 | |
Missed opportunity for Ford??
Cars Modifications Aspects of car modifications (tuning, styling) (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#121
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Missed opportunity for Ford?? -
05-04-2004
, 04:52 AM
|
"Nom" <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote in message news:c6t3l902s5t (AT) news3 (DOT) newsguy.com... 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 ! Yes, power = torque * rpm, which clearly shows that they are directly 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). 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" See my proof above which clearly shows that one IS useless without the other (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. 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 |
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).
You already know that Power is effectively a measure of how much torque is
applied over a given time.
It doesn't matter what the headline torque figure is - the more times per
second you can apply it, then the more power you're going to make !
Conversely, you can have masses of torque, and apply it much less
frequently - the end result won't change.
#122
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. Sorry, I should have said "the through-the-gears times..." For equal power diesels will generally be slower through the gears than a petrol as they have a narrower power band. |
the effect of that is that the power curve is much flatter than that of a
petrol engine. Note that the 'width' of the powerband must be measured in
reference to the engine speed - so a width of 1000rpm at 3000rpm is
'wider' than a width of 1000rpm at 5000rpm, IYSWIM.
Quote:
|
Why would you stay in 4th gear when doing a 50-70 sprint ?!?!?! I wouldn't, I'd change to whichever gear gave me post power, but most diesel enthusiasts go on about this, even though as a comparison it's worthless. |
worthless. If you are on the road in a car with ratios stacked for economy
then it is very relevant.
Most people simply will not e.g. shift down to 2nd gear at 50, and so will
not achieve peak engine power, and will not accelerate as quickly as an
equivalent power diesel.
Quote:
|
James |
#123
| |||
| |||
|
|
Steve Firth wrote: Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: You know exactly what I mean ! Yes but you didn't. Of course I did ! I think the term you were scrabbling around for was "force". I wasn't scrabbling around for anything - I specifically chose not to use any technical terms. A technical explantion isn't any use to anyone. |
#124
| |||
| |||
|
|
Carl Gibbs wrote: "Nom" <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote in message news:c6t3l902s5t (AT) news3 (DOT) newsguy.com... 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 ! Yes, power = torque * rpm, which clearly shows that they are directly 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). 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" See my proof above which clearly shows that one IS useless without the other (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. 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 Again : 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). As usual, over simplified. Put the Type R lump in your Rover with your |
The equation power = torque * rpm clearly shows that both are important as
they are directly related, simple as that. Unless of course you had a near
limitless rev range, which of course isnt the case.
I'm bored of this, i will say no more.
#125
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nom wrote: Steve Firth wrote: Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: You know exactly what I mean ! Yes but you didn't. Of course I did ! I think the term you were scrabbling around for was "force". I wasn't scrabbling around for anything - I specifically chose not to use any technical terms. A technical explantion isn't any use to anyone. explantation, used to grow banana's and cotton? |
#126
| |||
| |||
|
|
I'm bored of this, i will say no more. |
#127
| |||
| |||
|
|
Steve Firth wrote: Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: In any case - I suspect the 180bhp A4 will quite easily be able to keep up with your much heavier truck. You clearly aren't aware that the number of 180bhp 2.5 V6 Diesel A4s on the road is TINY (almost all the V6s are the 150bhp model) - the chances of you encountering one with a decent driver, are miniscule. My friend in Germany has a 2.5V6 Audi A4. Definately the 180bhp model ? As fars as top speed is converned it is much faster than my Ford. I can't go faster than an indicated 125. He can cruise at 240kph. However on a sprint, no it doesn't appear to be faster than mine, I usually leave him standing on the run from Basel to Freiburg until we get past Lörrach when he passes me because the truck has run out of steam. 180bhp Diesel A4 can hit 60 in a smidgeon over 8 seconds. Your 200bhp 4.0 Ford Explorer can do it in 10.5 seconds. Your extra 25bhp upgrade will take something like half a second off that time - so it's gonna be somewhere around the 10 second mark. It won't even NEARLY keep up with the A4. And your comment about it out-accelerating the 150bhp Diesel Golf (very similar performance figures to the A4) is clearly poppycock too. |
twisty country lanes than a Saxo VTS
--
Dan
#128
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. 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. |
the VW Racing cup. The petrol's faster, despite the 1.8T being smaller than
the 1.9TD. 3.4 seconds a lap on their test track. The diesel didn't grip as
well, despite being a 3 door shell and the petrol having 5 doors. Petrol
made 217brake and 285lbft, Diesel made 174bhp and 365lbft. Of course, the
diesel's probably easier to drive quickly, but anyone who's trying in the
petrol will make you look a twat.
Steve's right, and people who like diesels DO smell of wee.
#129
| |||
| |||
|
|
Remember, this is the same Ford Explorer than Steve says is quicker down twisty country lanes than a Saxo VTS |
drive I bet it's at least as quick if not quicker in real terms than the
saxo.
#130
| |||
| |||
|
|
Remember, this is the same Ford Explorer than Steve says is quicker down twisty country lanes than a Saxo VTS Oddly enough, with the higher driving position, extra grunt and all wheel drive I bet it's at least as quick if not quicker in real terms than the saxo. |
--
Dan
|
« 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.