Getting pushed back in your seat
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: What are the mph settings for speed cameras?
Next: This guy was hammering it - even by my standards!
From: Depresion on 1 Oct 2009 18:41 "Pete M" <pete.murray(a)SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:h9s1a3$8u3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Mr. Benn wrote: >> Pete M <pete.murray(a)SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:h9r4f7$foc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: >>> Peter Hill wrote: >>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:36:25 +0100, "Mark" <mark(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> "fishman" <spammeifyoulikebutiwontreadit(a)gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>> message >>>>>> news:54241104-8b30-4df1->aba4-f022c54796b2(a)r36g2000vbn.googlegroups. >>>>>> com... On 28 Sep, 16:23, The Debacler >>>>>> <jameswoolford2...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> Trying to top the poll of the most boring or stupid question.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How powerful does a car need to be to �push you back in your seat� >>>>>>> I seem to remember the acceleration from a friends Vauxhall >>>>>>> cavalier 2.0 16v was when I first noticed it(which was about >>>>>>> 130bhp). I guess higher torque causes the sensation more than >>>>>>> higher revving lower torque cars? Or is it more about delivery >>>>>>> Turbo instead of NA? >>>>>> Power to weight ratio is the most important factor. >>>>> Torque to weight really >>>> Bollocks not again, here comes your Physics primer. >>> Are you making excuses for not having any torque again? >>> >>> Honestly, try something with a proper engine instead of some wheezy >>> little Jap lump and you'll discover why people like big engines. >> >> Or turbocharged petrol engines. > > I've had a fair few turbo'd petrol engines in my time. To make 'em fun they > need to be either minimum of 3.0 capacity or run big boost. > > Having said that, big engines with turbos are good fun. > > Little four pots can be fun, but if you've never tried a 6 or 8 cylinder > with a couple of turbos you don't know what you're missing. Turbos are a > good cheat, but they're really not the same as a nice 7.2 V8. 16L and turboed. Should never have gone to that Volvo ImechE "lecture" being a trucky seems extremely nice work and very simple if the sales pitch that was given was true.
From: Depresion on 1 Oct 2009 18:44 "Pete M" <pete.murray(a)SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:h9s1gg$a3q$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Mike Barnes wrote: >> In uk.rec.driving, Conor wrote: >> >>> I have a 2L Capri. It has 130BHP, weighs 1098kg. It has roughly 100lb/ft >>> torque. >>> >>> I have a 2L Mondeo TDCi. It has 130BHP, weighs approx 1500kg. It has >>> roughly 244lb/ft. >>> >>> The Mondeo absolutely thrashes the Capri on 30-70MPH acceleration >>> despite weighing nearly 50% more. >>> >>> Explain. >> >> You haven't given enough information for anything other than a guess, >> but my guess would be that the difference is largely explained by two >> things: >> >> 1 The diesel's power is available over a wider range of revs. You >> presumably quote peak power, which applies at only one speed. The >> petrol engine's power will fall off very quickly either side of the >> peak revs, whereas the diesel engine's won't. > > Diesel power bands are notoriously narrow, especially compared to that of > any good petrol engine. Turbo diesels have even narrower useable power > bands. Yep my TDi only make's 90% of it's 290ft/lbs between 1500 and 4700rpm just 64% of the rev range.
From: Depresion on 1 Oct 2009 18:50 "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.252d6560b0ee113b98977c(a)news.eternal-september.org... > In article <7igsrqF2r90o3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Douglas Payne says... > >> A swift bout of bistromathics says that's about 15%. Given that none of >> the numbers anyone's banding about are very precise, it doesn't sound >> too unreasonable to me. >> > Indeed which is why, in the absence of taking the engine out and running > it on a dyno, I figured it wasn't too far from reality. > >> I'm sure I've seen people quoting much more optomistic figures after a >> visit to a rolling road on here. > > Quite possibly but not for a 25 year old well worn gearbox driving a 25 > year old well worn live axle. You will probably find if you put the Mondy on the rollers that it will be 115-120 at the wheels, not enough to offset it's fatness.
From: Depresion on 1 Oct 2009 18:57 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7ijgj1F30tkv5U19(a)mid.individual.net... > boltar2003(a)yahoo.co.uk gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>>>>The one thing that old Yank V8's were noted for was their amazing >>>>>ability to get less power from a 5.7L V8 than we were doing from a 2L >>>>>Vauxhall Cavalier. > >>>> I've never seen a stock cavalier with 300bhp from a 4 pot. > >>>Some versions of the 350 Chevy v8 put out as little as 165bhp in the mid >>>'70s - and that was brochure horsepower. God knows how gutless they >>>actually were. >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_small-block_engine#350 > >> And given that 2.0s over here in the 70s struggle to make 80hp its a >> case of glass houses. > > No, not really. 115bhp from the 307/5.0? Mmm-hmm. > That was really nothing very special from 2.0 in the '70s. > >> Also don't forget that the octane rating of yank petrol is > > measured differently So is the engine horsepower. (There's are weaker than ours)
From: Depresion on 1 Oct 2009 19:01
"Pete M" <pete.murray(a)SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:ha001q$vln$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > boltar2003(a)yahoo.co.uk wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:51:59 +0100 >> Pete M <pete.murray(a)SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> If I'd dropped a Rover V8 in (my favoured choice) I'd have knocked about >>> �2000 off the value of the car then, and about �5000 off it's equivalent >>> value now. >>> Any more questions? >> >> Yeah - if the point is to make the car more fun why do you care about the >> resale value? > > I got 155 bhp or thereabout from the 2.0, a standard Rover V8 is 160ish bhp > (182bhp in 10.5:1 early P6 tune, 135 bhp in Stromberg equipped Range Rover > tune, 160ish in SD1 tune) . Ok, the Rover lump is tuneable and provides a > lot more torque, but the Escort only weighs around 820kg anyway so the lack > of torque wasn't that important [1]. To spend a few weeks fitting a Rover > lump would have made it more fun, but it wouldn't make it much quicker than > it was already. So, combined with the cost of conversion and the cost of > parts it wasn't a viable thing to do to an immaculate and sought after car. > Especially when it would have lost about 50% of its market value at the > time. > Any more questions? Yes, what's the [1] for? |