Unexpected side effect from the talk here.

[fastpakr]

I was exaggerating to make a point.

Yes you can "fake" torque with gearing but it doesnt change the fact that the engine with more torque is still gonna get more done regardless of gearing.

The only way that you can make this statement is by not comprehending how this works.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Rusty is just about to blow a fuse...

I dont have fuses.

I have gum wrapper jammed in the slot so i dont blow i just catch fire.

 

[Uncle Gump]

FIRE!!!!

 

[rusty ol ranger]

The only way that you can make this statement is by not comprehending how this works.

I understand perfectly how it works. Fake was the wrong word i guess. But it dont change the fact regardless of what gears you wanna use the torquier engine is still going to be stronger.

Fuel burns, pops the piston which pushes the rod which turns the crank. Turning force is literally torque.

 

[8thTon]

But it dont change the fact regardless of what gears you wanna use the torquier engine is still going to be stronger.

Without knowing something about the shape of the power curve away from the power peak, this statement is simply flat out wrong. Given the same power I can make the torque whatever I want with gears.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

This is just a cute expression you like because it supports your desired conclusion, there is no science behind it at all. Power is what does work, and it’s the shape of the power curve that matters. Torque is just something convenient to measure on the way to figuring out power.

Horsepower isn't everything.

I don't know the best way about it or how it really works but you can't go by one or the other. Best thing I have found is to note both and kinda see how it shakes out in the real world.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Without knowing something about the shape of the power curve away from the power peak, this statement is simply flat out wrong. Given the same power I can make the torque whatever I want with gears.

Unless your torque curve looks like this....

^

What i said holds true.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Horsepower isn't everything.

I don't know the best way about it or how it really works but you can't go by one or the other. Best thing I have found is to note both and kinda see how it shakes out in the real world.

In the real world torque wins.

 

[fastpakr]

-Available- power wins.

If you spend your entire time at 1500RPM, then the engine that makes the most at that point will win.

If you are willing to shift appropriately, the engine that makes the most at the RPM you choose to shift to will win.

Most of us (and any automatic transmission) will shift logically to get the most available power at any given time.

If you refuse to do so and will only acknowledge the power available below a certain RPM, then yes - by your own self imposed limitations you will appreciate one engine over the other.

Large/heavy vehicles use higher displacement engines because they need to rely on that power all the time, and hovering at high RPM for hours on end isn't necessarily efficient. For the rest of us that only need the power in bursts, there's essentially zero drawback to shifting to greater available power as needed.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

-Available- power wins.

If you spend your entire time at 1500RPM, then the engine that makes the most at that point will win.

If you are willing to shift appropriately, the engine that makes the most at the RPM you choose to shift to will win.

Most of us (and any automatic transmission) will shift logically to get the most available power at any given time.

If you refuse to do so and will only acknowledge the power available below a certain RPM, then yes - by your own self imposed limitations you will appreciate one engine over the other.

Large/heavy vehicles use higher displacement engines because they need to rely on that power all the time, and hovering at high RPM for hours on end isn't necessarily efficient. For the rest of us that only need the power in bursts, there's essentially zero drawback to shifting to greater available power as needed.

Besides the fact that screaming up a hill at 5000rpm is not exactly the fountain of youth for your engine.

I get what your saying but as it pertains to the original thread its not even a point seeing as how both engines will be shifted at roughly the same point.

The point im trying to make is the 2.9 is stronger then the 3.0 below 3500 and just as strong (or very close) above it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Besides the fact that screaming up a hill at 5000rpm is not exactly the fountain of youth for your engine

Lugging an engine is harder on it FWIW.

 

[fastpakr]

Besides the fact that screaming up a hill at 5000rpm is not exactly the fountain of youth for your engine.

And yet engines have been doing this and surviving it for hundreds of thousands of miles for decades now. We're not talking about spending hours at these levels, but seconds or minutes.

I get what your saying but as it pertains to the original thread its not even a point seeing as how both engines will be shifted at roughly the same point.

Only if you refuse to engage your brain while driving.

The point im trying to make is the 2.9 is stronger then the 3.0 below 3500 and just as strong (or very close) above it.

Yes, it makes a bit more below 3500 and a bit less above. The point the rest of us are saying is that the difference is irrelevant when they're each driven appropriately.

 

[Curious Hound]

Why do I keep visiting this thread? It’s like picking a scab. It hurts a little bit, doesn’t do any good, little bit messy, kind of embarrassing if anyone sees you do it and it’s not productive in any way. But I just can’t seem to stop.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

And yet engines have been doing this and surviving it for hundreds of thousands of miles for decades now. We're not talking about spending hours at these levels, but seconds or minutes.

Its still cringeworthy and pointless. Old engines could do it at sane RPMs why cant the new ones?

Only if you refuse to engage your brain while driving.

A 2.9 drops off power at 5k, a 3.0 isnt going to be far off that. So theres not really a point here.

Yes, it makes a bit more below 3500 and a bit less above. The point the rest of us are saying is that the difference is irrelevant when they're each driven appropriately.

The fact of the matter is a 2.9 will walk a 3.0 all else being equal

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Why do I keep visiting this thread? It’s like picking a scab. It hurts a little bit, doesn’t do any good, little bit messy, kind of embarrassing if anyone sees you do it and it’s not productive in any way. But I just can’t seem to stop.