First, here's the formula for calculating horsepower:

(Torque (ft/lbs) X RPM) / 5252 = Horsepower

So let's imagine a cute little 100 cubic inch engine; it's an OHV design and produces about 100 ft/lbs of torque and redlines at 4,500 RPM. That's about a 72 HP engine; nothing special.

OK, let's redesign the valve train and make it a DOHC engine. Same displacement, but the DOHC design allows the engine to rev higher. Now the redline is at 7.000 RPM - but it's still producing 100 ft/lbs of torque; that's tied to the displacment. Now it's a 150 HP engine - but does it give you twice the performance of the OHV design? Not really...

That 150 HP is only developed in a narrow RPM band close to redline; at low RPMS it doesn't work any better than the OHV design. It sure looks good on paper, though - and if you actually drive with the tach at 6,500 it'll be nice and peppy. Unfortuntely, at more normal operating conditons it's only a little better than the old pushrod design.

For a quick example, the 4.9 Caddy V8 produces 200 HP. The Honda s2000 I4 also produces 200 HP. That's the ratings, and technically they're accurate.

However, when you're pulling away from the line at 2000 RPM the Caddy engine is producing 4 times the HP that the Honda engine produces under the same conditions. This is what real world performance is made of - which engine do you think is faster?

What's the point in comparing apples and oranges? The Caddy engine was built to haul a 2-ton plus land yacht in a straight line. The Honda engine was built to scream up high in performance situations, mated to (preferably) a manual trans. Purpose built, in other words. In fact, Honda re-designed that engine for '04 because very few people could appreciate the capability of the engine at high revs.

Put the 4.9 in the Honda. Then you have something.

I hope you understand that the rpm equation is not maximum rpm (otherwise known as redline) but in fact the rpm that torque is at it's maximum.

In our 2.8l fieros, we produce, what? 170lb.ft. torque at 4400 rpm. that equates to 748000. Divide that by 5252 and you end up with 142.4 hp. That sounds about right to me. Know, I took those figures off the top of my head, but you guys get the picture...

I just read an article in Road & Track on the new Maxda RX8. They had to launch the car at 7500 rpm to turn a half respectable 1/4 mile time of 14.5 A gutless wonder if you ask me.

------------------
I live my life a quarter-pounder at a time. And for those 500 calories or more, I am free. There she is, 2 pounds of pure beef. My dad ate it in 9.0 seconds flat.

Torque wins races

That equation is for HP at a particular RPM. To get HP you have to know the torque at that exact RPM, torque is not constant throughout the RPM range. That is why you can have some engines that actually lose HP after a certain RPM

Excellent discussion and very valid points made by all.
All that and no flame war, it doesn't get any better. +'s for all.

quote Originally posted by Bobert: Excellent discussion and very valid points made by all. All that and no flame war, it doesn't get any better. +'s for all.

Don't get ahead of yourself. There's only been 5 posts.

You've left out that the modern multivalve engine probably has variable cam timing so it's making the torque down low and the horsepower up high. Early 4 valve engines suffered from losses in bottom end torque, just about anything built in the last 5 years has variable cam timing, variable intake runners, etc.. all to widen up and raise that power band while running cleaner and using less fuel when not under full load. It's not just about shifting the power band anymore, it's all about making it wider. Check out all the technology in the latest variants of the Ecotec, this stuff is even making it to the Mustang's V-8 for next year. The Modular 4.6 is getting variable cam timing for 300hp out of the BASE engine.

Optimism Sqoach, optimism...

edit: + for you too.

[This message has been edited by Bobert (edited 01-01-2004).]

Me - quad 4, 180hp, 160lb/ft of torque, 5 speed.

Other guy - 2.8 V6, 130hp, 170lb/ft of torque, 5 speed.

Both Fiero's. From a stoplight, he pulls. I end up about at his bumper. By the time I get through the middle of second gear I'm pulling past and top of 2nd (about 65-70mph) I'm ahead.

Good illustration about the differences between torque and hp, methinks. And DOHC vs. OHV.

Of course, this web page does a much better job at actaully telling you why a DOHC is better than an OHV:
http://www.billzilla.org/2v4v.htm

------------------

1988 Quad 4 Coupe 5 speed click for more pics
1986 GT 5 speed
AOL: LastMinuteBastrd AIM: SavedbyJebus

One thing I've tested is two identical cars, with the same horsepower, but different torque curves... The one with more torque ends up crossing the 1/4 mile first. Could just be that the initial "hookup" determines the whole race, I don't know. Maybe someone else can make a conjecture..

quote Originally posted by banditbalz: I hope you understand that the rpm equation is not maximum rpm (otherwise known as redline) but in fact the rpm that torque is at it's maximum.

In almost all cases, the torque peak comes at or nearly at redline; engine designs are so carefully calculated these days that you'll usually reach the "breathing" limit just before the "fly apart" limit. But the torque curve is a different thing (and something that that manufacturers resist providing). Rather than consider the peak torque, consider something more useful to real world driving - torque at 1500 to 2500 RPM where you do most of your driving. If you check these specs you'll quickly discover that there's a big difference in the way OHV and DOHC engines perform.

The point I'm trying to make is that the rated HP number may not (and these days, usually doesn't) translate directly to performance.

And I'm not suggesting that DOHC technology is a bad thing; my daily driver has a DOHC V6 and I like it well enough. Something I've learned, though - if it's not turning at least 3500 RPM it isn't producing much power at all...

quote Originally posted by Whuffo: First, here's the formula for calculating horsepower: (Torque (ft/lbs) X RPM) / 5252 = Horsepower So let's imagine a cute little 100 cubic inch engine; it's an OHV design and produces about 100 ft/lbs of torque and redlines at 4,500 RPM. That's about a 72 HP engine; nothing special. OK, let's redesign the valve train and make it a DOHC engine. Same displacement, but the DOHC design allows the engine to rev higher. Now the redline is at 7.000 RPM - but it's still producing 100 ft/lbs of torque; that's tied to the displacment. Now it's a 150 HP engine - but does it give you twice the performance of the OHV design? Not really... That 150 HP is only developed in a narrow RPM band close to redline; at low RPMS it doesn't work any better than the OHV design. It sure looks good on paper, though - and if you actually drive with the tach at 6,500 it'll be nice and peppy. Unfortuntely, at more normal operating conditons it's only a little better than the old pushrod design. For a quick example, the 4.9 Caddy V8 produces 200 HP. The Honda s2000 I4 also produces 200 HP. That's the ratings, and technically they're accurate. However, when you're pulling away from the line at 2000 RPM the Caddy engine is producing 4 times the HP that the Honda engine produces under the same conditions. This is what real world performance is made of - which engine do you think is faster?

But you can't drive them the same.. Why would the guy in the Honda be pulling away at 2000rpm..

Edited for grammar even I couldn't understand..

[This message has been edited by JohnnyK (edited 01-01-2004).]

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: One thing I've tested is two identical cars, with the same horsepower, but different torque curves... The one with more torque ends up crossing the 1/4 mile first. Could just be that the initial "hookup" determines the whole race, I don't know. Maybe someone else can make a conjecture..

WAAAYY too many generalizations here by people who aren't considering half the factors involved... I'll pick on this one because it's easy.

Power is power, whether at 1000 RPM or 10,000 RPM, power is power. Two guys with their '69 Camaros decide that they want more performance. They both go with T56 transmissions, but one drops in a 450 HP 383, and the other builds himself a free spinning, solid roller 450 HP 327. Mr. 327 recognizes that he doesn't have the torque to pull Mr. 383 if he has the same rear end ratio. So while Mr. 383 is satisfied with his 3.42 rear, Mr. 327 drops in a 4.10 and wins the race. Why? He had less torque. How can he win with less torque? He won because engine torque doesn't matter. Wheel torque is what matters. The steeper rear gear gave Mr. 327 a slight edge in rear wheel torque over Mr. 383.

So power is power, so long as you don't have a 327 in a car set up for a 383.

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Northstar, Getrag, TGP wheels, rear sway bar, rod end links, bushings, etc.
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: Leaking ABS unit fixed, load levelling rear suspension fixed, still slow

What I'd like to know now is how the pushrod 3.4 comes stock with 160hp and the DOHC 3.4 comes with 210 out of the box. For engines with the same displacement, that seems like a considerable advantage with the DOHC set up.

quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: What I'd like to know now is how the pushrod 3.4 comes stock with 160hp and the DOHC 3.4 comes with 210 out of the box. For engines with the same displacement, that seems like a considerable advantage with the DOHC set up.

Head Flow. The iron heads suck.

I had a friend that was very successfull at drag racing(a pro sponsors and all). His point was torque not HP wins races. However, as was stated, you haveto look at more then just the engin. all things being equal ( hp, final drive, transmission(auto/manual) weight of car stuff like that the one with the most torque will win. BUT, improve any of the above proformance features and , well it is self evadent. We all want to say "My Car has more HP/Torque? exaust sound etc, than yours". I don't care anymore. I want to get there first. Or even second if it is a good race. The point for most of us is: at the stop light , who gets off the line first and gets to the next stop light first!! Geme a lot of "torque to the street"!
Frank

From my understanding, and this is the way I look at it from my brief drag racing experience, torque gets you thru the first half of the quarter mile and then horsepower pulls you thru the second half.

When considering torque and HP you also have to consider what you are driving. Torque is necessary for heavy cars, towing, hill climbing, and good for short distance acceleration. I would rather have more torque in my engine because of the nature of the roads I travel here in Pittsburgh. They are short, curved, and its all hills. For a high reving car, with little torque (I've driven the Honda Civic) they are a nightmare to travel as the engine has to constantly strain to move the car. My Grand Prix (3800 SC 280ftlb) moves effortlessly around. A friend recently test drove the new RX8 and reported that with its low torque it would be frustrating here in Pittsburgh on these hills.

------------------
87 Fiero GT (3.2 Turbo)
E-mail: davidfiero@hotmail.com
www.angelfire.com/pa5/davidfiero/

quote Originally posted by Will: WAAAYY too many generalizations here by people who aren't considering half the factors involved... I'll pick on this one because it's easy.

Okay, but I said having equal cars... Different ratio differential = cheating :P

Great stuff guys I agree with the person above somewhere. Toque is nice but won't win you most races. I have heard it mentioned alot that the 4.9 launches nice but dies out quickly. A turbo or nos can help extend its pwoer range to turn in a nice 1/4 mile time. I believe the S2000 would win in a 1/4 mile race because once you reach its power band it has more useable power. That is also why the Q4 beats the 2.8. They both make close to the same power but the Q4 makes it at a higher rpm thus giving you more speed once you are moving. Hp is calqulate using engine rpm. Thats also why bigger gears give faster times. The faster you accelerate the quicker you are over all. So the 4.9 lauches from the torque but cant keep accelerating once you are out of its torque band and falls on its nose. Where as the S2000 launces a little slower but once its at speed has the higer torque band to keep the car accelerating.

------------------
85 GT 4 speed 2.8L auto X'er

[This message has been edited by red85gt (edited 01-01-2004).]

this is the coolest thread i can remember reading in a long time! before i did any engine work to my V8 Miata, it was just a stock 5.0 with around 225hp and 220 torque. i was a little worries at a stop light because of a revving s2000 because i had heard that they had about 240hp! being that the s2000 was roughly the same size/weight as my miata i figured it would be a close loss for me.

For 3 stop lights we did stop and go racing, and i was surprized that that s2000 was such a slug, and being that we both had the tops down i could hear his high rev shifting. he knew how to drive his car. it just could not keep up! our top speed on the last long stretch got up to around 90 and he still was not gaining.

after i got home i checked the net for stats on the s2000 and found that the 240hp was @ 7800 rpms! and only 165 torque at 6000 rpms! Yuck! Where my 5.0 had 225 hp at 5000rpms and 220 torque at 3500 rpms.

thats when i learned about the importance of rpm peaks. this thread has tought me quite a bit more! +'s for all you guys, thanks

------------------
-Monkey

I'll put in my take on this. There is no winner here... This is why to the best of my understanding: Torque is the twisting force generated by the engine. Horsepower is calculated by finding out how much torque the engine produces. It is torque generated over time. In other words, if you have an engine that is capable of spinning 8 grand you make up for the actual twist because it takes less time to make the same torque. Also, from the repository of useless trivia, the reason why the 5252 number is in the calculation is that at 5252rpm the HP and torque numbers are the same, always for every engine.

------------------
1985 2m4 Sport coupe
1985 2m4 SE wrecked...
1985 2m4 SE in the process...
1986 2m6 SE for parts....

No one seems to be talking about weight. There is a rule of thumb that in order to wove twice the weight you need four times the horsepower. Today's lightweight engines AND cars are smaller and made of much more alloys, plastics, and composite materials. Did you know that an average Big Block engine NEEDS 70 more horsepower than a small block just to move its own additional weight?!

Most of these old engines were designed when cars weighed 4500 lbs and just needed power to cruise. Times have changed.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Okay, but I said having equal cars... Different ratio differential = cheating :P

Okay, so give both of Will's cars the same gearing and give them the 4.10 gear. The 327 is still going to win. They have the same gearing, is the high revver cheating or is it faster? Give them both the 3.42 gear and the 383 will win.

The point is that torque (power) curve can't be seperated from gearing because, as Will said, it's torque at the wheels that counts.

quote Originally posted by Whuffo: That 150 HP is only developed in a narrow RPM band close to redline; at low RPMS it doesn't work any better than the OHV design. <snip> However, when you're pulling away from the line at 2000 RPM the Caddy engine is producing 4 times the HP that the Honda engine produces under the same conditions. This is what real world performance is made of - which engine do you think is faster?

There are a couple of big assumptions in here. The first is that DOHC engines produce power "in a narrow RPM band close to redline." Just because you move the power band up doesn't mean that it gets narrower. The width of a power band is related to good design. The Fiero V6 powerband of 3500 - 5500 is equivalant width (63%) of a 5000 - 8000 powerband. With both cars geared to put down more max torque at the wheels they should perform equally.

The second big assumption is that "real world performance" means leaving a stoplight quicker.

More horsepower is better. Period. More specifically, average HP across your powerband.

Having gears spaced appropriately to keep the motor in the powerband is always necessary. Note that on the S2000 update Honda also changed the gear ratios slightly.

Read this: http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

------------------
Doug Chase
Chase Race
Custom roll cage and exhaust fabrication

quote Originally posted by Doug Chase: Okay, so give both of Will's cars the same gearing and give them the 4.10 gear. The 327 is still going to win. They have the same gearing, is the high revver cheating or is it faster? Give them both the 3.42 gear and the 383 will win. The point is that torque (power) curve can't be seperated from gearing because, as Will said, it's torque at the wheels that counts.

Okay question for you... would it be faster because it takes more shifts for the torquey (is that a word?) 383, or because of wheelspin, or some other factor?

I realize gearing plays a important role in the discussion. However, there are very few cars that have a ideal gearing setup. Therfore, I prefer to stick with the motor aspect of the discussion.

A point missing is, most daily driving does not allow the drivers to rev consistently at 6000 plus rpms. Therefore, the full power/potential of high reving engines CANNOT be utilized. However, the 4.9's power is there from idle and can be used at will. And it is plenty fast enough to get you in trouble with the local authorities.

This is a good discussion, with tons of useful information that can help a person develop a better vehicle, if they can effectively apply what they have learned. That brings me to my point:

The only problem with the way that this is being discussed is the fact that it is all relative. Relative to the purpose or task at hand; and relative to the individual preferences of the driver.

Since Fieros are all about multi-dimensional performance, that's where I'll begin. Take two Fieros with pretty much the same chassis setup, but with the two different types of power delivery discussed here, and to make it fair, gearing to match. Put the same driver in each car on a road course and he is likely to go faster in the one that best suits his or her own driving style/personal preferences. Is he full of courage, and intuitively able to out brake anyone on the track, but in need of a forgiving torque curve to help squirt him out of the other side - or - is he the master of finese, able to consistently balance braking heel-n-toe shifting acceleration while maintaining the perfect line lap after lap?

Basically what I am trying to say is that this discussion would be really helpful if the discussion centered on what combinations are best for what type of driver in what specific circumstances. You can read two different articles on a car like the Honda S2000 by two different magazine editors and have two completely different views/opinions about the driving experience. It depends on what they prefer and what they used the car for. I have noticed that the majority of magazine articles that proclaimed the S2000 to be phenomenal used the car in more race-type situations that the average driver will never encounter. Some that used it more in "real world" driving basically considered it a dog, but still gave it high marks for the potential it had. It wasn't considered a dog because the ability wasn't there, but because it was inaccessible or inappropriate for the situation.

Even so, some of them still loved the car because it was able to deliver that 8K+ adrenaline rush when the opportunity presented itself. My point here is you can't even say that a stoplight racer should have a lower rpm "torque motor", because he may be bored to tears with it.

Which brings up my final point about it all being relative. If your car isn't a single-purpose built-to-win race car it is likely being built for personal enjoyment. A HUGE part of how much you will enjoy it is dependent upon how well you chose the pieces of your puzzle. It MUST be able to consistently deliver a smile or you will regret ever building it, whether you have 1000lb-ft just off idle or can rev to 12K everyday all day. To one guy the 1000lb-ft may feel like plowing the fields on a John Deere, and to another revving to 12K may feel like trying to cut a redwood down with a Weedeater

There is probably no better automotive place on Earth to demonstrate this than PFF! We have guys who swear by Archified SBC gruntmobiles (I mean that as a compliment ) and Caderos, those who prefer dual bumpsticks on top of each bay (N*, 3.4DOHC, Quad 4, etc.), and even those who actually prefer the original combination of a slightly underpowered relatively flat (power/torque curve). It's really all about what you expect and how you go about getting it.

------------------
perk - todd's hot rods

Horsepower = How fast you're going when you hit the building.
Torque = How far into the building you go after you hit.

Sorry. I'll shut up now.

My neighbor has a Suzuki GSXR 1000. 147hp and I think 60lbft of torque. 0-60 in 2.7 seconds and the quarter in 10.7 seconds. Even though it has 147hp, I don't think it would be a good swap for the Fiero.......Paul

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: But you can't drive them the same.. Why would the guy in the Honda be pulling away at 2000rpm..

I don't recall starting this thread out as a "what wins races" kind of thread - it was intended more to help illuminate the factors that make for good all-around performance. I strongly suspect that over 90% of the cars represented here are used almost exclusively on the street in normal traffic. What works good in that environment is what I'm talking about...

But your question brings up an important point. Before that DOHC screamer can produce all that power, it needs to get the revs up. This doesn't happen at the traffic light - you need to get up to speed first. So yes, that Honda does pull away at lower RPM - higher revs are only possible if the clutch is slipping and I think we can all agree that's not the best launch procedure at your local traffic light.

During the time while that little screamer is building up revs and dragging the vehicle up to speed, the low-end grunter is pulling away. When the revs get up there, then the little screamer comes into its own and starts pulling hard - but it's playing catch-up at this point.

For those who believe gearing will make the difference - yes, you can gear that high-revving little engine so it'll leap off the line and shoot down the 1/4 mile. Exciting? Maybe - but I'll guarantee you'd hate driving this twitchy little beast in traffic.

What works best on the racetrack isn't what works best on city streets...

Problem is, that motor is moving a 400lb motorcycle through a 6spd motocycle gearbox. Try getting it to move a 2600+lb Fiero and it won't be anything worth seeing.

I just mean, I don't think the powerband is that big of a concern when it comes to racing.. You WANT
it higher up in the powerband in my opinion.. s2000 runs high 13's.. While not blazingly fast, it's pretty
damn quick..

Another thing lost in this discussion is how long will a clutch last if you constantly dump it at the top of the high rever's powerband?

That's not necessary when you have torque like that from the 4.9

perkidelic said "Archified SBC gruntmobiles"

He also make good points in the rest of his post. Bottom line, We Fiero owners are fortunate to have probably the most versatile platform in the car market. I know of no other platform that can handle and perform so well with the wide range of powerplants. I counted 12 but I know I missed some. Anyway, I know I would not be satisfied driving a high reving small displacement engine here in Chicago. Too many people like to blow you away from stoplights then cut in front of you. With the 4.9 I don't have to settle for that unless I'm feeling magnanimous.

Which one is faster?

The Caddy 4.9 would be "faster" at acceleration then the H22A (the engine in the S2000...or is it H22B?) but the S2000 would have a higher top speed. However...you have to take in weight any a LOAD of other factors to see which is "faster".

------------------

www.freewebs.com/fierogti

quote Originally posted by Razor_Wing: Which one is faster? The Caddy 4.9 would be "faster" at acceleration then the H22A (the engine in the S2000...or is it H22B?) but the S2000 would have a higher top speed. However...you have to take in weight any a LOAD of other factors to see which is "faster".

Faster is a relative term. Many cars have a higher top speed than a Fiero with a speed govened/limited 4.9 even my old 2.8 engine has a higher top speed. Only because it was not governed, however, my 4.9 would absolutely obliterate the 2.8 from light to light. And on the open road with a chip that has the artifically imposed speed limits removed.

Like Whuffo, I too am talking about real world daily driving situations in the states. Now your mileage may vary if you drive Germany's autobahn daily. But here in the states torque rules 99% of the time.

quote Originally posted by Mastermind: Faster is a relative term. Many cars have a higher top speed than a Fiero with a speed govened/limited 4.9 even my old 2.8 engine has a higher top speed. Only because it was not governed, however, my 4.9 would absolutely obliterate the 2.8 from light to light. And on the open road with a chip that has the artifically imposed speed limits removed.

What I ment by the top speed comment is that a LARGE factor of top speed of a car is the Red line. The 4.9 has in the 5500-6000 redline I belive. The H22A (S2000 motor) has in the area of 9500-10000 !! But the thing you said about torque is VERRY true! Long live the V8 . That's also why I like my little 2.8 Almost as torquy as an I6 .

In theory Lets just say there are two cars, same weight same horsepower. One is a rather large OHV, the other a smaller displacment DOHC. These cars have a "Constantly variable transmission" that holds the engine at the RPM at witch the most horsepower is produced. These two cars will run the exact same way down the quarter. Side by side to the end.

Why? Because horsepower is actually a measurement of acceleration of a mass.
1 Horsepower can accelerate 550 lbs 1 foot in 1 second, per second. Meaning that a horsepower accelerates a weight at one, and only one rate.

FYI, 1 Horsepower is equal to 743 watts. Witch is also a measurement of power as well.

So, as long as you use the horsepower efficiently with minimal loss. You will always have the same result.

However, there really isn't a good transmission available that can put a high reving engine at its peak and keep it there. You have poor launches, car falls on it's face. The shifts bring the engine out of its power range, once again falling on its face. The whole trick to getting a DOHC engine to work for racing is all in the gearing.

quote Originally posted by Whuffo: I don't recall starting this thread out as a "what wins races" kind of thread - it was intended more to help illuminate the factors that make for good all-around performance. I strongly suspect that over 90% of the cars represented here are used almost exclusively on the street in normal traffic. What works good in that environment is what I'm talking about... What works best on the racetrack isn't what works best on city streets...

This is why the OHV engine has retained it's popularity in the marketplace. At least in the American market, the "feeling of power" is being thrust back in the seat when you step on the gas. How many people in the U.S. willingly purchase a car with a manual transmission? How many American cars are even available with a stick? Performance cars (gearheads) or econoboxes (cheapos). The masses are not pounding on the doors of GM, demanding a small displacement, multi-cam engine.

Simple gratification - stomp the go pedal, get tire spin and g's.

The DOHC engine has historically performed better at higher revs, and will be put to better use with a manual transmission and somebody who's not too lazy to use it. In city traffic, or at 65 on the freeway, give me gobs of torque and the ability to pass without downshifting.

I still don't understand the appeal of quarter mile racing - especially in a platform with so much more potential when *not* going in a straight line. But that's just me. I'd much rather power out of a curve on a country back road than worry about the guy next to me being .01 quicker.

[This message has been edited by Gary W (edited 01-02-2004).]

Still gotta account for the driver's personal preference.

While slam you against the seat, dare you to grab the hundred dollar bill on the dash, torque is an American pastime - there are others out there who really appreciate the experience of just winding a high-revving motor through five or six closely spaced gears. For them it's not always about whether or not they can drop the clutch without failure at every stoplight grand prix, or even whether or not the horsepower can overcome the torque of the snarling torque monster in the other lane. It's all about the smile on the outside, and the joy on the inside, from a well balanced sports car that is a blast to drive. Sometimes in America we get so caught up on racing that we forget how much fun it is to drive just for the joy of driving. I'm guilty of that at times myself.

perk

[This message has been edited by perkidelic (edited 01-02-2004).]

m

quote Originally posted by Gary W: This is why the OHV engine has retained it's popularity in the marketplace. At least in the American market, the "feeling of power" is being thrust back in the seat when you step on the gas. Simple gratification - stomp the go pedal, get tire spin and g's. give me gobs of torque and the ability to pass without downshifting. I still don't understand the appeal of quarter mile racing - especially in a platform with so much more potential when *not* going in a straight line. But that's just me. I'd much rather power out of a curve on a country back road than worry about the guy next to me being .01 quicker.

That's why I picked the 4.9 even though it is not the fastest in the 1/4 it sure kicks much azz on the streets where it really counts.