What is Torgue
#46
01-22-2012, 04:53 PM
Do you think you could find a 183 CID motor in the sixties that had 300lb/ft at 1400rpms? And 300HP? And 10.2 CR?
Or 195 CID with 330 hp at 7900 RPM?
BTW:
My dream car is a 65-67 Ford 2 door Fairlane GT, with the 390 HO.
I have also read they came with the 429 cobra jet
It's a dream alright, as those did not exist. There is no "390 HO". The Failane got the 390 in '66, but it was such a pooch* it was beaten like a redhead stepchild by 396 Chevs and 383 Mopars. Hence, the 427 Fairlane. The 429 CJ did not exist in '65-'67.
And this:
....what idiot came up with putting a V6 in a mustang?
Well, the 4.0 SOHC V6 is a noisy turd and has it's problems, but it ran the quarter in 15.3 and 0-60 in 6.9. A 1967 390 Mustang pulled 7.3 to 60, but at least it ran quicker in the quarter at 15.2. (I know, put some decent tires on the '67 and it would suck the headlights out of the V6)
Having driven both, I'd take the '67 with the 390, just for the investment....and the torque pushing at your lower back when you nudge the throttle.
*pooch in stock form, relative to the others listed. I'd love to have one.
Or 195 CID with 330 hp at 7900 RPM?
BTW:
My dream car is a 65-67 Ford 2 door Fairlane GT, with the 390 HO.
I have also read they came with the 429 cobra jetIt's a dream alright, as those did not exist. There is no "390 HO". The Failane got the 390 in '66, but it was such a pooch* it was beaten like a redhead stepchild by 396 Chevs and 383 Mopars. Hence, the 427 Fairlane. The 429 CJ did not exist in '65-'67.
And this:
....what idiot came up with putting a V6 in a mustang?
Well, the 4.0 SOHC V6 is a noisy turd and has it's problems, but it ran the quarter in 15.3 and 0-60 in 6.9. A 1967 390 Mustang pulled 7.3 to 60, but at least it ran quicker in the quarter at 15.2. (I know, put some decent tires on the '67 and it would suck the headlights out of the V6)
Having driven both, I'd take the '67 with the 390, just for the investment....and the torque pushing at your lower back when you nudge the throttle.
*pooch in stock form, relative to the others listed. I'd love to have one.
#48
01-22-2012, 05:02 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Calverton
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#49
01-22-2012, 06:50 PM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North Ga Mtns
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHat are you taking about?
1st, you are saying there is nothing with torque these days.
Now you are saying that there is not enough vehicle with torque.
You have to keep things in perspective. Muscle care were the thing to have in the 60s. Today, not so much.And the REAL muscle cars of today make MORE HP AND torque than the ones from the 60s.
But DIESEL trucks are the thing to have and they make MORE HP and MORE torque that the 60s muscle cars, get 15-20MPG doing it and can tow 4 muscle cars. Just because the muscle car era died doesnt mean torque has
1st, you are saying there is nothing with torque these days.
Now you are saying that there is not enough vehicle with torque.
You have to keep things in perspective. Muscle care were the thing to have in the 60s. Today, not so much.And the REAL muscle cars of today make MORE HP AND torque than the ones from the 60s.
But DIESEL trucks are the thing to have and they make MORE HP and MORE torque that the 60s muscle cars, get 15-20MPG doing it and can tow 4 muscle cars. Just because the muscle car era died doesnt mean torque has
#50
01-22-2012, 06:56 PM
If were talking diesels there awsome for throwing peformance at them and getting better results, suchs as mpg then gas motors, But if your talking about todays muscle vs classic muscle well hands down for me is classic. Sure todays cars can do some amazing things with these cars but theres something that charges me up about a carbed motor, the feel of the car when you drive it and that smell of raw fuel nothing beats that. I have had a modern day car that I did performance too and it was fun to drive but its nothing like my 63 falcon. The power I can make with it and the feel of driving it is much more satisfying for me then a modern motor where im limited to a computer and Hp numbers.
#51
01-22-2012, 07:01 PM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North Ga Mtns
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is torque today but it is nothing like the flat torque curves of those engine's produced from the early 60's through the early 70's, they were insane. They were the reason that we have mandatory car insurance today. There was no insurence needed by law back then till these engines appeared, and people were killing themeselves and others with those heavy cars.
Take the 409 for example the combustion chamber was in the upper part of the cylinder, not the head, the head having only tiny recesses for the valves. They did this by combining the use of a cylinder head deck that was not perpendicular to the bore with a crowned piston, as it aproched tdc, the angle of the crown combined with that of the head deck to form a wedge shaped combustion chamber with a pronounced quench. The spark plug protruded vertically into this chamber, which tended to cause a rapidly moving flame front during combustion.
torque developed at low and high engine speeds, resulting in an engine with a broad torque curve, its just not the same with todays engines, and you would need to feel them to understand I think.
Take the 409 for example the combustion chamber was in the upper part of the cylinder, not the head, the head having only tiny recesses for the valves. They did this by combining the use of a cylinder head deck that was not perpendicular to the bore with a crowned piston, as it aproched tdc, the angle of the crown combined with that of the head deck to form a wedge shaped combustion chamber with a pronounced quench. The spark plug protruded vertically into this chamber, which tended to cause a rapidly moving flame front during combustion.
torque developed at low and high engine speeds, resulting in an engine with a broad torque curve, its just not the same with todays engines, and you would need to feel them to understand I think.
....well put
#52
01-22-2012, 07:16 PM
If were talking diesels there awsome for throwing peformance at them and getting better results, suchs as mpg then gas motors, But if your talking about todays muscle vs classic muscle well hands down for me is classic. Sure todays cars can do some amazing things with these cars but theres something that charges me up about a carbed motor, the feel of the car when you drive it and that smell of raw fuel nothing beats that. I have had a modern day car that I did performance too and it was fun to drive but its nothing like my 63 falcon. The power I can make with it and the feel of driving it is much more satisfying for me then a modern motor where im limited to a computer and Hp numbers.
#54
01-22-2012, 07:31 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conway, South Carolina
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW:
My dream car is a 65-67 Ford 2 door Fairlane GT, with the 390 HO.
I have also read they came with the 429 cobra jetIt's a dream alright, as those did not exist. There is no "390 HO". The Failane got the 390 in '66, but it was such a pooch* it was beaten like a redhead stepchild by 396 Chevs and 383 Mopars. Hence, the 427 Fairlane. The 429 CJ did not exist in '65-'67.
.
Also the reason I said 1965-1967 Fairlane is because that my favorite body style. And I still want one. Lol
#57
01-22-2012, 08:50 PM
I would agree with whomever said the cars of yesteryear had broader torque curves as compared to cars of today, but, today we have transmissions that shift far more intelligently and that can easily compensate for a narrower torque curve just by having the opportunity to be in the right gear at the right time - especially since these days, automatics have more gears to choose from. Sometimes five, even six.
That wasn't so easy with three gears.
That wasn't so easy with three gears.
#58
01-22-2012, 09:14 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conway, South Carolina
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with whomever said the cars of yesteryear had broader torque curves as compared to cars of today, but, today we have transmissions that shift far more intelligently and that can easily compensate for a narrower torque curve just by having the opportunity to be in the right gear at the right time - especially since these days, automatics have more gears to choose from. Sometimes five, even six.
That wasn't so easy with three gears.
That wasn't so easy with three gears.
#59
01-22-2012, 09:57 PM
#60
01-22-2012, 10:02 PM
I'd imagine that would make it more fun to drive. Automatics are as much fun as a golf cart.
I agree with the notion that modern engines are boring. For a lot ot new cars I am considering buying someday, I cannot get published FPT numbers because "torque" is not a term a lot of people use today, especially the ricers that everyone my age tries to be like.
In its most basic terms, horsepower is just a measure of how fast an engine can burn gasoline. No relation to how hard it can twist an axle.
I agree with the notion that modern engines are boring. For a lot ot new cars I am considering buying someday, I cannot get published FPT numbers because "torque" is not a term a lot of people use today, especially the ricers that everyone my age tries to be like.
In its most basic terms, horsepower is just a measure of how fast an engine can burn gasoline. No relation to how hard it can twist an axle.