 | |
Missed opportunity for Ford??
Cars Modifications Aspects of car modifications (tuning, styling) (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#91
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Missed opportunity for Ford?? -
04-29-2004
, 02:06 PM
|
Grant Mason <news (AT) mason (DOT) sh> wrote: "Steve Firth" usenet-urcm (AT) malloc (DOT) co.uk wrote in message news:1gcyg0s.do8417b13jwmN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk and the 330d is too nose heavy. Is 50:50 weight distribution considered nose heavy these days? There is no bloody way that thing is 50:50, compare it to the 330i. |
bigger S60...1440kg - diesel would be 1515...) 204 bhp , 330i sport is
1505kg, 231bhp.
Therefore Steve is probably right, engine is near front, and the only real
difference is going to be the engine, so that's 110kg more than the petrol.
At the smaller end of the range, 318i sport 1395kg, 320d sport 1490 kg - 95
kg heavier.
So we have the PWR of 102 bhp/ton for the 318i, 100bhp/ton for the 320d, 126
for the 330d, 153 for the 330i.
Now... with the diesels being turbocharged, we could chip them... 181bhp for
the 320d, 231 for the 330d, that's going to be 121bhp/ton for the 320d and
143 for the 330d.
So, we can probably conclude that the 330d is never going to be as quick as
the 330i as it has less power AND more weight, even if chipped. And as I've
thought for a while, the 320d is the best buy 3 series - 143bhp/ton for a
chipped one sounds nice to me...
#92
| |||
| |||
|
|
Tim S Kemp wrote: Nom wrote: Tim S Kemp wrote: That would be the smell of wee wee from pssing themselves laughing at leaving all the petrol burners for dead, and still seeing over 50MPG on the fuel computer then? Even the Gold TD-GTI can't keep up with my lardy 180bhp volvo - so leaving for dead? Clearly that's because it has a 30bhp power defecit !!!! The Audi A4 with the 180bhp diesel, will certainly be able to keep up with your Volvo. Aye indeed - but volvo is bigger and heavier than the golf, Yep. and has less torque... It's the *rate* of torque that defines performance. Your Volvo makes less torque, but it makes it more often (cos it's at a higher rpm) - this is why you have 30bhp more. Unless you've got a stupid power curve, it's the bhp figure that defines performance. errrrr riiiiiiiiight. |
useless!
#93
| |||||
| |||||
|
Sorry, meant to followup there, not email.  I'll stick my reply on here too then "Adam M" <mail_monty (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:38be495c.0404272058.6c91b01f (AT) posting (DOT) google.com... Cant believe i missed this thread! Having just done another road rally in a 205 diesel, i can say without a doubt that diesels are far far better Well its about driving a car enthusiastically on roads, so yes its exactly like real road driving conditions actually. I was going to say something along those lines. |
to have fun on the roads) and competetively (i.e. in a rally) - to me
anyway. I guess I need to put more effort into my enthusiastic
driving.
Quote:
|
Engine noise was 1 example, and you're confusing the sound with noise - nothing novaesque about a nice V6 or V5 warble. So? When you talk about a sporty car i want something that is quick and nimble, dont give a shit what noise it makes. If i wanted something that made a nice noise i would buy an SD1 and remove the silencers. Makes a V5/6 sound like a diesel  |
sporty....not sure I'd describe a de-silenced V8 as 'sporty', more
'menacing'
And I like btw..Quote:
|
Heh, I've got a v8 from out of an SD1. Have I mentioned it barks..? It makes a nice sound. Did I mention the noise it makes yet? |
sporty?
Quote:
|
TBH, that's not to say there can't be a nice sounding diesel engine, but it's not going to growl and bark because you can't rev it up. Still, that's definitely posing rather than driving. |
does.
Quote:
|
Vented discs wont reduce pad wear, you need proper brakes with sensible sized discs and calipers for the application. I'm sure the Pug 205 derv wasn't designed with blatting around a track in mind. Well the suspension and drivetrain is based on that of a 205 GTi (significant changed of the other petrol models), so actually it is very well equipped as standard. My problem was that the pads (or maybe the fluid) over heated very very quickly, and now the friction material is shagged (not worn in terms of lack of pad material). Serves me right for getting cheap pads. A swap to vented discs (and M1144 pads and decent fluid) will be more than adequate as its what a similarly weighted GTi will have. I was thinking vented would be only a partial solution. The problem is airflow, the designers (fairly sensibly) decided this wasn't important and went for a slippery coef of drag rather than ducting air to the brakes. If you want to stop the brakes getting hot, you need more airflow to the discs, e.g. duct it round from big gaps in the front spoiler and onto the discs so the airflow when you are moving brings the heat down. AFAIK the brakes are designed around an ABS pump so you can't really put competition fluid and pads in - so the heat is fundamentally your enemy there. Changing the components won't carry away more heat, changing the airflow will. |
down, funnily enough you slowing down fast makes the brakes hotter so
you're back to relying on componentry .. larger surface area of disc,
vents etc... Agreed that decent airflow will help greatly when your
moving again and cool them off enough for the next time you need them.
I'm going way off topic here. Back to my point:
Recent influx of diesel cars with big alloys & bodykits are NOT sporty
at all...and sound cack
Without bodykits and other assorted tatthey are stealthy, economical and potent performers.
A
#94
| |||
| |||
|
|
I'm thinking of downsizing, chipped 320d??? |
#95
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: And what do you mean by "equivalent"? Broadly similar size, weight, and power. But that's not possible. For a given power the diesel will be heavier. To compare a diesel of the same power with a N/A engine of the same power will give the advantage to the diesel. Do you really believe for example that the BMW330d is faster than say the M3? No - why on earth would I think that ? The M3 carries a bunch more power, so it's gonna be a bunch faster ! This was exactly my point all along ! Someone said Disels were slow. They're obviously not - a 217bhp Diesel offers very similar performance to a 217bhp Petrol. Yes and here's the truth, direct comparisons are only possible for restricted ranges of cars. But would you, for example like to guess which is faster,The Toyota Landcruiser fitted with a 4.2 Litre turbo-charged diesel or my Ford with a 4.0 N/A V6? |
that ford V6 is inefficient and also shite
#96
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: You're talking about the old one. Where "old" means a few months, |
Quote:
|
don't have an orgasm Nom. |
#97
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
|
Or the one that started Carl drooling. Lets compare the performance of a Golf TDDi with the equivalent petrol car, a 1.8Turbo Golf. |
Quote:
|
Both Turbo charged, both similar displacements (the diesel has the advantage at 1.9L, so I'm being fair here) the cars have identical trim and both cost almost exactly the same. |
Quote:
|
Care to guess which one is not just faster but pushes the face of the other deep into the dirt? Hint, it isn't the diesel. |
Derv makes 150bhp, 0-60 in 8.5 seconds, and will crack 135mph.
Petrol makes 150bhp, 0-60 in 8.3 seconds, and will crack 135mph.
Performance is almost identical - this was my point all along !
Quote:
|
In fact the much-raved about GT Tdi is a complete and utter slug just managing to better 10s to 60. |
petrol car !
Anyway, this is a moot point. 0-60 time is a meaningless indicator of
performance. In-gear and through-the-gear times are what's important, and
the Derv matches the Petrol.
Quote:
|
You can a Ford Focus that is faster and five thousand pounds cheaper than the Golf TDi GT, you can get one three thousand pounds cheaper than spits in its eye and for the same price you can have one that rips the head off the Golf, and hocks a gig sticky greeny down its open wind pipe. |
matter what your budget, there is always a better used car for your money.
Secondly, the Golf is pants. If I had to choose between a Golf or a Focus,
I'd take the Focus everytime !
Quote:
|
Care to compare the BMW330 petrol (N/A) vs the BMW330d (Turbo)? |
part-and-parcel. Normally-aspirated Diesel lumps are rubbish.
Quote:
|
Oh look same result, diesel's a slug and it's a direct comparison because the cars are exactly the same bloody price. |
look for yourself !
#98
| |||
| |||
|
|
It's the *rate* of torque that defines performance. Your Volvo makes less torque, but it makes it more often (cos it's at a higher rpm) - this is why you have 30bhp more. Unless you've got a stupid power curve, it's the bhp figure that defines performance. Indeed. I know that. You know that. Tell the dickwad diesel driving anoraks who think torque is everything. |
I agree that torque is everything, but ONLY for a given power figure ! The
headline power figure is all important - but once you've met that
requirement, then the more torque, the better.
Quote:
|
I'm thinking of downsizing, chipped 320d??? |
#99
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: It's the *rate* of torque Sorry, what was that about idiots? |
#100
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Nom" <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote in message news:c6qjhj013t5 (AT) news2 (DOT) newsguy.com... Tim S Kemp wrote: Nom wrote: Tim S Kemp wrote: That would be the smell of wee wee from pssing themselves laughing at leaving all the petrol burners for dead, and still seeing over 50MPG on the fuel computer then? Even the Gold TD-GTI can't keep up with my lardy 180bhp volvo - so leaving for dead? Clearly that's because it has a 30bhp power defecit !!!! The Audi A4 with the 180bhp diesel, will certainly be able to keep up with your Volvo. Aye indeed - but volvo is bigger and heavier than the golf, Yep. and has less torque... It's the *rate* of torque that defines performance. Your Volvo makes less torque, but it makes it more often (cos it's at a higher rpm) - this is why you have 30bhp more. Unless you've got a stupid power curve, it's the bhp figure that defines performance. errrrr riiiiiiiiight. Its power AND torque that define performance. |
already know that !
If you have a 200bhp engine and a 150bhp engine, then the 200bhp engine will
give better performance. It doesn't matter HOW much torque the 150bhp engine
has - it's 50bhp down on the other !
But you already know all this !
Quote:
|
Without one the other is useless! |
What's your point ?
I repeat : "Unless you've got a stupid power curve, it's the bhp figure that
defines performance"
If you have a 200bhp engine and a 150bhp engine, then the 200bhp engine will
give better performance. It doesn't matter HOW much torque the 150bhp engine
has - it's 50bhp down on the other !
But you already know all this !
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.