Lightning ER vs Hummer 2X, HorsePower and Torque stats

[Lightning Rod]

A coworker if mine just bought a Hummer 2X. Looks really nice but I didn't have a chance to speak with him yet, so I did some research. My 2023 Lariat ER has 580 HP compared to his 570 HP, yet, take a look at these torque specs. Is this a typo? Google AI came up with this passage about the torque difference...

"When comparing torque between a 2023 Ford F-150 Lightning with the extended range battery and a GMC Hummer EV 2X, the Hummer has significantly more torque, with the Lightning producing 775 lb-ft of torque while the Hummer 2X delivers 7,400 lb-ft of torque; making the Hummer significantly more powerful in terms of torque despite having less horsepower overall."

7,400 lb-ft of torque? That just doesn't sound right. This is the lower HP hummer. The 3 motor version produces 830 HP!! Can this be a real torque spec?

Sponsored

 

[Heliian]

Google AI came up with this passage about the torque difference...

The lightning has over 7500 ft lbs of torque.

These numbers are achieved by taking the motor torque and multiplying by the gear ratio of the drive.

Misleading, yes, big numbers gooder.

 

[TaxmanHog]

Sounds like Ai is off by a factor or 10 for the Hummer Tq.

 

[Lightning Rod]

Sounds like Ai is off by a factor or 10 for the Hummer Tq.

That's what I thought, but going to Hummer site, they tout the same torque spec figures. It just doesn't make sense.... that's why I started this thread, to see what you guys think about these claims.

 

[ZeusDriver]

These "at the drive wheels" torque claims began with the Tesla Cybertruck, I believe. Then Hummer did the same slight of hand (or fraud, depending upon your perspective) afterwards.

The torque quoted for an automotive prime mover has been at the flywheel for about a century. Tesla wanted a more impressive figure than the other trucks, (despite having less torque at the motor shafts than the Ford and Chevy). So they quoted drive wheel torque, without making it clear that that is what they were doing. Sleezy. Some of the auto mags just naively repeated the figures, making it seem, to some gullible readers, that the Tesla actually had stunningly high torque. Most diesel 4WD pickups have more drive wheel torque than the Tesla, (or the Hummer) by a pretty wide margin. Even a fairly small John Deere tractor has more drive wheel torque than the Tesla, because of the huge total gear reduction.

Some sycophantic automotive journalists wrote wobbly words about the Tesla claim without calling it out for the fraud that it was (is).

Granted, having a single speed and a large total reduction (about 9.7:1 for the Ford and 15: 1 for the Cybertruck) means that the torque curve at the drive wheels is different than it is for a typical ICE with a ten-speed gearbox. However, the natural great low speed torque and diminishing high speed torque of an electric motor ends up being similar to the diminishing drive wheel torque that occurs as a ICE truck shifts up through the gears (going, in very rough terms from about 16:1 in first to 3.5:1 in the highest gear). As it turns out, just knowing the HP figure and weight is sufficient for predicting performance, and a 500 HP ICE truck performs about as well as a 500 HP electric truck: they are both crazy fast.

Most customers and many hot-rodders don't understand the way in which torque and rpm interact to produce horsepower... so we still have arguments about what you "Need" for a good 1/4 mile time. "Ya need torque for acceleration, and HP for top speed." That's BS. Torque does not imply any acceleration at all: How fast does a bolt that has been torqued to 100 lb ft accelerate when you apply 90 lb ft via a torque wrench?

 

[Randall Stephens]

Necro

 

[ZeusDriver]

Necro

HA HA! I may be putting nails in the coffin, but in many forums, these discussions are still active, because people don't understand how torque has been measured, historically, and those people can be confused -- as evidenced by Lightning Rod's confusion. Also, AI has developed to the point that it is correct about half the time, so people are tending to believe it. That sows more confusion.

It appeared that Lightning Rod still had some confusion, as of his last post... thus my post to clarify where these numbers came from -- it is not a problem with AI. It is a problem with manufacturers coming up with bogus figures.

 

[Firn]

These "at the drive wheels" torque claims began with the Tesla Cybertruck, I believe. Then Hummer did the same slight of hand (or fraud, depending upon your perspective) afterwards.

The torque quoted for an automotive prime mover has been at the flywheel for about a century. Tesla wanted a more impressive figure than the other trucks, (despite having less torque at the motor shafts than the Ford and Chevy). So they quoted drive wheel torque, without making it clear that that is what they were doing. Sleezy. Some of the auto mags just naively repeated the figures, making it seem, to some gullible readers, that the Tesla actually had stunningly high torque. Most diesel 4WD pickups have more drive wheel torque than the Tesla, (or the Hummer) by a pretty wide margin. Even a fairly small John Deere tractor has more drive wheel torque than the Tesla, because of the huge total gear reduction.

Some sycophantic automotive journalists wrote wobbly words about the Tesla claim without calling it out for the fraud that it was (is).

Granted, having a single speed and a large total reduction (about 9.7:1 for the Ford and 15: 1 for the Cybertruck) means that the torque curve at the drive wheels is different than it is for a typical ICE with a ten-speed gearbox. However, the natural great low speed torque and diminishing high speed torque of an electric motor ends up being similar to the diminishing drive wheel torque that occurs as a ICE truck shifts up through the gears (going, in very rough terms from about 16:1 in first to 3.5:1 in the highest gear). As it turns out, just knowing the HP figure and weight is sufficient for predicting performance, and a 500 HP ICE truck performs about as well as a 500 HP electric truck: they are both crazy fast.

Most customers and many hot-rodders don't understand the way in which torque and rpm interact to produce horsepower... so we still have arguments about what you "Need" for a good 1/4 mile time. "Ya need torque for acceleration, and HP for top speed." That's BS. Torque does not imply any acceleration at all: How fast does a bolt that has been torqued to 100 lb ft accelerate when you apply 90 lb ft via a torque wrench?

Except that torque at the wheels IS what matters. THAT is the number that determines how well the vehicle will move.

ICE manufactures use Torque at the flywheel because it gives a higher number than one after drivetrain losses (and they have multispeed gesrboxes so at the wheel is convoluted). They dont use it because it's somehow a superior method.

I also disagree that "500hp" is "500hp" because if you do know how HP is calculated then you know the HP is just the torque, and a big wide flat torque curve is MUCH more powerful than one with a sharp peak and some high number. This is why diesels with 300hp can pull 15,000lbs, but a gas truck with 500hp won't do so as well. Bottom line a big wide flat torque curve is going to KILL one with a sharp peak, even though the HP numbers are the same.

 

[LightningDan]

Its 500hp, but if ran through locking diffs and axles, it mutliplies the torque by a huge amount. Pretty sure a TRD in low-end 4wd with all diffs locked is like 30k lbs./ft.
Same as a bigger truck or tank uses a 300hp cummins and managed to move hundreds of thousands of pounds. Its the gearing, axles, difs.

 

[ZeusDriver]

Except that torque at the wheels IS what matters. THAT is the number that determines how well the vehicle will move.

It does not matter for usual performance measures, most notable 0-60 times. My Lightning is takes about 1/3 as long to get to 60 as did my 1990 4.9 F150 4WD, despite having much lower drive wheel torque.

ICE manufactures use Torque at the flywheel because it gives a higher number than one after drivetrain losses (and they have multispeed gearboxes so at the wheel is convoluted). They dont use it because it's somehow a superior method.

No that's not it at all. All US manufacturers use the guidance of SAE. To be fair from one manufacturer to another and to use the same standards that are used throughout industry for spec'ing prime movers, (ICE and electric and turboshaft, etc). Spec'cing after the gearing is meaningless, and would make engineering any engine or electric-powered device incredibly frustrating.

I also disagree that "500hp" is "500hp" because if you do know how HP is calculated then you know the HP is just the torque, and a big wide flat torque curve is MUCH more powerful than one with a sharp peak and some high number. This is why diesels with 300hp can pull 15,000lbs, but a gas truck with 500hp won't do so as well. Bottom line a big wide flat torque curve is going to KILL one with a sharp peak, even though the HP numbers are the same.

No, the HP is not "just the torque." HP is torque x Rpm /5252. always and forever. An electric motor producing its maximum stall torque, of say 500 lb ft is producing 0 HP and doing no useful work. If that motor can still produce 500 lb ft at 5252 rpm, then it is producing 500 hp, and can do useful work, at the rate of 500 x 33000 ft lb / minute. (I'm using the convention of lb ft to be torque, and ft lb to be work. )

You seem somewhat knowledgeable, but nothing you say makes sense in the context of my post, which has to do with people in general (including about 30% of SAE members) misinterpretting the effects of torque (which does not require motion) and HP, which does require motion. What I am saying in my post is that 1: torque specs for trucks have always been taken at the engine flywheel (or extrapolated to there if a chassis dyno is used) (They are also taken at the motor for Lightnings and EV Silverados. -- as they should be, if you are not trying to deceive the customer.) 2. That the most common measure of "performance or "power" in vehicles is 0-60 time -- its something that even the math-illiterate seem able to grasp, and even something that little old ladies who only drive on Sundays can grasp -- Wow! this car is really zippy! I can get to 60 in 4 seconds??!!! , etc. 3. That 0-60 times can be sufficiently accurately calculated from HP figures (and weight) to be able to say Wow, this car is quick... vs meh, vs yuck. 4. That it is borderline fraud to claim ("awesome" "incredible" ) torque values by comparing those drive wheel figures to the engine or motor figures that have been used historically for every vehicle ... other than the Tesla, and then the Hummer. Doing so preys on peoples' ignorance and inability to do math. (My 1990 F150 4.9 six with 4WD produced 10275 lb at the drive wheels -- a figure much higher than my Lightning produces. If I implied as Tesla has, that that figure is "awesome" etc, I would consider myself a fraud. Coincidently, the Tesla figure quoted was around 10,250lb ft. WOW!!! All the torque of a 35-year-old 6 cylinder Ford!)

(My 1990 F150 produced 15,000 Volts!! My lightning system is only 400 volts. Both those statements are true, but incredibly misleading. Elon musk has some education in Physics, as I recall, so his rigging the figures cannot be chalked up to simple ignorance. He knows he is intentionally being deceptive. Morons and 5th graders can be forgiven for misunderstanding, but Musk can do the math.... and did the math to make appear that the Cybertruck had unusually high "torque" which it does not. My plain jane Lighting has more, if measured fairy and honestly.)
My Lightning is incredibly fast as compared to my 1990 4.9. The 1990 was a slug -- 0-60 in 13 seconds. The Lighting is far quicker (Well into hot rod territory for 1990) but produces less torque at the drive wheels. This online calculator correctly predicts performance for both. https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/0-60
The separate figure for peak torque is not required, and it makes no sense to include it, given that torque is already a component of HP.

Nowadays, with ten speed automatics, all road going engines operate, in the vehicle, as (essentially) constant HP devices (when floored). The same is often loosely said regarding AC Induction motors, and is approximately true for some of the numerous other types of electric motors used in road cars. and trucks*. "Peakiness" (in the sense that a 250 cc motorcycle GP bike is "peaky"... the reason 50cc Kreidler GP bikes had 12 speed boxes.) no longer comes into play in cars and light trucks. So the various online HP-to weight-based calculators that predict a 0-60 time are surprisingly accurate, and none of those ask for a torque figure -- it is superfluous. (In the old days of "three on the tree" transmissions, where engines would fall well off the HP peak at shifts, the nature of the transmission mattered for calculating a 0-60 time. ) If you put in the figures for a 720 HP Raptor and then a Lightning, you will find that this online calculator gives you surprisingly close figures in both cases. As expected, the Raptor is quicker, given its higher HP, and despite its slightly lower torque.

*In other words, They create very large torque figures at very low speed, and very low torque figures at high speeds. The first Teslas had two speed transmissions, because this characterization is not completely accurate. My own Zing used a torque converter after the electric motor (PMDC) because the relationship is hardly true at all for PMDC motors.

 

[ZeusDriver]

I googled, thinking that AI might have a more balanced take on this than I do. But no, AI thinks it is misleading too.

>>

Tesla was the first to start advertising the misleading (without context) drive wheel torque figure instead of the traditionally used engine (or motor) torque.
This practice gained attention when Elon Musk claimed the new Tesla Roadster would have "10,000 Nm of torque" (over 7,000 lb-ft). This number was specifically for wheel torque, a much higher figure achieved after gear multiplication, not the motor's direct output.
GMC then followed Tesla's lead with the electric Hummer EV, advertising an 11,500 lb-ft torque figure, which was also a wheel torque measurement, not motor torque.
Traditionally, car manufacturers quote engine or motor torque at the crankshaft/output shaft, before it is multiplied by the transmission and final drive gear ratios. This allows for a consistent, industry-standard comparison between different vehicles. <<

Sponsored