|
G-MAN is correct, with the formula; those of you who are arguing with him, whether you know it or not, are just playing word games. Without torque, there is no horsepower. AND without RPM, there is no horsepower (as in, a thousand pound torque on a shaft that doesn't turn...since there's no motion--rpm--there's no horsepower). And the NASCAR example...those cars DO make torque as well as horsepower; just not as MUCH torque at lower RPM's. EVERY reciprocating engine produces torque--or rotational force--and every reciprocating engine produces horsepower, by definition. To answer the question that precipitated all this discussion, a high-lift set of rocker arms keeps the valve open longer AND at a higher lift; this allows for more of the air/fuel mixture to enter the cylinder on the intake stroke (assuming the intake runner has sufficient volume to take advantage, and not restrict airflow). This provides a denser mixture in the cylinder upon compression (i.e., higher cylinder pressures), which, under complete combustion, SHOULD provide a bigger "BANG" when the plug fires (more fuel + more air = bigger explosion). And the increased rocker arm ratio on the exhaust valves allows more time AND more valve opening for the expanded combustion gases to escape from the cylinder on the exhaust stroke (making a parallel assumption about the volume of the exhaust runner that we made about the intake runner, above). Therefore, AT A GIVEN RPM, the torque will have increased, because of the higher cylinder pressure achieved against the piston top as a result of combustion; and, by definition, and using the formula G-MAN gave us, AT THIS PARTICULAR RPM, horsepower will have increased. This is simple physics and math; it doesn't require a knowledge of calculus, differential equations, or quantum mechanics. And I'm by NO means a know-it-all; I just stayed awake in high school.
|
