite of its heavier weight is due to the fact that it DOES put more HP down to the wheels, stock for stock. Average dynojet dynos place the tC at the low 140s, and the EP3 at high 130's. EP3'ers might not like to hear this, but given the above articles and facts, how else would you explain it?
---- Conversely, if acceleration was based on TORQUE, not power, in addition to gearing/weight... then a tC would DEMOLISH an EP3 si, RSX-S, CelicaGTS, and several other Variable-Valve 4-bangers stock for stock.... and we'd all be getting our asses handed to us by TDI golfs (which dish out monsterous levels of torque, but little HP). Thankfully this isn't the case.
So why would anyone want a torquey motor?
Torque has an effect on launches, but not as much as one would think. The only reason torque is "nice" is that it helps to prevent bogging at high-power launches. Each time you launch, the sudden jump in engine load will cause a reduction of RPM before the motor can "push back" and accelerate the car.
Think of how your houselights dim when you turn on a big vaccuum cleaner, then come back to full brightness gradually. Your motor's torque (and therefore, power) does the same thing.
In addition, since torque is the force you feel, higher torque cars feel faster. This makes for more fun, but not necessarily more speed. Drive around the block in an Altima SE-R, and you think that your S2000 feels slow in comparison... but when that little honda goes flying by, you'll understand that the butt dyno is deceiving.
Please let me know if you should have any questions, complaints, corrections, or concerns... I'm completely willing to help out, and make any corrections if need be.
-Thanks,
Ryan T.
I understand that the basic premise your trying to get across is that Honda motors are better for racing than the 2AZ..I don't think thats "Breaking NEWs" to anyone. But some of your facts and premises are so convoluded that your whole post really makes no sense whatsoever.
02-17-2006, 03:45 AM
#52
Senior Member
SL Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 1,167
Re: FAQ : Horsepower VS Torque
Originally Posted by The_Sciontist
This is possible one of the most useless posts I've ever seen. Its apples and oranges dude. You can't go look up a bunch of terms on Google and predict what car will win a race on the street!! There are WAY more FACTORS that go into racing, speed, acceleration, etc..than just Horsepower and Torque. IT almost sounds like you're saying: A car that makes 5 HP beats a car that makes 4HP..a car that makes 10 HP beats a car that makes 8 HP etc...That "SOUNDS" great ON PAPER but you're on drugs if you think that has any application to the real world.
I understand that the basic premise your trying to get across is that Honda motors are better for racing than the 2AZ..I don't think thats "Breaking NEWs" to anyone. But some of your facts and premises are so convoluded that your whole post really makes no sense whatsoever.
Care to elaborate?
1- Please point out any facts that you feel are incorrect.
and
2- Offer a better explanation.
I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, when I'm wrong, but you can't flame me for addressing just one of the several issues that goes into acceleration. If you're thinking that I'm just some honda-boy just trying to "dog on the almighty 2AZ," then I'm afraid you've got the wrong guy.
Therefore, instead of flaming, post your explanation, and we'll have an honest debate.
02-17-2006, 04:46 AM
#53
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 342
i would like to point out that gearing has a large impact on who wins what. thats why a lot of high performance track cars have different gear set ups for different situations. ( also a stock toyota corolla beats a stock civic ex all day and badly. and the civic only has 3 less horsepower but ways over a hudred pounds less.) gearing.
02-17-2006, 05:10 AM
#54
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,726
Aside from power, gearing is everything. Gearing governs how much tq can get to the ground and how it is applied.
Everything needs to work together in order to go fast. Each aspect is as important as the next but each in different ways.
Everything needs to work together in order to go fast. Each aspect is as important as the next but each in different ways.
02-17-2006, 05:11 AM
#55
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 227
Originally Posted by cmndrjamesbond
Since when are 7.1 and 7.8 close? Also, how do you figure 180-160=30? The only 2ZZ that puts out 190 is the one in the elise and exige.
fair enough if you dont wanna call 7.1 and 7.8 close, but we are looking at a 2500lb car vs a 2800lb car.
I don't know why I even bothered to respond to you, because by the rest of your posts in this thread, it becomes quite clear that you're and @$$ and dont know what you are talking about in regards to this topic. And to think that I regarded you as having an inkling of common sense beacuse of your actual insightful posts in other threads.
If you are wondering why I went off on a tangent...two words, one post
Still wrong.
02-22-2006, 08:49 PM
#56
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 507
Ok all I have to say is thank you senseiturtle and whoever else offered the explanations afterwards explaining how rmp mulitplies torque and that is how horsepower is calculated and how rpm torque and hp and gearing all work together. The reason for the thanks is that I finally understand how torque and hp work. Many said this thread is useless but you have no clue how many articles ive read with tons of too much scientific info with me not understadning it.
So thanks for the thread I appreciate it and you just educated someone who for a while now wanted to know the difference and how they work.
So thanks for the thread I appreciate it and you just educated someone who for a while now wanted to know the difference and how they work.
02-22-2006, 09:21 PM
#57
Banned
SL Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 143
Charade, I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I would like you to point out any remarks that I made that you deem incorrect. The main point of enginfeers post that I claimed was incorrect was the oversimplification of the relationship between power, torque, and rpm. I would bet he actually knew what he was talking about, but the manner in which he stated it could have been better. See my later post, about 2/3 way down the second page. I'll admit my degree is in Electrical Engineering, not physics or mech, though I have a strong background in both, and the math requirements for an engineering degree at my school exceed most.
As far as this goes, I admit I am no expert on the output of the 2ZZ overseas. However, from what I'm seeing on toyota's page, the european celica puts out 192 hp DIN. Europe hasn't, and very well might not adopt the new SAE standard, which tends to show lower outputs than earlier standards. I'm sure it does make more power, however, due to relaxed emissions (just not the 12 hp the numbers suggest).
Once again, I'm not trying to start anything here, and you find any errors in my previous posts, please let me know so I can correct them, I'm not trying to misinform anyone
Well maybe cause i'm not american, I think in the output figures that the celica produces from japan (195ps). And FYI, I could probably direct you to at least 2 other 2ZZ engines that put out 190hp or more
Once again, I'm not trying to start anything here, and you find any errors in my previous posts, please let me know so I can correct them, I'm not trying to misinform anyone
02-22-2006, 09:41 PM
#58
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by kungpaosamuraiii
Aside from power, gearing is everything. Gearing governs how much tq can get to the ground and how it is applied.
Everything needs to work together in order to go fast. Each aspect is as important as the next but each in different ways.
Everything needs to work together in order to go fast. Each aspect is as important as the next but each in different ways.
Take two cars with identical specs, only one has 300whp and the other has 270whp. The 300whp car has stock gearing and trans, the 270whp car has slightly built tranny with a closer ratio gearing for 1st-5th or 1st-6th..take your pick. If the the car with less power has aggressive enough gearing, it is possible for the 270whp to win over the 300whp.
But, aside from everything that is needed, the single most important factor is the driver.
I really don't understand why this thread is even in existance still. No one is really saying anything different from the last person, and everyone can point who says something false.
02-22-2006, 10:06 PM
#60
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by hahaitzskippy
we are not here to talk about gearing.. it was a HP and TQ thread. stop including the topic of gearing