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 ![Cheesy :D](https://www.autos.ca/forum/Smileys/CarTalk/cheesy.gif)
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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Torque_animation.gif)
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
![Kiss :-*](https://www.autos.ca/forum/Smileys/CarTalk/kiss.gif)
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.