Yes, completely ruined the area. I'm old enough to remember (just) when NSL meant NSL. I had a lift up Long Hill with a family friend who had an E-type, a magnificent experience. He managed to get up to the magic ton and I think at one point he hit 70 in second gear.
I think I could have hit a ton in the Z4 today.
If I'd wanted to.
Don't you need an "allegedly"in there as well?
Quite possibly.
Ah, but is he? Torque is a turning force. If there's enough turning force it could alter the speed at which the earth spins, and therefore time travel could be possible. Sort of. Ok, I'll get my coat....
I'll bring a camera.
allegedly :-p
Heh, your engine burns fuel most efficiently at peak torque but I'm pretty sure that factors like the aerodynamics of your car and drivetrain drag mean that you won't get the best MPG at 88mph.
I tried this theory (albeit unscientifically) with my Carlton and the readings from the fuel computer. Peak torque was 3600rpm which was probably about 90mph. I can assure you that it used much less fuel at a constant 60 than it did at 90.
Anyway, I couldn't get a flux capacitor for a 1992 Clarton for love nor money.
I thought that was distributors?
Poxy moulded-in carbon bush bearings. That's what killed mine - still the nicest car I've had.
Thirsty though...
No, as Tim K, best *efficiency* is at peak torque.
Required power scales as velocity cubed, and energy dissipated as velocity squared. Your engine would have to be seriously inefficient when off peak to get similar economy at 50 and at ~90 mph.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required