Not to hijack the thread, but where in Ma are you located and do you worjk at a Pontiac dealership? I might be in the market for a GTO.

 

As 91_z28_4me said, it is a 1991 Mustang SSP Package, delivered to Jacksonville, FL. for trooper patrol duty. It has a 5-spd and 3.08 Traction-Lok rear - factory.
Oil cooler, silicone hoses, heater bypass hose, heavy-duty radiator, 135-amp alternator, high-speed harmonic driveshaft dampener on the rear end, and the stiffer springs that come with the SSP package - all factory.
The only mods (hence my smilie) is a Tremec World-Class T5 with 2.95 ratio 1st and .63 5th (because the 1-2 synchronizer was going out in the stock T5), and a set of MAC cat-backs (because the staock mufflers had pin-holes and the welds were starting to separate on the stock units).

A benefit of running on a track is that you MUST (not an option) strip your car of all free weight and loose items - like the spare tire, jack, trunk mat, floor mats, etc. This means all the cars are running about 80-100lbs lighter than street trim. All cars are on the same field at the same time, and all conditions are equal - it boils things down to driver ability and car cabability, and if two guys are in the same class that helps further ensure they have similar driving experience and (fairly) comparable vehicles. I think it makes for a GREAT way to evaluate a car's performance in a controlled environment (not to mention I love skinning tires down and busting triple-digit speeds ANY time I can without worrying about a lawman or a deer coming into play!).

I posted some pics of that particular track event last fall in this thread ( http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...=383243&page=5 ) post #70. However, I have since taken the images off the web to make room for pics of recent trips to China, Taiwan, Germany, and such.
I'll see if I have a good shot of the G35 in my class and upload it when I get home this evening.

Don't want to hijack the thread with racing stuff - just trying to add to Guy's comments about the feel of torque and how it played out against his test drive of the G35. I had the same experience, just in another car and on a track. I really did think the G35 was a nice ride, and I am on record in this forum many times for crediting the G35 as being a noteworthy adversary for Mustang cross-shoppers.

 

My father's the sales manager at the local B-P-G. We're about 20 minutes south of boston. The 26 also included his 3 grand or so trade. I know a lot of places still have Goats sitting around that they want to get rid of. There might even be an 04 or two floating in the system.

To add to Proud Pony's last line. In the sales manuals for Pontiac sales people the section rivals they have listed for the Goat are the BMW 330 coupe, Mustang GT and our good friend the G35

 

There is a never-ending debate about torque versus power in automotive powerplants. Equations are used to approximate real-world situations, and the equations state that
torque=force*distance from center of rotation, and
power=force*distance/time.
You can simplify the right side of the power equation by combining (distance/time) into one variable we know well as "velocity" (v=distance/time) hence Power = force*velocity.
OR you can simplfy another way by combining (force*distance) into one variable we know as "torque" (t=force*distance) hence Power = torque/time.
Therefore, the last equation states that power (Hp) is a factor of torque and time. This basic equation LINKS torque to HP quantitatively - YET, anyone who looks at a dyno sheet knows that Tq and HP do not increase proportionately to each other as the equations indicate. HP can still be going up at high RPMs after Tq has peaked and is even starting to go back down... a direct violation of the equation above.

My auto powerplants professor hypothesized about non-inclusive effects in the real world like friction, inertia, and such in a dyno engine case, and wind resistance, drag, and such in a real vehicle test - which all make sense why simple equations fall short of explaining real world results dealing with engine power and Tq. The internet is loaded with hypothesis' too. It's like vodoo...
My PERSONAL opinion based on experience and study... Torque is what gets you moving (from F=ma), horsepower is what keeps you moving at some rate of speed (based on Hp=Force*Velocity).

With gearing in the tranny, rearend, vehicle weight, even the car's computer program regulating timing and A/F ratios real-time based on sensor inputs, even basic tire size/diameters... there is simply NO WAY to judge any two modern cars' performance against each other based solely on HP figures. This is one reason I think all the Hp rating systems being re-assessed is kind of funny... it's just a reference point for Pete's sake.

Bottom line is - what does the seat of your pants feel, and what does the lap times/stopwatch show? Personally, I'll take 225hp with 300lb-ft of torque at 2000 rpm, over a 265hp engine with 215ft-lbs of torque at 5000 rpm because the low-end torque will suit me better for stoplight jumps and quick passing on 2-lanes (I'll be checking-out while the other guy is waiting for his revs to come up...). I think Guy voted for the 325lb-ft of Tq over a slight Hp advantage as well.

(Interesting posts going on here... I just love chit like this! It's one reason I became a mechanical engineer! )

 

New G35 for 2007. Going to be signifigantly improved. 80% new parts in engine, new chassis, new interior, blahblah.

 

I saw this thread yesterday and kept it in mind as I rode in my friend's dad's G35 sedan (G35x awd) last night. The things I liked about it were the gauges and clock in the dash. The seats were very comfortable. He floored it at a light to get around someone and it moved very well. The interior materials were on par with my GTO, although there was some hard plastic that I didn't expect around the door handles. I still don't like the giant HVAC/Radio cluster thing. Ive seen it in the G35 and my friend's Murano and I'm just not a fan. His dad loves it though, actually this is his second one in two years as his 2005 got rear ended and totalled.

 

1 lbft of torque = 6.2832foot pounds of work/revolution

33,000 foot pounds of work per minute was equivalent to one horsepower (although Watt overrated the horse ).

A) 1 hp = 33000ftlb/min
B) 1 lbft = 6.2832ftlb/rev

Divide A by B and get 1 hp = 1lbft * 5252rev/min

So horsepower is the product of torque and RPM multiplied by the conversion factor 1/5252 hp*lbft^-1*rpm^-1

HP = Torque *RPM / 5252

It's not just the lack of midrange torque, but also midrange horsepower since they are intimately related.

 

Well I live in the South Shore, so it should be close by. What town is it in? Like I said, I'm possibly thinking about picking one up.

 

You forgot 1hp = 746watts too...
Let's go metric and bring radians into the equation to REALLY spruce things up!

Seriously, everything you have is correct... no quams - especially your comment about mid-range HP being related to Tq - that was also what I was trying to show/state in my "Bottom line is..." paragraph.
In my post I was trying to explain Tq v. Hp in common lay terms, not specific units. Nothing in my equations eludes to SAE, BTU, or Metric units.

You actually helped make my point though, regarding the never-ending debates that go on about Tq v. Hp when it comes to powerplants. There are so many ways to analyze, and approximate work and power using equations, yet in the real world they all have their falacies.

The interesting thing that should be taken from these few posts is that new cars, which are tending more and more towards high-output V6s, and even hi-po 4s, are producing some incredible Hp/Liter ratios, but their Tq/liter is not really setting the house on fire. You will see more and more new V6s with MORE Hp than some old V8s, but the old V8's will likely still smack the V6's around simply because of their ability to generate the torque needed to get them moving quicker. Now about handling... that's another story altogether.

 

That was the idea, but my equations are better.

 

Or simplier:
Horsepower=Bragging rights
Torque= Winning races.

Well put. 310 (or 330 on post '93 Birds) may not seem stunning on a 3700 pound car, but having that much available at such a high rpm when the car is already rolling is a whole other story.

My last '89 Bird had simple modifications (pulley, headers, exhaust, & a chip), and by my guess (since it wasn't the newer '94/95 motor & blower, it probally didn't have more than 240 horses) but supposedly it was enough to send torque well over 350 lbs/ft. To top it off, it felt every bit of that touque was available all the way up till over 100.

Although it was too heavy to take off as quick as a 5.0 Mustang, it would absolutely devestate any 5.0 Mustang on a rolling start over 30mph (never lost to a Mustang on a freeway run) and could at the least match LT1 F-bodies rolling starts in the 80-100 mph range (anything lower than that and LT1s would hand me my lunch )

Horsepower and 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are nice, but tons of torque on hand in midrange on a freeway is intoxicating.

 

I guess a Diesel Truck would tear up the track if it were that simple

 

They do

The problem is that torque is more a snapshot of what the motor is doing at some point and horsepower indicates how long you can go about doing it.

In the real world, since all other things are not equal, a 2.5L that revs to 15,000RPM (which would be about 210lbft of torque there) and makes 600HP could easily accelerate with the big block that makes 600HP at 5000RPM (that's 630lbft of stump-pulling torque) because it could be geared down to make the same torque at the wheels.

 

I'd take 300hp and 250ft-lbs anyday over 250hp and 300ft-lbs. Considering my 300hp car would never dip below 42-4500 from 20mph on up, i could care less about who has more torque at 3k.

After all, if torque at 3k was so desirable, the L98 wouldn;t be a total dinosaur in the performance world. You couldn't pay me to run TPI again

 

Regarding torque vs. horsepower, I discussed this a bit in a (all too common) LT1 vs. LS1 thread recently.

I first posted a bit about it on page 3, but clarified and went a little deeper on page five (the one linked above).

HP is just torque at speed. Torque is what accelerates your car, at any vehicle and engine speed. HP is just a function of the rate the torque can be delivered. Click the link above and read my post for my thoughts.