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: Mike Barnes on 28 Sep 2009 18:26 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. 2 In a petrol-driven car, the driver often can't be arsed to change down, but in the diesel car he doesn't have to. With a petrol engine the power is only available at higher revs, hence the need to change down. 3 (OK, I can't count). The Capri is knackered. :-) Note that the word "torque" doesn't figure in any of this. -- Mike Barnes
From: Tim Downie on 28 Sep 2009 18:49 "The Debacler" <jameswoolford2000(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:9a328732-3207-4c35-86ee-b6561e6e84da(a)o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... Trying to top the poll of the most boring or stupid question.. You get my vote... Tim
From: Fraser Johnston on 28 Sep 2009 21:18 "Pete M" <pete.murray(a)SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:h9r4f7$foc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Peter Hill wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:36:25 +0100, "Mark" <mark(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>> "fishman" <spammeifyoulikebutiwontreadit(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:54241104-8b30-4df1->aba4-f022c54796b2(a)r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... >>>> On 28 Sep, 16:23, The Debacler <jameswoolford2...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> Trying to top the poll of the most boring or stupid question.. >>>>> >>>>> How powerful does a car need to be to �push you back in your seat� I >>>>> seem to remember the acceleration from a friends Vauxhall cavalier 2.0 >>>>> 16v was when I first noticed it(which was about 130bhp). I guess >>>>> higher torque causes the sensation more than higher revving lower >>>>> torque cars? Or is it more about delivery Turbo instead of NA? >>>> Power to weight ratio is the most important factor. >>> Torque to weight really >> >> Bollocks not again, here comes your Physics primer. > > Are you making excuses for not having any torque again? > > Honestly, try something with a proper engine instead of some wheezy little > Jap lump and you'll discover why people like big engines. BAH! My little Jap 1 litre four cylinder does 0 -60mph in less than 3 seconds* Fraser * Of course it resides in my CBR1000RR
From: Mr. Benn on 28 Sep 2009 23:20 Pete M <pete.murray(a)SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:h9r4f7$foc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > Peter Hill wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:36:25 +0100, "Mark" <mark(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>> "fishman" <spammeifyoulikebutiwontreadit(a)gmail.com> wrote in >>>> message >>>> news:54241104-8b30-4df1->aba4-f022c54796b2(a)r36g2000vbn.googlegroups. >>>> com... On 28 Sep, 16:23, The Debacler >>>> <jameswoolford2...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> Trying to top the poll of the most boring or stupid question.. >>>>> >>>>> How powerful does a car need to be to �push you back in your seat� >>>>> I seem to remember the acceleration from a friends Vauxhall >>>>> cavalier 2.0 16v was when I first noticed it(which was about >>>>> 130bhp). I guess higher torque causes the sensation more than >>>>> higher revving lower torque cars? Or is it more about delivery >>>>> Turbo instead of NA? >>>> Power to weight ratio is the most important factor. >>> Torque to weight really >> >> Bollocks not again, here comes your Physics primer. > > Are you making excuses for not having any torque again? > > Honestly, try something with a proper engine instead of some wheezy > little Jap lump and you'll discover why people like big engines. Or turbocharged petrol engines.
From: Peter Hill on 29 Sep 2009 02:56
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:09:59 +0100, Pete M <pete.murray(a)SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Mr. Benn wrote: >> Pete M <pete.murray(a)SPAMFREEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> news:h9r4f7$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. So is that Audi V6 a 2.7T or a 2.8? Or is it a Diesel? Cos I was all ready to go to work on analysis of the 230bhp 2.7T. >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. > >If you're going to start about fuel consumption, you're wasting your >time. Miles Per Gallon and Grins Per Mile are two entirely different >things. Grins are priceless. Right wheel drive required, that's what you have the Escort for. -- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets! |