As has already been correctly pointed out, the correct abbreviation for Newton-metres is Nm, and for kilowatts is kW.

Horsepower is a little trickier, because there are multiple horsepower rating systems in common use. If we disregard that snag, then we need only pick the least-obtrusive method of abbreviation, which is lowercase/no-space: 245hp .

Horsepower and torque numbers without the corresponding RPM are useless. I’d prefer to see them graphed, not just the peak values

I agree, that would be brilliant. Too bad that information is so hard to find.

I usually care more about the torque measurement than horsepower. I believe it was Smokey Yunick that said, “Horsepower sells cars; torque wins races.”

Hey, that’s a really good idea. Me am so smart.

Maximum KW/revolutions per minute.

Maximum Nm/revolutions per minute.

1) “We’re not under no obligation” is glaringly incorrect. “We’re not obligated” is correct.

2) The use of “Torques” makes me cringe. Any other means of describing torque is fine.

Nice to see a copy editor. For awhile now, the reviews have been riddled with typos and usage errors. I figured RF was too busy writing “Death Watches” to stay on top of it all.

Let’s leave all of these stats for a separate box at the end of the reviews so the writers don’t lose words on providing what essentially is information that can easily be sourced from elsewhere. The reviews should continue to be opinions and not just lists of facts, equipment, options, and so on.

My insistence on the adjective “European” is twofold in nature. Firstly, the qualification of SI measurements as “European” is completely correct. “SI” itself is an abbreviation of the French “Le Système International d’Unités.” I think you would find the majority of the SI units were developed by Europeans, and that they were merely adapted by other countries outside of Europe. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to refer to the “Newton-metre” as a European measurement.

More importantly, I believe there is a substantial portion of the TTAC readership which is European or customarily use these European standards of measure, such as my good neighbors across the street, the Canadians.

Finally, while you may consider the metric system to be a superior system because it is “standardized” (more widely accepted), that argument is rooted in a logical fallacy – the appeal to common practice. That the metric system is more widely used doesn’t make the metric system inherently better than other standards of measure; it simply makes it more common. Yes, the metric system may be great for scientific pursuits, but as a practical, human-scale measurement it is absolute rubbish.

In all seriousness, the issue this article is really dancing around is whether TTAC is an American or European publication.

If the answer is the former, then it would be appropriate to use the units of measure standard in the American market in effect at the time the vehicle was produced. Pre-1972 American cars would be rated with SAE gross horsepower, cars 1972-2005 in SAE net horsepower, and 2005-present cars in SAE certified horsepower. With respect to displacement, the CID/SI transition occurred mostly over the course of the 1980s.

However, if TTAC is a European publication, then it would be necessary to chose between DIN horsepower, kW, CV (which is actually tax horsepower and different than “cv”), ECE, etc. Cited displacement would depend on if the vehicle originally was measured in liters (litres?) or cubic centimeters. I can’t even begin to entertain the problem of citing torque figures with any historical and regional accuracy.

Another question logically follows: if TTAC is a European publication (or insists on using European standards of measure in reviews), should readers also expect British English spelling in the future? Shall we begin referring to bonnets, boots, aerials, estates, and the like? Is the Audi TT an aluminium coupé, or an aluminum coupe?

I am pretty insistent on XX hp and XX lb-ft, with the space. I am okay with bhp, but I don’t think XXHP is acceptable — if I were copy editing something, I wouldn’t let that stand. “Torques” and “MPGs” should be grounds for flogging.

Just can’t envision looking neat on the seat of a Mustang Boss 5.8 or whomping upon those Fords and Chevys with a 6-pack bolted atop the 7.2 Magnum.

If you give us the engine data and specs we can see the power/weight ratio.

For the mathematically challenged out there, your Google search bar can do arithmetic.

Never, ever, ever, “torques.”

I’m surprised HP/ton is never used. I think it’s an informative metric.

Third: Power and torque are only meaningful at a given rotational speed. They must be speced at a given number of r.p.m.

My pet peeve is that max power figures should also list the torque at that power so that the roll off from the point of max torque can be appreciated.
Those who like to rant about diesels for cars might be less inclined if they saw those 33% torque roll off figures.

Fourth: ……The force is measured in weight units multiplied by the length of the lever.
Yeah, when we move from imperial measure to metric we simultaneously move from gravitational units to the non-gravitational. As Robert points out imperial uses the pound mass in the same context as force whereas in the metric system mass and force are separately defined by their own units of kilograms and newtons. For this reason alone it is a good idea to move to the metric system.

Then there is the incongruous 746watts = 1 Hp conversion particularly when you come to electric propulsion.

Finally rpm. Rotational Speed would be much better expressed in Revs/sec (N) used by the Europeans. I don’t mind the 2*pi multiplier in the equation. But that rpm/60 is annoying.

I think rpm made more sense for the 40 strokes per minute beam engines of the eighteenth century whereas the rather unwieldy 12,000 rpm of today’s electric motors can simply become 200 rps (N).

Expressing torque in Newton-meters the equation reduces to :
Power in watts = Torque X 2pi X N

And if everyone agrees I would say that this is quite enough torque from me.
T2

hp @ xxxx RPM

figures without a designation of RPM tell me nothing – I need to know where the vehicle makes its power.

And yes, we beat this dead horse to death – but fuck 0-60. I want to know both quarter mile AND trap speed – trap speed is the real indicator of what the vehicle is capable of doing.

I’ll second that. Knowing how many hp/ft.lbs or kW/nM per lbs/kg of the cars weight will, I think, give the reader a better idea about the subjective feel of the cars performance.

I agree with polpo
“I don’t really care how you write it, as long as you don’t write it as “torques.””

Here are the two expressions used in a sentence: With a stiffness of 15 lb/ft, the spring will oscillate and produce 20 alternating torques per minute on the shaft.

The metric units should adhere to well-established SI conventions.

I’d like to see RPM listed with the power and torque statistics.

While you are at it, I’d also like to see maximum speed and RPM in each gear. That gives both the ratios between gears and shift points. When cars are designed to have both high horsepower figures and high EPA mileage benchmarks, gearing is sometimes so tall that driving becomes awkward.

As for converting between pounds and kilograms…..