Excellent, so you do know what "torque" is.
You also presumably know that you can vary torque by adding a gearbox. If you have an engine that provides 200 ft-lbs, you can double it, treble it, get ten times as much torque. Just add a 2:1, 3:1, 10:1 gearbox. No extra fuel, no energy required, just tack on a few cogs and you've got virtually any amount of torque you like.
2000 ft-lbs? No problem sir. Are you sure you don't want more?But it won't improve your car's acceleration.
Quite right.
But it makes no sense to compare the acceleration of petrol and diesel cars in the same gear. All other things being equal, you can make whichever one you like look better by a suitable choice of gear.
Dyno.
AFAIR, it was 110 or thereabouts.
Conor gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Right. That's one hell of a lot of frig-factor included, then.
Shouldn't have been.
It isn't and is one of the reasons I chose that particular profile.
Indeed. The Kent FR31 is basically the same as the Burton towing spec or rather the Burton towing spec is a clone of the Kent.
BTW, you don't need the DCOE's nor the Cosworth rods to do 155BHP although you do need the 2.1 litre uprating and changing to the Weber
38DGAS carb as the 32/36DGV tops out at around 135BHP. Neither do you need the Aldon dizzy.
Say what?
I think he's implying that 20bhp is a lot of transmission loss.
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.
I'm sure I've seen people quoting much more optomistic figures after a visit to a rolling road on here.
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.
Quite possibly but not for a 25 year old well worn gearbox driving a 25 year old well worn live axle.
Can someone explain why anyone would spend time and money trying to hot rod some antiquated POS when after all that effort they *still* end up with an engine that can barely match a diesel mondeo?
Why not start out with a car with a decent engine instead of trying to polish a turd?
B2003
Can someone explain why you've been allowed to post to usenet?
To piss you off. Thanks for playing...
B2003
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.
It's more fun to do up an old banger and make it go bloke this bloke did with a Vauxhall Victor.
Thats slightly different though - he didn't spend 100K trying to coax that power out of a 2 litre 4 pot , he binned the POS under the bonnet and put a proper engine in :)
B2003
Yes, rather a lot of wedge to plough into an old wreck. Ridiculously bloody fast acelleration though. Must be like travelling in a rocket!
Bod
When I did it, it was between '88 and '92, so the car was 11 years old.
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.
I did put a Rover V8 in a Mk2 Escort, but not an RS.
Any more questions?
Yeah - if the point is to make the car more fun why do you care about the resale value?
And why is it that the smaller and weedier the engine, the more likely a manufacturer is to slap "sport" moniker on a car? Do they think that this will stop people noticing that they've just been overtaken by a milk float?
B2003
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
You seem to forget that 1300 would have been towards the upper end of the engine range in a Mk2 Escort. Think 1.8 Zetec S Focus. It's only because cars have got so bloaty that they now need such big engines. Hell, you could get 1300 Cortinas, 1100 Escorts and 950 Fiestas.
What's the smallest Fester now? 1.25? Probably weighs a shitload more than a Mk2 'scrote, too.
A 1.6 Mk2 'scrote would have been roughly equivalent, in range- positioning, to a 2.0 Focus now, with the RS2000 equivalent to the ST.
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.
It's a trim level. Although, with the admittedly puny 1.3 Kent lump, the Sport (and the Ghia) did produce more power and torque than 'non' sport versions. A whole throbbing 72 bhp instead of 55 bhp, so close to 30% more. The 'Sport' had uprated Sachs dampers, and wider wheels than the standard Mk2, a twin choke Weber instead of a VV carb, a four branch exhaust manifold and a slightly larger exhaust system.
Therefore the 1300 Sport is indeed sportier than the non-Sport. The Ghia had the same amount of power but weighed more and had softer springs. This means the 1300 Sport is the sportiest of the 1300s.
Any more questions?
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.