 | |
Missed opportunity for Ford??
Cars Modifications Aspects of car modifications (tuning, styling) (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#101
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Missed opportunity for Ford?? -
04-30-2004
, 04:46 AM
|
I'm fairly sure that the moron in a Golf that shot up the arse of my car flashing his headlights was in a Tdi 150 and he looked surprised when I clogged it, left him for dead and then pulled over to let him past. Wasn't you was it? |
#102
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
|
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. |
heavier, then it has a disadvantage.
Quote:
|
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's pretty much like for like. Not really. The Exploder weighs 1900kg, whereas the landcruiser weighs |
whereas the toyota manages it in 12.6.
Quote:
|
Or the one that started Carl drooling. Lets compare the performance of a Golf TDDi with the equivalent petrol car, a 1.8Turbo Golf. 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. Engine size is essentially irrelevant for turbo cars. |
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. |
8.2secs), but in-gear times for the tdi are hugely quicker for the TDi.
On track, the difference would be pretty nominal, but on almost any road,
the TDI would leave the 1.8T for dead.
Quote:
|
In fact the much-raved about GT Tdi is a complete and utter slug just managing to better 10s to 60. 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. If you are comparing 0-60 times alone, which are not the diesel's forte, |
cheaper at purchase, but you'll recoup that difference in fuel in under 2
years just on fuel, plus the residuals for the TDI 150 are very good.
Quote:
|
Care to compare the BMW330 petrol (N/A) vs the BMW330d (Turbo)? Oh look same result, diesel's a slug and it's a direct comparison because the cars are exactly the same bloody price. Again, not a fair comparison. The 330 has 231BHP, the 330d has 204Bhp. |
Alternatively, comparing the 320d with the (more expensive) 320i:
320d 320i
power 150Bhp 168Bhp
0-60 8.4 8.5
0-100 23.8 25.7
30-50 4.1 5.8
50-70 7.8 9.8
econ 40mpg 30mpg
This comparison also favours the petrol, but the diesel consistently
outperforms it, is cheaper to run, has a greater range and is
significantly nicer to drive when not caning it. You'd be mad to go for
the petrol.
#103
| |||
| |||
|
|
Carl Gibbs wrote: "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. No, it's power alone. Power is simply a measure of torque x rate. But you already know that ! |
Civic Type-R makes 200bhp, and 195Nm.
My 620TI makes 200bhp, and 240Nm.
Guess which is quicker (assuming you row the gearbox, and drive around
sounding like a wasp with it's 'nads trapped in a vice)
The TIs extra torque, does nothing at all for it's performance - it merely
makes it (much) nicer to drive.
#104
| |||
| |||
|
|
Oh look same result, diesel's a slug and it's a direct comparison because the cars are exactly the same bloody price. A slug ? Er, the in-gear times annihilate those of the Petrol car ! Go and look for yourself ! |
too. The usual 50-70 in 4th gear is biased towards diesels just because
they produce their power lower in the rev range.
James
#105
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nom wrote: Oh look same result, diesel's a slug and it's a direct comparison because the cars are exactly the same bloody price. A slug ? Er, the in-gear times annihilate those of the Petrol car ! Go and look for yourself ! Comparing in gear times between petrols and diesels is a waste of time too. The usual 50-70 in 4th gear is biased towards diesels just because they produce their power lower in the rev range. |
Why would you stay in 4th gear when doing a 50-70 sprint ?!?!?!
#106
| |||
| |||
|
|
Carl Gibbs wrote: "Nom" <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote in message 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. No, it's power alone. Power is simply a measure of torque x rate. But you 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 ! |
will not usually be at.
An engine is *usually* more powerful across the whole graph, i.e. your 200 bhp
engine may be 100 bhp at 3000 rpm, while the 150 is 75 at the same speed.
However, you can have "stupid power curves" where you have to rev the engine to
8000 rpm before it comes on cam and delivers the high power, and at lower
engine speeds you've compromised all the low down power to get that high peak
(headline) figure. So, you can easily get the situation where a less tuned
engine is delivering a lot more power all the way from 20 mph to 55 mph, and is
only inferior from 55 to 60 when the other engine comes on song.
It's usual to find the peak power also means more power further down the curve
when comparing similar engines, but once you are comparing turbo-diesel and
petrol engines, there is no reason to think the peak power tells you about the
shape of the curve. In particular, the curve on a turbo diesel is a lot flatter
than a peaky, high power petrol engine will ever be. This means it gives the
higher power over a large spread of vehicle speeds, and this means it will be
accelerating more quickly over sections of the 0-60 journey than the same power
petrol engine, and this can easily mean a shorter 0-60 time even though the
peak power is lower.
Personally, I don't want a diesel because they're heavier and less powerful
than petrol engines, albeit they do about a third again miles per gallon all
else being equal. If someone can make a diesel that is about the same weight
and peak power as a petrol engine, I'd prefer that.
#107
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: Steve Firth wrote: Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: It's the *rate* of torque Sorry, what was that about idiots? Which word didn't you understand ? I understood all of them, however you appear to be inventing new physical units. |
#108
| |||
| |||
|
|
Apparently on date Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:44:35 +0100, "Nom" Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> said: Carl Gibbs wrote: "Nom" <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote in message 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. No, it's power alone. Power is simply a measure of torque x rate. But you 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 ! These figures will apply only at the peak of the power curve, which the engine will not usually be at... |
If you're willing to continually change gear, and drive around at 8000rpm (I
am not willing to do this, which is why I dislike VTec engines so much) then
you can stay around peak power all the time.
I'll rephrase my statement to include the obvious : When driven properly,
and discounting stupid power curves, the headline bhp figure is all
important.
Quote:
|
Personally, I don't want a diesel because they're heavier and less powerful than petrol engines, albeit they do about a third again miles per gallon all else being equal. If someone can make a diesel that is about the same weight and peak power as a petrol engine, I'd prefer that. |
(ie, 200bhp plus) can be counted on one hand, and cost an imperial fuckload
of dosh
#109
| |||
| |||
|
|
Carl Gibbs wrote: "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. No, it's power alone. Power is simply a measure of torque x rate. But you already know that ! |
related, therefore both important. If torque is not important then set it
at zero in the formula, and hey presto NO POWER.
Make me an engine with 200bhp and 1Nm of torque then compare to an engine
with 150bhp and 150Nm of torque. Then come and tell me that its power alone
that wins races. Power and torque, or more specifically their graphs,
dictate how a car performs (and a few other factors obviously).
Quote:
|
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 ! Without one the other is useless! You can't have one without the other ! Power is torque x rate. What's your point ? I repeat : "Unless you've got a stupid power curve, it's the bhp figure that defines performance" |
(ok its not possibly to have one without the other but put in an
infitesimally small value of torque and you have an infitesimally small
power unless you rev to stupid rpm). Whether you have a stupid power curve
or not, a cars acceleration will always match that of its torque curve so
how can it not be important?
The only way to make torque irrelevant is to have an infinte number of gear
ratios, if you name a car that has this then i will shut up.
Quote:
|
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 ! As usual you've massively over simplified things |
#110
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote 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. There's a world of difference between driving enthusiastically (i.e. 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  Ah, what YOU want. Most people want a sporty car to sound sporty....not sure I'd describe a de-silenced V8 as 'sporty', more 'menacing' And I like btw.. |
A sporty car should be about performance and agility - everything else
should come second.
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? What does that have to do with 'sport' labelled diesels not sounding sporty? 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. BMW derv sounds nice, and it revs pretty well too. Only one (yet) that 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. Even with decent airflow it (the airflow) will reduce as you slow 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. |
air flow so it all helps. As i said, vents will find there way on there at
some point....
Quote:
|
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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
|
« 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.