 | |
Missed opportunity for Ford??
Cars Modifications Aspects of car modifications (tuning, styling) (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#81
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Missed opportunity for Ford?? -
04-29-2004
, 08:42 AM
|
"Nom" <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote in message news:c6qjql0145v (AT) news2 (DOT) newsguy.com... When they make a 4x4, WRC ready diesel, then we'll be in agreement  It's never gonna happen WRC cars are 2.0 engines, and they make about 300bhp ish. I rekon it would be impossible to get 300bhp from a 2.0 Diesel lump. I am sure VW, or at least someone was rallying MK4 TDI golf's a few years ago. They were blue IIRC. I'm not sure how successful they were or for how many seasons they rallied. Douglas I believe in the states they had a Golf IV TDi that they raced on longer |
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
#82
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Nom" <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote in message news:c6qjql0145v (AT) news2 (DOT) newsguy.com... When they make a 4x4, WRC ready diesel, then we'll be in agreement It's never gonna happen WRC cars are 2.0 engines, and they make about 300bhp ish. I rekon it would be impossible to get 300bhp from a 2.0 Diesel lump. I am sure VW, or at least someone was rallying MK4 TDI golf's a few years ago. They were blue IIRC. I'm not sure how successful they were or for how many seasons they rallied. |
They were pre PD units and were maxed out at about 170bhp. Remmeber this is
from a 1.9 8valve, non crossflow cylinder head.
I would guess 200bhp from the new 2 litre 16v TDI's would be fairly easily
possible.
Tim..
#83
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Nom <Nom (AT) Somewhere (DOT) Somewhere> wrote: Clearly the BMW is *NOT* "a spec in the rearview mirror getting smaller and smaller" when compared to an equivalent Petrol car ! You never mentioned an "equivalent" petrol car. |
If one has DOUBLE the power of other, then it's quite obviously gonna make
the car a damn-sight quicker - whether it's powered by Petrol, Grass,
Cheese, or Old Table Legs.
Quote:
|
And what do you mean by "equivalent"? |
Quote:
|
Do you really believe for example that the BMW330d is faster than say the M3? |
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.
Quote:
|
Same engine size of course the M3 is normally aspirated so you'll hav eto take the turbo off the 330 to make it "equivalent". |
Whether the engine is forced-induction or not, is completely irrelevent. You
can have 200bhp of NA engine (Honda VTec), vs 200bhp of Turbo engine (Rover
T16 say) vs 200bhp of Diesel engine (Pug's new 2.7 V6 Turbo). Performance
between all three will be broadly similar - even though they're all
completely different.
This is the whole reason we're having the discussion - you've completely
missed my point
#84
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
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.
#85
| |||
| |||
|
|
Cheese, or Old Table Legs. hat would be a perfect engine for these modern over taxed times. |
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
#86
| |||
| |||
|
|
There is no bloody way that thing is 50:50 |
#87
| |||
| |||
|
|
The 330d is 184 bhp |
Quote:
|
not 200. |
#88
| |||
| |||
|
|
Theo <theo*+*@*+*letsblowitup*.*com> wrote: 200hp??? heavy old engine??? LOL The 330d is 184 bhp, not 200. |
You're talking about the old one. Current lump is 204bhp.
Quote:
|
Still laughing? |
#89
| |||
| |||
|
|
Steve Firth wrote: Oh look - Steve Firth is speaking shite again. |
Loud, ignorant and arrogant, Steve Firth has the massive advantage of never
having to learn anything, because he is always "right."
It's been this way since he was at primary school.
#90
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
who think torque is everything.
I'm thinking of downsizing, chipped 320d???
|
« 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.