Topic: Preview: 2016 Hyundai Tucson

[JacobBlack]

See, you keep saying that lb-ft and ft-lb are the same (which they are not) and that somehow lb/ft is different.

So first off, lb-ft and ft-lb are not the same. You were wrong on that one.
Secondly, while we prefer in our style lb-ft to lb/ft, lb/ft is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation and the spin you're trying to put on it just doesn't exist. You're just covering for your earlier confusion

[EV Dan]

Without reading stuff ppl post on internets today, I always understood ft-lb as a number of pounds applied to a lever that is 1 ft long. So lb/ft makes perfect sense for me, whereas ft-lb and other is for the literary type of folks.

[EV Dan]

Re: the car, this generation Tucson is probably the cutest ute in its budget segment and I won't be surprised to see women choosing it over the Lexus NX or Rav4 for example, on the styling alone.

p.s. Ideally it should have a 2.5L N/A as a base engine, a high output 2.0T or a V6 (although I like the 1.6T+DCT idea) and a fuel efficient diesel.

[Flinter]

I have to agree with NoTo on this one. The unit (lb/ft) refers to Pounds per foot and is a measurement unit for linear mass density. For instance if we had a piece of 20 ft long pipe that weighs 200lbs, the linear mass density of that pipe would be 200 lbs /20 ft. = 10 lb/ft

The unit (lb/ft) may be used sometimes in reference to torque but it would be technically incorrect.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Torque is either ft-lb or lb-ft because it's the product of force and distance vectors.



Using "/" wouldn't be mathematically correct.

[Noto]

See, you keep saying that lb-ft and ft-lb are the same (which they are not) and that somehow lb/ft is different.

So first off, lb-ft and ft-lb are not the same. You were wrong on that one.
Secondly, while we prefer in our style lb-ft to lb/ft, lb/ft is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation and the spin you're trying to put on it just doesn't exist. You're just covering for your earlier confusion

I don't keep saying that lb-ft and ft-lb are the same.

I maintain that lb/ft is incorrect, and the best evidence I can use is:

Torque is either ft-lb or lb-ft because it's the product of force and distance vectors.



Using "/" wouldn't be mathematically correct.

^^^ that guy.

...and:

I have to agree with NoTo on this one. The unit (lb/ft) refers to Pounds per foot and is a measurement unit for linear mass density. For instance if we had a piece of 20 ft long pipe that weighs 200lbs, the linear mass density of that pipe would be 200 lbs /20 ft. = 10 lb/ft

The unit (lb/ft) may be used sometimes in reference to torque but it would be technically incorrect.

Hey, I just met you...and this, this is kinda crazy...but you helped me out on here, so is it all right if I call you buddy, maybe?

I promise no immense bromance.  Though Jacob and I are in a little bit of a fight here, I wouldn't cheat on him.  I'm very loyal 

p.s. Ideally it should have a 2.5L N/A as a base engine, a high output 2.0T or a V6 (although I like the 1.6T+DCT idea) and a fuel efficient diesel.

For once, I actually think the engines are well-thought out.  This is a small unit, and compared to the competition, the 2.0L 4-banger is peppier by a decent margin over all of the competitors.

The 1.6T, de-tuned as it is, will likely be hella-efficient (as was the case in the new Sonata 2.0T where hp #s were dropped in favour of a lower peak rpm for the torque figure (known as lb-ft)).  At 175hp with nearly 200 lb-ft of torque, the 1.6T will actually be something of a 'rocket' for the class, at least.  It'll surely beat the snot off a Crosstrek in straight-line acceleration.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

As for the distinction between ft-lb and lb-ft, it's a convention used to distinguish between energy and torque:

"Foot-pound" is sometimes also used as a unit of torque (see Pound-foot (torque)). In the United States this unit is often used to specify, for example, the tightness of a bolt or the output of an engine. Although they are dimensionally equivalent, energy (a scalar), and torque (a vector) are distinct physical quantities. Both energy and torque can be expressed as a product of a force vector with a displacement vector (hence pounds and feet); energy is the scalar product of the two, and torque is the vector product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_%28energy%29#Usage

[sacrat]

The 1.6T makes 175hp and 195lb/ft of torque,

...and just to be , lb/ft is incorrect

BWAMP! Wrong!
lb-ft is correct (though we write it "lb-ft" in our style.
http://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/2013/10/24/foot-pounds-and-pound-feet-whats-the-difference/

BWAMP yourself.  I said that pounds PER feet ("/" instead of "-") is incorrect.  It is pound-feet or foot-pounds.  Not "per", as that would be a different unit entirely.

BWWAAAAAMMMPPPP!
First, pound-feet is not interchangeable with foot-pounds, they are different.
Second, From the link:

"The proper term for torque in English units is the pound-foot, which we can find abbreviated any number of ways, such as lb.-ft., lb-ft, lb/ft, and so on."

#lawyered 

I think the biggest takeaway from the link was this...

"This is because the abbreviation for foot and feet are the same and everyone has agreed to use the singular lb-ft for everything…it may also be because pedants never actually win."

I was a language pedant in high school as my Mom taught English at another high school. It was a great way to be right much of the time, and REALLY lonely most of the time.

Speaking of which NoTo, I'm STILL waiting to hear from the horse's mouth what was meant by 'granular" from the Rogue vs CR-V thread...

I hope you and JB work out you lovers' spat

[sacrat]

This is the one my wife has been waiting for. She finds the Santa Fe too big and the current Tucson too dated.
Sweet spot indeed. The new Tucson could be the Goldilocks "just right" vehicle for her.

[Blueprint]

As for the distinction between ft-lb and lb-ft, it's a convention used to distinguish between energy and torque:

"Foot-pound" is sometimes also used as a unit of torque (see Pound-foot (torque)). In the United States this unit is often used to specify, for example, the tightness of a bolt or the output of an engine. Although they are dimensionally equivalent, energy (a scalar), and torque (a vector) are distinct physical quantities. Both energy and torque can be expressed as a product of a force vector with a displacement vector (hence pounds and feet); energy is the scalar product of the two, and torque is the vector product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_%28energy%29#Usage

The Engineer has the solution: use Newton-meters (Nm) 

[Jaeger]

Opens thread on new Tucson. Reads a page and a half about lb-ft versus ft-lb. Shakes head.

[dirtyjeffer]

wasn't much of a fan of the current gen Tuscon as i don't find it appealing to look at...this new model seems much better looking and much more premium looking as well...i think the 1.6T engine will likely be well suited here...i wonder what kind of AWD system it uses (slip and grip, or is it something more proactive?).

[pi314]

Opens thread on new Tucson. Reads a page and a half about lb-ft versus ft-lb. Shakes head.

  What do you expect around here ? 

No mention of the Regal here at least 

[Ex-airbalancer]

Opens thread on new Tucson. Reads a page and a half about lb-ft versus ft-lb. Shakes head.

  What do you expect around here ? 

No mention of the Regal here at least 

Is this in the same class as the Encore

[Patrick_D1]

wasn't much of a fan of the current gen Tuscon as i don't find it appealing to look at...this new model seems much better looking and much more premium looking as well...i think the 1.6T engine will likely be well suited here...i wonder what kind of AWD system it uses (slip and grip, or is it something more proactive?).

It's a slip-and-grip like almost all other CUVs, but our system reacts quickly. Many use an elecro-magnetic coupling which can take what feels like an eternity to engage. Tucson (and Santa Fe) use an electro-hydraulic rear coupling which can prime the clutch for a quick engagement on startup and even predict the need for AWD engagement if it sees triggers like ESC activation.

[Noto]

wasn't much of a fan of the current gen Tuscon as i don't find it appealing to look at...this new model seems much better looking and much more premium looking as well...i think the 1.6T engine will likely be well suited here...i wonder what kind of AWD system it uses (slip and grip, or is it something more proactive?).

Let me put it this way:

TFL Car has found Hyundai's AWD system to be very, very good on the offroad trails they take.  While I don't think it's the equal of Subaru's, I think it's one of the more competent systems out there.

[Northernridge]

The new Tucson looks great, Hyundai has figured out the secret sauce for CUV design .

[Nuttygent]

  Depends on the final weight figures but the 1.6T should suffice. Now that I have figured out the characteristics of my similar engine, it can surprise. Notice the HP is down so the torque and efficiency should be very good in this vehicle.

[Nuttygent]

  That was quite a discussion over torque figures! The SAE which is all things automotive uses the term lb"dot in the middle"ft. I couldn't figure out how to get the dot in the middle on this keyboard which is a bit embarrassing.

[EV Dan]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf59dfxhNuA

Those wheels I would change immediately and use them in winter, having painted them with that black rubbery stuff. They are the only design let down IMHO.
It sounds like the AWD is lockable?