Torque vs. HP Analogy: Tommy Gun v. M-15

seanw

Member
:
2006 Titanium Gray MS6
Sorry if this is old news, but I've seen threads where people said they asked engineering professors about the difference between torque and horsepower and couldn't get a good answer. Anyway, I was out running the other morning thinking about this and some good imagery came to me that helped me understand it. At least I think so. You all can let me know if I'm wrong. After all, my math isn't the greatest and my physics is limited to a semester of Physics for Poets in college. Some clown on mazda6club.com said I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I thought I try it out here and see what the response is. Here goes.

Engine torque is a measure how much explosive force is being transmitted through however many pistons and rods an engine has in order to turn the crankshaft through one complete engine cycle. In the MS6/3 it's 280 ft/lbs, meaning the force generated by one engine cycle is enough to lob a one pound weight 280 feet or move a 280 pound weight one foot. Peak torque comes when the engine is running at maximum efficiency for each cycle. You can increase torque by adding more cylinders, or by boosting air pressure and/or compression to get more force from each explosion.

Horsepower is the measure of an engine's ability to do work when an engine is running at a given number of cycles per minute (rpms). By adding this time dimension, you get a measurement of the power that adds together the force of x number of cycles. Maximum horsepower is reached at the point where the positive effect of adding any additional cycles per minute is overcome by the negative effect of decreases in the efficiency of each individual cycle. You increase horsepower by doing things that allow the engine to add more cycles per minute while maintaining at least a minimum level of efficiency for each individual cycle.

Now for the visualization. Tommy gun vs. M-15. An engine that has high torque relative to it's horsepower is like a tommy gun. It delivers a heavy load of lead in each shot, but it cannot fire off as many shots per minute. An engine that has high horsepower relative to its torque is like an M-15. Each shot carries a smaller load of lead, but it can fire off a lot more shots per minute than the tommy gun. When you add up the total amount of lead that's been fired, the higher horsepower engine wins every time. But, to me the rhythm is a lot less pleasant. I'll take the tommy gun any day.
 
Last edited:
cheapmiata1600 said:
You're on the right track, although you're making it a little to complicated.

Torque = work
Horsepower = work over time

Thanks, anyway. I guess the post was just too long. If you read it, you can see I understand but want to get past the simple, forumulaic statements. These statements, whether based on science/engineering or mechanic's/tuner's dogma, have never really helped me to understand the torqe/horsepower differences and trade-offs between engines and what causes them.

The analogy helped me to visualize and synthesize the formulas and the things I'd heard and read over the years. If the analogy is on the right/wrong track or if my conclusions about what causes peak torque/hp are right/wrong, I'd be interested to hear that. But I don't need to hear the formulas/dogmas again.
 
seanw said:
Sorry if this is old news, but I've seen threads where people said they asked engineering professors about the difference between torque and horsepower and couldn't get a good answer. Anyway, I was out running the other morning thinking about this and some good imagery came to me that helped me understand it. At least I think so. You all can let me know if I'm wrong. After all, my math isn't the greatest and my physics is limited to a semester of Physics for Poets in college. Some clown on mazda6club.com said I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I thought I try it out here and see what the response is. Here goes.

Engine torque is a measure how much explosive force is being transmitted through however many pistons and rods an engine has in order to turn the crankshaft through one complete engine cycle. In the MS6/3 it's 280 ft/lbs, meaning the force generated by one engine cycle is enough to lob a one pound weight 280 feet or move a 280 pound weight one foot. Peak torque comes when the engine is running at maximum efficiency for each cycle. You can increase torque by adding more cylinders, or by boosting air pressure and/or compression to get more force from each explosion.

Horsepower is the measure of an engine's ability to do work when an engine is running at a given number of cycles per minute (rpms). By adding this time dimension, you get a measurement of the power that adds together the force of x number of cycles. Maximum horsepower is reached at the point where the positive effect of adding any additional cycles per minute is overcome by the negative effect of decreases in the efficiency of each individual cycle. You increase horsepower by doing things that allow the engine to add more cycles per minute while maintaining at least a minimum level of efficiency for each individual cycle.

Now for the visualization. Tommy gun vs. M-15. An engine that has high torque relative to it's horsepower is like a tommy gun. It delivers a heavy load of lead in each shot, but it cannot fire off as many shots per minute. An engine that has high horsepower relative to its torque is like an M-15. Each shot carries a smaller load of lead, but it can fire off a lot more shots per minute than the tommy gun. When you add up the total amount of lead that's been fired, the higher horsepower engine wins every time. But, to me the rhythm is a lot less pleasant. I'll take the tommy gun any day.

Seanw,

I like the analogy. (first) It helps to clarify things for us visual learners. I tried to discuss this topic at mazda6club.com previously as well, but my lack of technical knowledge was frowned upon...LOL!

R
 
Last edited:
Rainman said:
Seanw,

I like the analogy. (first) It helps to clarify things for us visual learners. I tried to discuss this topic at mazda6club.com previously as well, but my lack of techinical knowledge was frowned upon...LOL!

R

Thanks, bro. I could use a little support from the non-technical crowd. Actually, I like to hear what technical people have to say. But, I don't like to hear from the people who are at best pseudo-technical but really just regurgitating the stuff they've swallowed over the years without really thinking about it.
 
Had somebody 'splain it to me this way once:

Horsepower sells cars.

Torque wins races.

And having fired both the Tommy Gun and the M-16, gimme the Tommy any day of the week ...

seanw said:
Sorry if this is old news, but I've seen threads where people said they asked engineering professors about the difference between torque and horsepower and couldn't get a good answer. Anyway, I was out running the other morning thinking about this and some good imagery came to me that helped me understand it. At least I think so. You all can let me know if I'm wrong. After all, my math isn't the greatest and my physics is limited to a semester of Physics for Poets in college. Some clown on mazda6club.com said I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I thought I try it out here and see what the response is. Here goes.

Engine torque is a measure how much explosive force is being transmitted through however many pistons and rods an engine has in order to turn the crankshaft through one complete engine cycle. In the MS6/3 it's 280 ft/lbs, meaning the force generated by one engine cycle is enough to lob a one pound weight 280 feet or move a 280 pound weight one foot. Peak torque comes when the engine is running at maximum efficiency for each cycle. You can increase torque by adding more cylinders, or by boosting air pressure and/or compression to get more force from each explosion.

Horsepower is the measure of an engine's ability to do work when an engine is running at a given number of cycles per minute (rpms). By adding this time dimension, you get a measurement of the power that adds together the force of x number of cycles. Maximum horsepower is reached at the point where the positive effect of adding any additional cycles per minute is overcome by the negative effect of decreases in the efficiency of each individual cycle. You increase horsepower by doing things that allow the engine to add more cycles per minute while maintaining at least a minimum level of efficiency for each individual cycle.

Now for the visualization. Tommy gun vs. M-15. An engine that has high torque relative to it's horsepower is like a tommy gun. It delivers a heavy load of lead in each shot, but it cannot fire off as many shots per minute. An engine that has high horsepower relative to its torque is like an M-15. Each shot carries a smaller load of lead, but it can fire off a lot more shots per minute than the tommy gun. When you add up the total amount of lead that's been fired, the higher horsepower engine wins every time. But, to me the rhythm is a lot less pleasant. I'll take the tommy gun any day.
 
Mgkdrgn said:
Had somebody 'splain it to me this way once:

Horsepower sells cars.

Torque wins races.

And having fired both the Tommy Gun and the M-16, gimme the Tommy any day of the week ...

Hmm, M-16, not M-15 . . . prompts a little google search . . . apparently should have done this before posting. While the Tommy gun does have a higher caliber (.45), it has about the same rate of fire (750 rounds per minute) as the M-14 (.308 caliber) and the M-16 (.233 caliber) and would therefore deliver more lead per minute. I couldn't even find a rate of fire for the M-15 since it seems to have seen little use. So, how about a Browning M2 standing for high relative torque (.50 caliber, 550 rpm) vs. a Tommy Gun standing in for high relative hp? Jeez, now I have figure out how much lead each can fire per minute to see if the analogy will still work. Alright, just for argument's sake, assume that the amount of lead in each bullet is directly proportional to the caliber. The M2's lead delivery factor is .5 x 550 or 275. The Tommy Gun's is .45 x 750 or 33.75. There, I think the analogy works! Now all I have to do is try it out on a weapons forum . . . . maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Back