BurninateZ
Well-Known Member
~600 ft-lbs is low?They went full baller status on it. Many upgrades to get 719 whp 592 wtq.
I wonder why torque is so low?
I guess you're asking why it peaks at 6k RPM rather than earlier & higher?
~600 ft-lbs is low?They went full baller status on it. Many upgrades to get 719 whp 592 wtq.
I wonder why torque is so low?
I’m asking why its so low compared to the 719 whp. For example my Supra is at 480 whp but makes 620 wtq. I would have figured torque would be at or above the horsepower output.~600 ft-lbs is low?
I guess you're asking why it peaks at 6k RPM rather than earlier & higher?
Given HP is just torque (in ft-lbs) x RPM divided by 5252, the differences are going to be down to when peak torque arrives and how its sustained into higher revs. The Z build will be hitting peak torque later than your Supra for example. There would be a myriad of reasons why, e.g. differences in turbo design, bore/stroke ratio, etc.I’m asking why its so low compared to the 719 whp. For example my Supra is at 480 whp but makes 620 wtq. I would have figured torque would be at or above the horsepower output.
-RJM
Usually, the reason given for some engines being relatively low torque high revvers is valve timing overlap. Especially true with the VQ.There would be a myriad of reasons why, e.g. differences in turbo design, bore/stroke ratio, etc.
I don’t know too much about the VQ platform. Its all interesting info.Usually, the reason given for some engines being relatively low torque high revvers is valve timing overlap. Especially true with the VQ.
Yep they said it's stock and they think it's still got a lot of life in it at that power levelI didnt read back far enough to notice but is the trans stock? That would be my assumption why the TQ is low. Cant handle anything more.