kubota vs. kioti

[SPYDERLK]

You are tight, it is simple math.

While the tundra as a truck might not handle the weight, and would need a total re-design, that is not what we are debating. We are debating HP vs torque. And the engine with the higher HP WILL INDEED get the work done faster. Gearboxes, transmissions, etc were designed to achieve the required torque to do the job. Obviously the tundra in its stock form isnt geard to tow 80k up a hill. BUT....if it were geared properly, it would do it and do so at a faster rate cause it has more HP.

Yes, gearboxes reduce speed while increasing torque. But HP stays the same. And since horsepower is simply a function of work/time, higher HP is faster period.

>>You can make ANY engine/motor from the smallest known to man to the biggest ever built, move ANY amount of weight, no matter how big or how small. Simply be using gear reducers to achieve the required torque to do the job.<<

BUT the one with the higher HP will do it faster. I am not saying that torque means absolutely nothing. Obviously you need sufficient torque as to not need a hundred gears. IE: a 80HP 15k rpm crotch rocket engine in lieu of a 80 HP tractor just dont work well as you would need many gears to keep it at its peak.

But I think we can mostly agree that for comparison of various tractors, that they make sufficient torque to do the job and are geared accordingly. HP is what is important on a tractor. Torque is achieved through gearing. A 50HP spinning 3k rpm tractor is going to make MUCH shorter work of bushhogging than a 30HP 2k rpm tractor that might have equal torque or even more.

I personally am able to generate 200+ ft lbs of torque with a simple socket and 18" breaker bar. Do you honestly think I can out-work, or am capable of more work than my tractor that is likely rated in the 80-100ft-lb range. IF that??

:thumbsup:... At a certain point tho, as gear reduction stages accumulate, you will forced into stipulating a 100% efficient transmission. Even a simple lever will eventually succomb to losses.
larry

 

[LD1]

Just to be clear, I never said tq wasn't important. And this discussion somehow got sidetracked into comparing motorcycles and mack trucks. I believe we were discussing tractors. And in the engine range and rpm range that tractors are offered in, it is "my opinion" that HP is more important than torque.

And I believe it was that simple statement of "my opinion" that started this debate.

And I stand by that statement. You can have all the torque in the world, but if you lack in HP you will be slow at whatever you are trying to get done.

 

[GManBart]

You are truly the one that has "no idea what you're talking about". ... And I see in some following posts that you have others following this lead. I think you should ask a question that you need an answer to so that knowledgable people dont waste time building from scratch what you should know. We really need a starting point.
larry

Larry, you keep trying to correct me, and every time we get to a point where you can't make your false argument any longer, and then you quietly go away. Can we just jump to that point immediately for a change?

If horsepower is the key ingredient in moving a load, can you explain how a steam locomotive can get moving when the engine starts out producing exactly ZERO horsepower, but thousands and thousands of pounds of torque?

Oh wait....you won't be able to argue that one, so we can skip right to the point I referenced above.

 

[GManBart]

Just to be clear, I never said tq wasn't important. And this discussion somehow got sidetracked into comparing motorcycles and mack trucks. I believe we were discussing tractors. And in the engine range and rpm range that tractors are offered in, it is "my opinion" that HP is more important than torque.

And I believe it was that simple statement of "my opinion" that started this debate.

And I stand by that statement. You can have all the torque in the world, but if you lack in HP you will be slow at whatever you are trying to get done.

Right, and you think a Toyota Tundra can pull 80K pound load better than a cement mixer....LOL. That's an opinion...a foolish one, but an opinion none the less.

Why won't you answer the question about a steam locomotive making zero horsepower actually getting the train going?

Why won't you address the fact that identical trucks, one with significantly less horsepower, but significantly more torque has a significantly higher towing capacity?

Physics and mechanics aren't an opinion, and they aren't negotiable. Some folks are confusing torque after the transmission to torque before the transmission and completely confusing reality.

 

[LD1]

No body said HP is the key ingredient. Torque is what moves it. HP is the measure of how fast it can move.

If you don't have enough torque, you cab change it with gearing. Not so with HP.

 

[LD1]

And I think you are the only one who thought I was actually talking about putting 80k in a tundra...read the rest on my posts please and you won't look so foolish.

The two " identical trucks are less than identical" there is obviously a gearing difference. Or actually it could be a lack of difference giving the one with more engine torque more real wheel torque as well. Change it so they both have equal rear wheel tq, and they will likely have the same tow rating. But my money would be on the higher HP one to pull a grade faster(assuming you make the rwtq the same as I mentioned)

 

[murphy1244]

It all depends on RPMs being equal.

 

[Cherokee140]

If horsepower is the key ingredient in moving a load, can you explain how a locomotive can get moving when the engine starts out producing exactly ZERO horsepower, but thousands and thousands of pounds of torque?

Oh wait....you won't be able to argue that one, so we can skip right to the point I referenced above.

One of the first hybrids, 2 stroke 12cyl diesel engines make over 3000hp, but the electric motors that actually move the train are a didderent animal. They are close to a Volt...the electric motors do all the moving...pretty apples and oranges.

 

[Cherokee140]

If horsepower is the key ingredient in moving a load, can you explain how a locomotive can get moving when the engine starts out producing exactly ZERO horsepower, but thousands and thousands of pounds of torque?

Oh wait....you won't be able to argue that one, so we can skip right to the point I referenced above.

One of the first hybrids, 2 stroke 12cyl diesel engines make over 3000hp, but the electric motors that actually move the train are a didderent animal. They are close to a Volt...the electric motors do all the moving...pretty apples and oranges.

 

[GManBart]

One of the first hybrids, 2 stroke 12cyl diesel engines make over 3000hp, but the electric motors that actually move the train are a didderent animal. They are close to a Volt...the electric motors do all the moving...pretty apples and oranges.

I was talking about steam locomotives earlier, not electric.

I just wonder who's horsepower, and torque are bigger....Kubota, or Kioti?