How do you convert engine torque to horsepower?

Have you ever looked at the specs of an engine in a magazine and seen something like "this engine makes 300 pound-feet of at 4,000 RPM," and wondered how much power that was? How much horsepower are we talking about here? You can calculate how many foot-pounds of horsepower this engine produces using a common equation: (Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower The engine that makes 300 pound-feet of torque at 4,000 RPM produces [(300 x 4,000) / 5,252] 228 horsepower at 4,000 RPM. But where does the number 5,252 come from? To get from pound-feet of torque to horsepower, you need to go through a few conversions. The number 5,252 is the result of lumping several different conversion factors together into one number. First, 1 horsepower is defined as 550 foot-pounds per second (read to find out how they got that number). The units of torque are pound-feet. So to get from torque to horsepower, you need the "per second" term. You get that by multiplying the torque by the engine speed. But engine speed is normally referred to in revolutions per minute (RPM). Since we want a "per second," we need to convert RPMs to "something per second." The seconds are easy -- we just divide by 60 to get from minutes to seconds. Now what we need is a dimensionless unit for revolutions: a radian. A radian is actually a ratio of the length of an arc divided by the length of a radius, so the units of length cancel out and you're left with a dimensionless measure. You can think of a revolution as a measurement of an angle. One revolution is 360 degrees of a circle. Since the circumference of a circle is (2 x pi x radius), there are 2-pi radians in a revolution. To convert revolutions per minute to radians per second, you multiply RPM by (2-pi/60), which equals 0.10472 radians per second. This gives us the "per second" we need to calculate horsepower. Let's put this all together. We need to get to horsepower, which is 550 footpounds per second, using torque (pound-feet) and engine speed (RPM). If we divide the 550 foot-pounds by the 0.10472 radians per second (engine speed), we get 550/0.10472, which equals 5,252. So if you multiply torque (in pound-feet) by engine speed (in RPM) and divide the product by 5,252, RPM is converted to "radians per second" and you can get from torque to horsepower -- from "pound-feet" to "foot-pounds per second."

How Horsepower Works

Definition
The term horsepower was invented by the engineer James Watt. Watt lived from 1736 to 1819 and is most famous for his work on improving the performance of . We are also reminded of him every day when we talk about 60-watt . The story goes that Watt was working with ponies lifting coal at a coal mine, and he wanted a way to talk about the power available from one of these animals. He found that, on average, a mine pony could do 22,000 foot-pounds of work in a minute. He then increased that number by 50 percent and pegged the measurement of horsepower at 33,000 foot-pounds of work in one minute. It is that arbitrary unit of measure that has made its way down through the centuries and now appears on your car, your lawn mower, your and even in some cases your ! What horsepower means is this: In Watt's judgement, one horse can do 33,000 foot-pounds of work every minute. So, imagine a horse raising coal out of a coal mine as shown above. A horse exerting 1 horsepower can raise 330 pounds of coal 100 feet in a minute, or 33 pounds of coal 1,000 feet in one minute, or 1,000 pounds 33 feet in one minute. You can make up whatever combination of feet and pounds you like. As long as the product is 33,000 foot-pounds in one minute, you have a horsepower. You can probably imagine that you would not want to load 33,000 pounds of coal in the bucket and ask the horse to move it 1 foot in a minute because the horse couldn't budge that big a load. You can probably also imagine that you would not want to put 1 pound of coal in the bucket and ask the horse to run 33,000 feet in one minute, since that translates into 375 miles per hour and horses can't run that fast. However, if you have read , you know that with a block and tackle you can easily trade perceived weight for distance using an arrangement of pulleys. So you could create a block and tackle system that puts a comfortable amount of weight on the horse at a comfortable speed no matter how much weight is actually in the bucket. Horsepower can be converted into other units as well. For example: 1 horsepower is equivalent to 746 watts. So if you took a 1-horsepower horse and put it on a treadmill, it could operate a producing a continuous 746 watts. 1 horsepower (over the course of an hour) is equivalent to 2,545 BTU (British thermal units). If you took that 746 watts and ran it through an electric heater for an hour, it would produce 2,545 BTU (where a BTU is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water 1 degree F). One BTU is equal to 1,055 joules, or 252 gram-calories or 0.252 food . Presumably, a horse producing 1 horsepower would burn 641 Calories in one hour if it were 100-percent efficient.

Graphing Horsepower

If you plot the horsepower versus the rpm values for the engine, what you end up with is a horsepower curve for the engine. A typical horsepower curve for a high-performance engine might look like this (this happens to be the curve for the 300-horsepower engine in the Mitsubishi 3000 bi-turbo):

What a graph like this points out is that any engine has a peak horsepower -- an rpm value at which the power available from the engine is at its maximum. An engine also has a peak torque at a specific rpm. You will often see this expressed in a brochure or a review in a magazine as "320 HP @ 6500 rpm, 290 lb-ft torque @ 5000 rpm" (the figures for the 1999 Shelby Series 1). When people say an engine has "lots of low-end torque," what they mean is that the peak torque occurs at a fairly low rpm value, like 2,000 or 3,000 rpm. Another thing you can see from a car's horsepower curve is the place where the engine has maximum power. When you are trying to accelerate quickly, you want to try to keep the engine close to its maximum horsepower point on the curve. That is why you often downshift to accelerate -- by downshifting, you increase engine rpm, which typically moves you closer to the peak horsepower point on the curve. If you want to "launch" your car from a traffic light, you would typically rev the engine to get the engine right at its peak horsepower rpm and then release the to dump maximum power to the .

Torque vs Horsepower
The word horsepower was introduced by James Watt, the inventor of the steam engine in about 1775. Watt learned that "a strong horse could lift 150 pounds a height of 220 feet in 1 minute." One horsepower is also commonly expressed as 550 pounds one foot in one second or 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute. These are just different ways of saying the same thing. Notice these definitions includes force (pounds), distance (feet), and time, (minute, second). A horse could hold weight in a static position but this would not be considered horsepower, it would be similar to what we call torque. Adding time and distance to a static force (or to torque) results in horsepower. RPM, revolutions (distance) per minute (time), is today's equivalent of time and distance. Back to horses, imagine a horse raising coal out of a coal mine. A horse exerting one horsepower could raise 550 pounds of coal one foot every second. Here is an example of another way horsepower could be directly measured. Say you have a horse hitched to a plow. In the hitch is a spring scale (like a fish scale). The horse pulls the plow one foot every second and you see 550 pounds on the scale. That horse would be generating one horsepower. We see horsepower can be directly measured. However there is a problem directly measuring horsepower of modern day internal combustion engines because they produce rotary motion not linear motion, and unless the engine is geared down, the speed at which they do work (time and distance or RPM) is too great for practical direct measurement of horsepower. It seems logical then that the solution was to directly measure torque (rotational force eventually expressed in pounds at one foot radius) and RPM (time and distance, i.e. distance in circumference at the one foot radius) and from these calculate horsepower. Torque and RPM are easily measured directly. Early dynamometers used a brake device to load the engine. A torque arm was attached to this brake's stator. The brake's rotor was coupled to the engine's crankshaft. A spring scale or other measuring device connected the torque arm to the stationary fixture holding the engine and brake. During a test the brake's application loaded the engine. Torque and engine rpm were observed and recorded. On modern day dynamometers horsepower is a calculated value. It's important to remember the dyno measures torque and rpm and then from these calculates horsepower. On the dyno it takes more water flow to the water brake to increase the load on the engine being tested. As the test engine's torque rises more water flow is needed. As the test engine's torque drops less water flow is needed. The dyno's water brake does not respond to Horsepower. Major adjustments to water flow are needed as an engine crosses its torque peak but none are needed as it crosses its horsepower peak. In other words the water flow to the brake during a dyno test follows the engines torque curve and not its horsepower curve. Torque is what twists the tire, prop, or pump. Horsepower helps us understand an amount or quantity of torque. (Torque + time and distance) Now if we are measuring torque and RPM how can we calculate horsepower? Where does the equation HP=TORQUE * RPM / 5252 come from? We will use Watts observation of one horsepower as 150 pounds, 220 feet in one minute. First we need express 150 pounds of force as foot pounds torque. Pretend the force of 150 pounds is "applied" tangentially to a one foot radius circle. This would be 150 foot pounds torque. Next we need to express 220 feet in one minute as RPM. The circumference of a one foot radius circle is 6.283186 feet. ft. (Pi x diameter 3.141593 * 2 feet) The distance of 220 feet, divided by 6.283185 feet, gives us a RPM of 35.014. We are then talking about 150 pounds of force (150 foot pounds torque), 35 RPM, and one horsepower. Constant (X) = 150 ft.lbs. * 35.014 RPM / 1hp 35.014 * 150 / 1 = 5252.1 5252 is the constant. So then hp = torque * RPM / 5252

Here is another way; Remember we know 150 foot pounds and 35.014 RPM = one horsepower 1hp is to 150 ft.lbs. * 35.014 RPM as X hp is to observed ft.lbs.torque * observed RPM Example; We dyno test and observe 400 ft.lbs. torque at 5000 RPM 1 hp is to 150 ft.lbs. * 35.014 RPM as X hp is to 400 ft.lbs. * 5000 RPM When we cross multiply X hp * (150 ft.lbs. * 35.014 RPM) = 1hp * (400 ft.lbs. * 5000 RPM) X hp * (5252 ft.lbs. RPM) = 1 hp * (2,000,000 ft.lbs. RPM) Divide both sides by 5252 ft.lbs. RPM X hp = 1 hp * 380.80 X hp = 380.80 hp

Horsepower = torque x rpm / 5252

Here's an interesting bit of trivia; below 5252 rpm any engine's torque number will always be higher than its horsepower number, and above 5252 rpm any engine's horsepower number will always be higher than its torque number. At 5252 rpm the horsepower and torque numbers will be exactly the same.

Comments from others on Torque vs Horsepower

I came across this page while looking to confirm my definition of one HP for a letter to Super Ford magazine who claimed there was "no magic 5,252" rpm relationship between torque and HP when responding to a letter to the editor. The letter was in response to some dyno charts in a previous issue that did not accurately reflect the proper "crossover" point for test results on several intake manifolds. I remember that article and chuckled at the graphs and figured someone else would point it out. But Super Ford still did not "get it" when their error was exposed. Anyway, radians are not unitless, they are their own unit. A radian is the arc of a circle that is equal to its radius. The circumference of a circle is equal to 2 * pi * radius, which leads to the relationship that 360 degrees is equal to "2 pi radians." Thus a radian is approx. 57.3 degrees. Your derivation of the HP = Torque * RPM/5,252 is much better for the lay person than getting into radians. Regards -Steve Schmidt, MSEE Here is a comment from Aivars Lelis, Hi, I had some further questions for Steve and here is his reply. Jesse, No problem, this is interesting as you have made me think about this some more. And it does make more sense to use the actual data (150 lb., one minute, and 220 feet), as you have done, instead of the common definition of 550 lb. by one foot in one second. It helps tie it together much better. Yes, exactly, the units cancel. That is our constant of 5,252 has the units of, hold on to your hat,... (ft * lb * RPM) / HP ...or converting one Revolution (as in RPM) to its equivalent in radians and putting "the per minute part" in the denominator we get... (ft * lb * 2 * pi * radians) / (minute * hp) Remember that one revolution (the diameter) is 2 * pi * radians? Now you can see why you don't want to go to radians. ;-) So how did that constant get such "ugly" units? The "problem" is Watt was simply observing that the horse lifted the 150 lb. object by 220 feet in one minute. We can't change that. With the definition of lb., pi (3.14159 etc.) , and feet already existing and defining one horsepower by what he observed (which comes to lifting 550 lb. by one foot in one second as the commonly listed definition of HP) he simply put the two actions (torque and HP) into an equation and derived whatever constant related the two. Since the two actions are "equivalent", the units of the constant are whatever makes both sides have the same units. This brings up the topic of "unit analysis." In the above Watt was deriving a basic relationship, but when we are trying to calculate something complicated we often use "unit analysis" as a check. That is we just look at the units for all the data (observed or given to us) we will plug into an equation and set up an "equation" with just the units on both sides and make sure they are equivalent. It is interesting to note that had Watt simply observed a bigger (say, a Clydesdale) or smaller horse (like Ford used to measure the '99 Cobra!) the definition of HP would be different. I get to make cracks like that since I am a Ford fan and own a '98 Cobra and my wife has a '95 Lightning. Regards, Steve Therefore, applying 1 lb-ft of torque in one minute (1 rpm) = [6.283 lb-ft / min] / [33,000 lb-ft / min] = 1 / 5252 of 1 hp. From this you can then calculate the number of hp from any given torque and rpm: hp = torque (lb-ft) * rpm / 5252 Aivars Lelis Torque is tangential force * distance from the fulcrum. Power can be defined as work (force over distance) per unit time. Applying 1 lb of force 1 ft from the fulcrum for a complete revolution will lead to; W = F*2*pi*r = 1 lb * 2*pi * 1 ft = 2*pi lb-ft = 6.283 lb-ft If it takes one minute to complete this revolution, then the power is; P = W / time = 6.283 lb-ft / min 1 hp is defined as 550 lb-ft / s = 33,000 lb-ft / min A simpler way to understand the relationship between torque and horsepower, and how to calculate it, may be as follows; I have to disagree with Steve's Schmidt's point that radians have a unit. A radian is a ratio. It just so happens that there is an angle that goes with it, but that is simply coincidental. When talking about radians you are referring to an arc LENGTH, not the angle related to that arc. So the radian measurement actually refers to the arc length relative to the radius of the arc. Because both of these have length units and the arc length is divided by the radius, all the units cancel and you end up with a unitless ratio. Now, as Steve said, there really is no need to get into radians when breaking down horsepower. Since it's just a ratio there is no unit corruption. It just becomes a part of the bigger conversion factor. Thanks, Keith Menges

Here is a comment from Marty Rosalik, For those hung up on radians per second we can stay in SI units and convert directly. Torque(Nm) * Omega(rad/sec) = Watts. Or kilowatts. Now divide by about 746 to get horsepower. Good luck finding a tachometer in radians per second. Here is a comment from RJ67ChevySS, I have to say that I belive that radians are in fact a unit. I belive that when you are refering to radians you are not refering to the length of an arc of a circle, but actually to the angle corresponding to that arc. A specific arc in a circle will change as the radius changes, yet the angle corresponding to that arc never changes. So only on a unit circle will 2 pi radians actually equal the length of the arc all the way around a circle, but on any circle 2 pi radians will be 360 degrees. Keith has a point in saying that radians don't have a unit because they are there own unit, just like inches and degrees. The best comparison I can make is that an inch is to a centimeter as a radian is to a degree.

Here is a comment from Keith Menges I came across the 'Horsepower and Torque' page while looking for the magic conversion number for horsepower (5252). Great page. It is a really good description of the relationship of horsepower and torque. The comment about the crossover point of horsepower and torque was really interesting. I never really thought about it but it is definitely true. Pretty cool.