Discounting turbocharger lag and especially low gearing on the NA donk, the turbo would be an easier one to drive at, say, 8/10 maximum performance since you'd not need the higher engine speeds, you could use that thick slan of torque.
'Tis the same argument when discussing something like the older Mondeo TD and 1.6. The 1.6 is marginally quicker in absolute terms, but try to drive at less than peak performance and the TD widdles all over the 1.6.
Very few people take this approach in traffic jams!
I've driven a couple of cars with hot cams, and they're a _real_ pain in stop / go traffic. Why? Because there's barely enough power to drive the alternator with the headlights on at 1,500 rpm, let alone move the car forwards. So you need around 2,500 rpm to move off, but then you have to immediately dump the clutch because you've managed to move off with some pace...
See some of my older posts - I'm all for big torque, and I really hate the revvy VTec/VVti engines of today. But the big torque needs big power to go with it - it's no use on it's own :)
At the end of the day, the *power* is what's important - I'd rather have a revvy VTec/VVti for it's 200bhp, than a 130bhp Diesel with masses more torque.
But I'd much rather have a 200bhp Turbo Diesel than either of the above - makes sensible power *and* torque.
My current 200bhp Petrol is a nice compromise for now - cheap to buy (unlike a 200bhp Diesel), and nice to drive quick (unlike a 200bhp VTec/VVti).
Why would anyone give a toss about beating someone else's acceleration in a traffic jam?
We're not talking about which car is nicer to drive around town, and as it is, I suspect there's very little in it for the two cars in question. Neither is fitted with a silly cam, and the firebird will have a silly displacement engine, which I'd suspect is nicer to drive than turbolagged diesel.
Hmmm, so you'd be happier with 100 PS and 100 Nm rather than say 75 PS and
125 Nm? :)
Thing is, just looking at raw figures doesn't help. Something with 200 PS and 300 Nm might be hard to drive normally if it doesn't produce decent poke until 6,000 rpm, then it's all hell breaking loose :) until 7,500 rpm, when the limiter cuts in. Then mate this to super tall gearing... :-/
The petrol engine that I use most of the time has a respectable at a diesel-like power delivery, just a few hundred rpm higher than a diesel. There's not enough to challenge the chassis but if I were going to improve matters, I'd want to improve both power and torque at the same rate, 'cos the delivery makes for great flexibility up hills and stuff. I make it my business to touch base with new Kas and the non air conditioned 1.3 Duratec (more power, bit less torque, higher engine speeds, taller gearing) needs far more frequent downchanges on my commute to maintain progress.
The Van Aaken turbocharged 1.3s deliver a more power (most go from 58 PS or so to around 74 PS) and from 105 Nm to nearer 120 Nm. But doesn't work with air conditioning, worst luck. Other option is boring the donk out to over
in news:Kbm1k+ snipped-for-privacy@oroboros.demon.co.uk, Chris Morriss slurred :
That is true, of course, but when people talk about the 'power' of an engine, they are usually talking about the _peak_ power. Many low-revving engines have a wider power curve as a fraction of thier useable range, and as such are easier to drive in real-world situations than thier equivalently powered high-rpm equivalents.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.