Date:         Wed, 23 May 2007 00:01:44 -0400
Reply-To:     Sudhir Desai <sudhir.desai@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Sudhir Desai <sudhir.desai@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: 102mph - Turbo vs. 6-cylinder
Comments: To: Pensioner <al_knoll@pacbell.net>
In-Reply-To:  <HHEAJIOMDPBGGCKHACGJIEPMCLAA.al_knoll@pacbell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Semper ubi sububi. (I think that one fits in there as well) :D
Happy Wednesday!

Sudhir

On 5/22/07, Pensioner <al_knoll@pacbell.net> wrote:
> It's not peak torque we brick drivers are seeking, it's a broad range of
> usable torque.
>
> If you look at the torque vs rpm curves for most turbocharged 1.8/2.5 litre
> motors you will notice the peakiness of the curve.  If you look at the SVX
> torque curve it shows >180lbs-ft from 1500RPM to above 6000RPM with a peak
> around 235/240lbs-ft at around 4400RPM.  Smooth and flattish.  Just what you
> need for a 5000lb truck.
>
> Now if we had a constant 200lbs-ft from 1000 to 15000 rpm we could do with a
> two speed transmission.  (ref Jim Hall, Chaparral MK2).
>
> The only valid reason to have multiple speed transmissions is to allow one
> to remain within the usable torque range of the powerplant.  Or since the
> Corvette NEEDS a six speed to enhance one's virility and reduce one's guilt,
> a second reason arises, desire or because you WANT one.  And now that you
> HAVE one at exhorbitant financial and energy cost, you're mad as hell
> because you're stuck in 20mph traffic with your
> 50000USD/600BHP/160MPH/13MPG@3.75 per gallon enhanced virility blingy
> thingy.
>
> If you want to ride the bullet train, you gotta buy the ticket.
>
> De gustibus non disputandum est.
>
> p
>