Well for years they got it wrong. It's what was right about the Corkscrew at Alton Towers and wrong about all the new rides. The Corkscrew was bent by eye to a chalk mark on the floor and welded up in place to where it came, every joint was a rattler. New rides like Rita Queen of Speed are bent up on CNC presses that can allow for spring back and put up using laser levels. It goes quicker but is so smooth it's a yawn.
To see if you're paying attention...
Silk gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Meanwhile, back in the '70s, those were cars which were regarded as "old bangers".
I really don't want to know whether you consider yourself "well-equipped" or not.
How do you get uprated cylinders on a Pinto?
What I did with the Cosworth was bored out the block massively, then installed liners and bored them to fit the pistons. Worked a treat.
In the eighties, my mother bought an S-Type Jaguar, wondering why it was so much cheaper than a Mk1/2 Jaguar, but needing the longer wheelbase for wedding dresses in the back.
She then found out that, during the 70's they weren't as popular and were little more than scrap yard fodder, or hot rod donor until mid 80's even when in near mint condition. A 1960's S type Jaguar was considered a banger in the late 70's/early 80's so why shouldn't 30 year old design like the Capri be a classic now like the S-Type is.
It is a phase. Used to be modern/banger/(Scrap/Classic). Now things go modern/banger/(scrappage/retro)/classic. The whole retro movement spans cars that were either never desirable when new, so rare and quirky, to the scruffy end of the older luxury market that eventually, as they are kept alive, will end up restored as genuine classics.
Golf GTi isn't a "perfornmance car", sporting yes, performance no.
1976 108bhp/810kg, 133bhp/ton, 9.1sec 0-100km/h, 113mph. 1986 137bhp/907Kg, 151bhp/ton, 0-60mph 7.5sec, 1/4 16.2, 127mph (first 16V) 1991 148bhp/1100kg, 134bhp/ton, 9.3sec 0-100km/h, 129mph 2001 178bhp/1279kg, 139bhp/ton, 7.9sec 0-100km/h, 138mph 2004 197bhp/1336kg, 148bhp/ton, 7.3sec 0-100km/h, 146mph 2004 197bhp/1355kg, 145bhp/ton, 6.9sec 0-100km/h, 145mph (DSG) 2006 227bhp/1376kg, 164bhp/ton, 6.6sec 0-100km/h, 151mph (Edition 30 DSG) 2009 208bhp/1338kg, 155bhp/ton, 6.9sec 0-100km/h, 1/4 15.2, 148mph (DSG) 2009 245bhp, 5.6sec 0-100km/h, 162mph (V50 SG) - what they should have been giving you all these years.The standard shifts upwards over time, in mid 60's a DB5 was a performance car, by 1989 an entry level sports car (not a performance car) could match it's 7sec 0-60mph, 16sec 1/4 and 140mph top speed.
If you are running at a speed and in a gear that has reduced rpm such that the turbo's aren't spooled then you aren't even close to the "POWER BAND". The "POWER BAND" of any engine [1] will always be in the upper 1/3 of the rev counter dial. The "POWER BAND" is that part of the rpm range that gives outright maxium acceleration, it's the rev range that's used for drag racing, circuit racing, setting 0-60mph and
1/4mile times.
How the pro's present road load and tractive effort.
Just makes it all totally useless, like who the hell knows what 500lbs feels like up the ass in a 2500lb car. I ignore hills and complete the calc they don't do. Acceleration = force / mass, bigger the m/s² acceleration the bigger the kick up the proverbial.
So lets look at the contenders.
1: Mopar motor power, the 300C AWD, 340bhp of V8 Hemi clout. 2: Audi A6 2.8 V6 Quattro Avant, 190bhp. 3: Connor's 130bhp 2L capri (5 speed I hope). 4: 2.0TDCi 130bhp. 5: Let's have a another big V8, Corvette C5 6 speed manual, a whumping great 400 bhp. 6: The wheezy little jap motor, 185bhp - 3" blueflame drainpipe.Here's how they do, I've done 1 and 6 in 5th (top) and 4th, all the rest in top gear only.
And the winner for on road 50-125mph top gear roll on acceleration = kick up the ass is : The wheezy little jap motor with a peak of 1.25m/s² at 70mph.
2nd= goes to the 2.0 TDCi and Audi A6 2.8V6 QA 1.1m/s² Though due to breadth of speed range the Audi has it.Wheezy little jap motor is in a true top gear, it maxes out a few 100 rpm past max power. At 70mph it's cruising with a spooled turbo for near instant mash and go. All the others have huge overdrives to get fuel economy and the 130bhp cars are underpowered so it's really unfair to include them (sorry Connor).
C5 for all it's monster torque and 400bhp, stomp and try to go from
1600rpm/70mph in top and it's as flat as the proverbial fart unless you change down. Brit petrol heads decry Automatics but the Yanks know that they are a vital face saver, no chance to make a fool of yourself being stuck in top. Floor that 300C at 70mph, as it's auto box isn't stupid it will drop 2, use it's REAL POWER BAND and so depart smartly, making it the real winner. You can see how that works by the 300C 4th gear curve being above all the rest (wljm 4th and 3rd) from 110-155mph but it doesn't run out of 3rd until 125mph.Also note how except for the Pinto and TDCi none have max in gear acceleration at max torque. The TDCi has max acceleration at the start of it's torque peak. People mistakenly call this "peaky". The blue diamond at 143mph is at the peak torque for the 300C. For the Vette it's overdrive is so long that it's peak torque is way off the scale. If it could get there in top, 4000rpm peak torque would be at 200mph.
So lets see about Connor's 130bhp shootout.
The best possible acceleration is always had by dropping a gear or 2 and reving into the upper 1/3 of the rev range, where max power is.
This shows that the 130bhp Capri should Muller the TDCi. But to fully press home it's power/weight advantage it does have to be reved out to the 7000rpm redline though the gears. Expecting it to pull from anything below 2000rpm (50mph for 5 speed / 40mph for 4th) is cruelty. TDCi has to change up at about halfway between it's 4000rpm peak power and 5000rpm redline to maintain accleration. If the 130bhp Capri is not showing the TDCi the way to do it right when reved out to 6000rpm then it's sick.
The "POWER BAND" starts from where a gear has best acceleration at a speed though to the speed where the next gear has better acceleration or redline forces a gear change. So for TDCi in 3rd gear it's from
50mph to 75mph = 2750 to 4500rpm, for Capri it's 70 to 100mph = 5000 to 7000rpm. The same rev range is about the POWER BAND for all other gear ranges as well. It ALWAYS has MAX POWER in that range, which is why it's called the "POWER BAND". If the rpm range of the power band includes peak torque then the motor, like the 300C and C5, can be deemed "peaky" - there's just so much you can't tell but max torque at just 80% of max power rpm, is "peaky".This also shows the huge reduction in acceleration resulting from just mashing the throttle in too high a gear. At 50mph in top the TDCi only pulls 0.75m/s², in 3rd it will pull 2.05m/s², 3 x as much. Switching to that lower gear also allows a reduced throttle opening to give better progress.
[1] Except Ford Diesels which have a 5000rpm redline, 500rpm faster than a Diesel can effectively burn fuel. So upper 1/3 for them is really 3000-4500rpm just like any other Diesel.
Although...
271bhp, 0-62 in 5.9s, 155mph (limited) and 42mpg are making me wonder if it's worth turning to the dark side of the Force.
And just think of the better class of people you'll meet in the queue at the pumps... Taxi drivers. Van drivers. Bus drivers. Taxi drivers.
I am not telling you what you put in the engine. I am reading what you say you are getting out of the engine, and making the simple deduction.
130bhp @ 6000rpm means it has 110lbs ft of torque.
Will have more than that at peak torque around 3000rpm, estimate 75bhp = 125lbs ft.
And good for nothing 95lbs ft at 2000rpm.
But for a TDCi to be walking all over it when revved though gears to
6000rpm, it must be down to less than stock.Air filters? Are the carbs opening fully at full throttle? Are the choke plates at 90° to flow when off? Is timing correct? Is timing mark at true TDC? Has belt jumped a tooth? If you have a vernier pulley, has it slipped? Blocked fuel or air jets? Mixture screws all still in place? Any jets fallen out of carb into float chamber? Float levels? Compression? Unless you have been quite aggressive on CR that cam shouldn't be interference, so bent valve unlikely, rings or head gasket. Broken valve spring.
Stick a vac gauge on it. You can get a lot of info from a vac gauge. Google vacuum gauge diagnostics.
Not necessarily. If a diesel has maximum power at 4000rpm and maximum torque at 2000rpm, which is exactly the same proportion as the 6000rpm and 3000rpm of a petrol engine.
On top of that, a petrol engine typically bangs its head at 6500rpm whereas a modern diesel gracefully fades to 5000rpm. So, I suggest that a diesel overall, is actually wider.
For me it is so. My present (diesel) and previous (petrol) have similar power to weight yet there is no doubt that between 30-80 the diesel gear ranges are both faster and wider. We're not talking nuances here, it's like going back 25 years to the time when cars were nearly half a ton lighter. Only from standing start (where absolute rev limit counts more than rev range), combined with the turbo lag does it lack petrol's finesse and so delivers a possibly inferior 0-40 time.
I think you are comparing Diesel turbo with a N/A petrol.
Try that comparison with any petrol turbo up to 21 years old and you will find you need a Diesel with a Compound turbo to get anywhere close to matching it. Do the comparison with a petrol turbo under 10 years old and the turbo compound Diesel loses.
This is a comparision of driven wheel torque, it shows how a selection of engines will respond in a given chassis if all geared for the same speed. %rpm = 100 x rpm / redline rpm. Normalised torque (Nm) = redline rpm x torque (Nm) / 1000. (I've used /1000 to keep the figures sane)
The best Diesel turbo has 2 turbos. Engine makers have yet to deliver a VVTi (Vtec/Vanos etc) sequential twin turbo petrol engine. If they ever do it will look like the SR20VET curves but at 50% redline rpm it will ramp up again to a peak 20-25% higher.
Are Diesels as good as petrol? NO and never can be, development engines have hit a cylinder pressure limit and the heads are fatigue cracking under test. There's no more to be had unless you accept short engine life.
"Peter Hill" wrote
Yes, obviously. Nothing in the first paragraph suggested anything else. Unless you're suggesting that the definition of "any good petrol engine" inherently excludes all n/a engines.
I'm never going to trot out the diesel "torque" thing. It is obvious nonsense. But petrol turbo has never become mainstream despite a few examples knocking around for over 30 years. For all their impressive open throttle delivery, fuel consumption and everyday driveability have never offered a realistic selling point. Perhaps the new crop of direct injection engines fixes that?
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.