Murano 0-60 is 7.5: http://media.caranddriver.com/files/nissan-m…

And?

I don’t have a live axle car, though.

Cool, it was a cvt I’m guessing? Where did it rev to when you floored it? It must’ve had a specified rev range to keep the engine when you floored it. Where?

For shits and giggles, you should drive a car with a cvt transmission sometime, floor it, and see where in the revs the car goes to for max acceleration. Hint: Peak horsepower. Do you also consider amps to be a unit of power and watts a derivative of math?

No way to make you dumber, RPMs. That’s your new name, by the way. Not time. RPMs.

No, it’s the powerband. Torque is a static value, as many others have stated before. These are facts. You’re like a creationist who says the theory of evolution is wrong because their own understanding of it is flawed and then base their conclusions on that understanding. Take an actual class on the statics.…

Live axles are actually the preffered suspension of choice for a lot of modern purpose-built drag cars. That hole you’re digging. It gets deeper. Also the acceleration numbers the GNX achieved were WITH that launch system, not without. But hey, I thought you said it was the torque (low end horsepower) that makes it…

The Buick GNX is actually an example of great off-the-line traction because the rear suspension lifts up prior to a launch for increased squat and weight transfer to the rear. You probably didn’t know that. No surprise there.

Noting your propensity for hypocrisy for the doofus comment before. Personal attacks, oh no boo hoo. Crying about mean names: the last defense of a moron who has continuously dug himself in a hole. Torque is a force. Horsepower is a math. Not time... RPMs (rotations per MINUTE). Again. I hope you show your employees…

Really thay just makes me glad I don’t work there. I’ve had to walk out of crappy jobs before. Never worth it. Make sure to show them your “Not time... RPMs” comment too. I’m sure they’ll get a chuckle out of that as well.

Cool. That’s jack shit to do with engines. I’m a mechanical engineer with past work experience in combustion engine processes and experimental engine design. You sound like the type of guy I have to talk to from outside suppliers whenever parts turn out wrong and they claim it’s not their fault. But hey, if you feel…

Yeah, tell that to anyone riding a high revving motorcycle about how all his torque is what’s accelerating him, especially in the high rpms. If peak acceleration is at the torque peak then why do you shoft at the power peak in a drag race? Or cars with a drag limited top speed at their power peak and not torque peak?…

You mean Rotations Per MINUTE?

C3 Corvettes. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Plenty to make a business out of it, and not much is sexier than a C3 with some massive fender flares and tires to match them.

I guess the mud represents being wrong? Just use the right terminology next time. Engineers will be happy you did.

No, you’re definitely missing the point, otherwise you would be saying torque:weight is all that matters instead of power:weight.

Uhhh, no. Power is the amount of work performed over a given time. Torque is a moment of force, not a force. If your engine generates a lot of torque at low rpms, that means it also generates a lot of power at low rpms. Pretty simple concept if you understand the relation between horsepower and torque.

Actually, it’s still going to be horsepower propelling the car, as it is the result of that torque. 310lb-ft at 2k rpm means it’s making ~118hp. Good low end torque=good low end power.

It’s not necessary, but you get some nice benefits from it, namely the ~100lb weight savings between an LS and the iron block SBCs that came in these cars from the factory.