Power to weight - performance calculator

Just done my old Cosworth and the figures are pretty close to what it actually did at Bruntingthorpe. Unfortunately I no longer have the print-out from Bruntingthorpe as it went with the car, but quite enjoyable reading.

Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 528 Weight without Driver (KG) : 1340 Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 400.36

0 - 60 (Secs) : 3.50 0 - 100 (Secs) : 7.23 60 - 100 (Secs) : 3.73 Quarter Mile (Secs) : 11.57 Terminal Speed (MPH) : 126.51 Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 11.47 Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 127.94

The Integrale is closer than I thought it'd be according to the following

Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 332 Weight without Driver (KG) : 1291 Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 261.29

0 - 60 (Secs) : 3.98 0 - 100 (Secs) : 10.36 60 - 100 (Secs) : 6.38 Quarter Mile (Secs) : 12.65 Terminal Speed (MPH) : 110.50 Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 12.25 Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 114.20
Reply to
Pete M
Loading thread data ...

Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 193 Weight without Driver (KG) : 1415 Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 138.59 0 - 60 (Secs) : 7.56 0 - 100 (Secs) : 21.13 60 - 100 (Secs) : 13.56 Quarter Mile (Secs) : 15.97 Terminal Speed (MPH) : 86.94 Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 15.87 Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 87.93

that's for my BMW 328 coupe, the 0-60mph is about 0.3 out from BMW's quoted

7.2secs but the and i'm sure you could do a quarter mile in low 15's not bad for a barge i guess
Reply to
Vamp

Reply to
DanB

Why don't you own anything this awesome anymore?

:-(

Reply to
DanB

I'm not :-( I was going to wash it because the front end is foul, COVERED in flies still from the euro trip! But I've been a bit off colour, and now it's getting a new front bumper on an insurance claim. They say it'll be cleaned inside and out as well :-)

Reply to
DanB

Reply to
Vamp

Peter, I kept meaning to post this for you, a guy I know locally has a 200SX with 531bhp @ 1.8bar at the fly :-)

formatting link

Reply to
DanB

The last reasonably quick thing I owned was the TT Sierra 4x4 Estate.

That's not a good state of affairs.

Reply to
Pete M

1200 KG ??!!!!!

For a Clio ?

That's shocking, don't you think ?

Golf GTI MK1 for comparison.

Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 112 Weight without Driver (KG) : 810 Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 140.49 0 - 60 (Secs) : 7.64 0 - 100 (Secs) : 22.00 60 - 100 (Secs) : 14.36 Quarter Mile (Secs) : 16.13 Terminal Speed (MPH) : 85.61 Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 15.93 Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 87.10

Reply to
Bob Sherunckle

"Bob Sherunckle" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Have you seen the size of the current Clio?

3986mm long, 2025mm wide, 1496mm high

Golf GTi Mk1 for comparison...

3890mm long, 1640mm wide, 1410mm high

So the Golf - nominally, a "class up" from the Clio (or 5, back in the day) - is not only shorter and lower, but the Clio is a full 385mm wider

- 15", or damn near 25%...

Reply to
Adrian

Trouble is that most GPS devices update about once per second, which is possibly acceptable resolution for 1/4mile runs, but for 0-60 you have quite an error margin. Still a nice toy, mind... :-)

Reply to
Albert T Cone

And 75% less cool.

Reply to
Depresion

Aye, but we all know cars have got heavier because of all the safety stuff that has to go into them. Which is a shame, but there's nothing I can really do heh. And they've increased the power from the earlier ones so it still has the same power to weight at the 182. It still feels small to drive 'cos it has a really brilliant chassis/suspensio setup - the best FWD one I've ever driven, along with the best brakes I've ever known on a road car as well. The Clio Cup race cars have the same brakes :-)

And the real perk of the 197 is that unlike the previous RenaultSport Clios, it's making the quoted power (once it's run in) on the rollers as well - plenty of reports of 198-202bhp :-). I know mine's a healthy one as it keeps bang up with my mates Corsa VXR - they're perfectly even, with my slight extra weight, and his little extra torque. Although on the 'between round abouts test' on my private road, we found on the straight it was bang even, but I could get round the roundabout quicker :-p

As I said when I bought it, it's a real shame everyone in here hasn't had a go at blasting down some B-roads in one to maybe re-align some prejudices. I know certain members would never admit they enjoyed it, but I am 100% certain everyone in here that still enjoys driving, or remembers what it's like to drive for fun, would love it. None of that was aimed anywhere near you of course John, just at the more objectionable members.

Reply to
DanB

Well, yea, but that was 20 years ago. VWs Polo GTi, they're current Clio class car is 3914mm long, 1650mm wide, 1467mm high. So, it's longer than the Clio, albeit quite a bit narrower, and bigger than the Golf is every way. Not sure what the relevence of this is however...

Worth noting the RS Clios are 60mm wider than a normal spec Clio. They have a much wider track, and as such, wider arches etc. They look much better for it as well, gives them a way better 'stance'.

Reply to
DanB

"DanB" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Try 30+. The Mk1 Golf GTi was released in '76 or '77.

Umm, no, slightly shorter.

It explains why the Clio's such a fat bastard in comparison to a Mk1 Golf.

Furry muff. The figures I gave were from Parkers - and were for a normal Clio.

Reply to
Adrian

Yea sorry I read the figure for the Golf heh.

RS.co.uk gives the width as 1768mm or 2025mm including the mirrors, and the height as 1484mm unladen - mine would 7mm lower having the Cup chassis - "Ride height lowered by 7mm - Stiffer springs - 27% at the front and 30% at the rear - Dampers stiffened by 10%" also from the RS website :-) So it's actually not as much wider as I thought as that figure for the Polo (1650mm) is no including the mirrors either. Mind you, that Polo is due to be replaced by the a new Polo any time soon, which I'm sure will be bigger again because, unfortunately that's what happens m'afraid! We can all complain as much as we like, but cars are just gonna keep growing heh. The new Twingo is based on the chassis of the 182, the previous Clio is now the car in the 'smaller' class heh! Shame the Twingo doesn't get the 197 engine really, as the new RenaultSport one looks pretty cool I think (although no one will agree I'm sure hehe)

formatting link
And I bet the Golf one doesn't include the mirrors, because the standard 'car width' measurement doesn't seem to be mirror to mirror, but widest body point to point AFAICS, but if I'm honest, I couldn't be arsed to look that hard :-) Car widths aren't *that* interesting it turns out :-(

Reply to
DanB

"DanB" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Much prefer the original Twingo.

Reply to
Adrian

That doesn't surprise me at all hehe :)

Reply to
DanB

Corrado Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 235 Weight without Driver (KG) : 1200 Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 198.98

0 - 60 (Secs) : 5.69 0 - 100 (Secs) : 13.79 60 - 100 (Secs) : 8.10 Quarter Mile (Secs) : 14.05 Terminal Speed (MPH) : 100.93 Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 13.85 Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 102.74

Old Westfield Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 220 Weight without Driver (KG) : 650 (Guesstimate) Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 343.90

0 - 60 (Secs) : 3.77 0 - 100 (Secs) : 9.65 60 - 100 (Secs) : 5.88 Quarter Mile (Secs) : 12.15 Terminal Speed (MPH) : 112.18 Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 12.05 Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 113.53
Reply to
Homer

Tuned supercharged one, or low boost charged VR6...? Or just tuned, cams etc VR6?

The public needs to know :-)

Reply to
DanB

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.