[olddog]

Ok the guy who wrote the article know's what he is talking about. However to make a point he took a statement to a ridiculous extreme to make his point. That is perfectly fine, but he should have acknowledged that because now there will be people assuming he meant things that he did not intend to communicate. If his 1st article was as reckless, no wonder he had to write the second to clear things up. I'll speculate he will need a 3rd.

When knowledgeable people talk about a flat torque curve:
1) they are assuming that everyone understands that as rpms go up, up all NA engines reach a point at which the torque drops off faster than the rpms increase (peak Hp).
2) we are not overly concerned about the torque curve out past the peak torque, where this article is focused (maximum acceleration).
3) we are much more concerned about the torque curve, before the peak torque, and near the peak, as this is where a street driven engine spends 90% of its time (assuming you do not drive like an idiot on the streets).
4) we understand that a torque curve is never a flat line (otherwise it wouldn't be a curve - daa).
5) we mean keeping the lower rpm up near 85% of the peak torque.
6) we assume no one is foolish enough to think we mean full torque at idle.

Where the article focused is maximum acceleration. In his ideal engine example, it would not have mattered one iota if the 1500 rpm torque was 5 lb-ft and climbed to the peak torque at the same spot. The torque curve would have been steep as a mountain. Maximum acceleration would have been unchanged, but that engine would totally suck to drive on the street. It would suck in an auto-cross. It would suck anytime you were coming out of a corner at low speeds. If you were building an engine to drag race, you would gladly give up all the low end torque to gain more torque at the high end. Not I good idea for the street.

So I applaud the effort made to educate people. I'm a little disappointing that he used such an extreme bone head example to make a point, without explaining that it was totally unrealistic. It also makes it sound like people who talk about a flat torque curve are ignorant and mean something that we do not mean. I do not like having words put in my mouth, especially when the person knows full well it is not true. For that I give him a big long fingered bird, straight up.

PS
I stand by my original statement. Asinine indeed. In context, it is worse, because it was based on an engine that doesn't exist and intentionally misleads people to think it is stupid to want a flat torque curve, when he knows full well what we mean.