how much faster will it feel
Discussion
1.4 Corsa 90 bhp - 10.5 to 0-60 mph
1.8 Corsa 125 bhp - 8 to 0-60mph
Huge difference, I thought I was driving a rocketship.
Funny thing is when I put a 2.0T in the Corsa, it didn't feel quicker, even though it has 220 bhp, it just felt more waftier and lazy, not sure if that's possible, but that's how it felt.
1.8 Corsa 125 bhp - 8 to 0-60mph
Huge difference, I thought I was driving a rocketship.
Funny thing is when I put a 2.0T in the Corsa, it didn't feel quicker, even though it has 220 bhp, it just felt more waftier and lazy, not sure if that's possible, but that's how it felt.
Our X5 somehow can feel faster off the line than my V12, because nothing seems to happen for a second and then it takes off with a wall of torque and four wheel traction. The Aston needs care off the line in first because it will eat its tyres otherwise. The car that feels like it has the most going on when accelerating hard from a standing start is the Polo with its mighty 55bhp. It sounds like stones being shaken in a can!
dieseluser07 said:
so were all in agreement 9 seconds could be fun on the road??
Could, but probably not unless in an old and classic package.Consensus doesn't seem to be necessary though. I think 9 seconds is dog slow. My 7.5 seconds S-Type is the slowest thing I drive and it's annoyingly lethargic. That doesn't mean someone else can't enjoy whatever they like though.
People don't need approval from their peers. If they did we'd all have the same thing and none of us would be happy.
jamieduff1981 said:
Could, but probably not unless in an old and classic package.
Consensus doesn't seem to be necessary though. I think 9 seconds is dog slow. My 7.5 seconds S-Type is the slowest thing I drive and it's annoyingly lethargic. That doesn't mean someone else can't enjoy whatever they like though.
People don't need approval from their peers. If they did we'd all have the same thing and none of us would be happy.
Heeeeerooooo!!!!!Consensus doesn't seem to be necessary though. I think 9 seconds is dog slow. My 7.5 seconds S-Type is the slowest thing I drive and it's annoyingly lethargic. That doesn't mean someone else can't enjoy whatever they like though.
People don't need approval from their peers. If they did we'd all have the same thing and none of us would be happy.
dieseluser07 said:
so were all in agreement 9 seconds could be fun on the road??
No. Not if you're accelerating in a straight line.A lot of the thrill comes from the steepness of the power/torque curve imo. Which is why imprezas are awesome.
Two cars with equal 4second 0-60 times can feel very different - if one takes 3 seconds to hit 20mph its going to feel a lot faster between 20 and 60 than a car that covers 0-60 in a more linear fashion.
Of course 9 seconds can be fun, it just depends what you are in and also on whether you have grown accustomed to it, or are completely new to the experience.It's suprising how quickly a sub 5 second car can turn from "HOLY f
kING st!!!" to "Goes ok, this.I wonder what mods are out there?" once you get used to it.My Hijet wasn't a 9 second van, but we laughed like children every time we launched.
kING st!!!" to "Goes ok, this.I wonder what mods are out there?" once you get used to it.My Hijet wasn't a 9 second van, but we laughed like children every time we launched.kambites said:
The thing that makes a car feel fast is a steep torque curve - the human body/brain is much better at sensing rate of change of acceleration (m/s/s/s) than linear acceleration (m/s/s). I think that's why turbos, especially turbo diesels, tend to feel faster than they are.
Yep, geek amusingly the engineering name for m/s3 is "jerk" :-)
MC Bodge said:
I like riding bikes, I like driving cars -slow or fast ones. Guiding the wife's 1.2 shopping trolley down the back roads is great fun.
Heck, I even liked riding horses when I tried it, especially galloping along desert singletrack.
i used to rev my corsa b like mad years ago when i first started driving, was actually quite fun but definately not fastHeck, I even liked riding horses when I tried it, especially galloping along desert singletrack.
Epic Win! I can actually answer this question! As in I genuinely can answer the question in real terms:
I used to have a Ford Fiesta 1.3. It had about 60 horsepower, no idea on torque and 0-60 but it was slow.
I now have a Mazda 323F 1.8. I has about 120 ish horsepower. Again I don't really know about torque or 0-60. It is faster in real terms, but does it feel faster? Not really. In fact it still feels slow.
The Mazda is a light car by modern standards but is still a fair bit weightier than an old fashioned Fiesta. I guess that makes up some of it. It's rare for manufacturers to offer identical spec cars with both big and small engines. They used to, but these days the more powerful variants tend to come with more luxury features. Perhaps that takes the edge off the difference?
So the actual answer is, objectively, the more powerful car is faster but it doesn't feel that different.
I used to have a Ford Fiesta 1.3. It had about 60 horsepower, no idea on torque and 0-60 but it was slow.
I now have a Mazda 323F 1.8. I has about 120 ish horsepower. Again I don't really know about torque or 0-60. It is faster in real terms, but does it feel faster? Not really. In fact it still feels slow.
The Mazda is a light car by modern standards but is still a fair bit weightier than an old fashioned Fiesta. I guess that makes up some of it. It's rare for manufacturers to offer identical spec cars with both big and small engines. They used to, but these days the more powerful variants tend to come with more luxury features. Perhaps that takes the edge off the difference?
So the actual answer is, objectively, the more powerful car is faster but it doesn't feel that different.
I sometimes drive my son's 1.2 Clio (70bhp or so?), and I alternate between a Skoda Octavia 2.0L and another Octavia 1.8T estate for my journey to work (all 'B' roads).
The Clio: 1.2 70bhp torque unknown.
The Skoda 2.0 has 114 hp @ 5400 rpm & 172 N·m (127 lb·ft) @ 3200 rpm
The Skoda 1.8T has 148 hp @ 5500 rpm & 210 N·m (150 lb·ft) @ 2200–4200 rpm (figures from Wiki)
There's not a lot between the 1.8 and 2.0 in everyday driving - the 2.0 has good low down torque, and is noticeably quicker pulling away from junctions and exiting bends etc. whereas the 1.8T needs to be revved a bit harder to yield the same sort of driving style - but it it noticeably quicker than the 2.0 when driving hard.
The Clio is obviously noticeably slower, but still quite capable given it's engine size, and I do find it quite fun also because it's a smaller, lighter car.
So I'm sure you'll notice a difference, but what I'm trying to say above is it depends on the characteristics of the engine, e.g. at what revs the torque / power are generated.
The Clio: 1.2 70bhp torque unknown.
The Skoda 2.0 has 114 hp @ 5400 rpm & 172 N·m (127 lb·ft) @ 3200 rpm
The Skoda 1.8T has 148 hp @ 5500 rpm & 210 N·m (150 lb·ft) @ 2200–4200 rpm (figures from Wiki)
There's not a lot between the 1.8 and 2.0 in everyday driving - the 2.0 has good low down torque, and is noticeably quicker pulling away from junctions and exiting bends etc. whereas the 1.8T needs to be revved a bit harder to yield the same sort of driving style - but it it noticeably quicker than the 2.0 when driving hard.
The Clio is obviously noticeably slower, but still quite capable given it's engine size, and I do find it quite fun also because it's a smaller, lighter car.
So I'm sure you'll notice a difference, but what I'm trying to say above is it depends on the characteristics of the engine, e.g. at what revs the torque / power are generated.
jamieduff1981 said:
AC43 said:
dieseluser07 said:
I've compared diesels to petrols but of course diesels have a st lot more torque between 2000rpm and 32500rpm so tend to feel faster in that tiny window but otherwise feel pretty slow
Fixed that for you.t lot more torque between 2000rpm and 32500rpm so tend to feel faster in that tiny window but otherwise feel pretty slow
Shame they're really more like 1700rpm to 2200rpm.
My hatred of diesels is because of the horrible gutless nature of them outside of that narrow powerband, if you keep them in there they're ace but it involves an auto-box or frantic gearbox stirring. My son thought a 2.0 TDCI140 was quicker than my 2.5T because of the small torque band, it's actually about 3s slower to 60 (and actually has the same torque at the engine and less torque at the wheels).
Anyway, 9sec is plenty, it will beat 95% of all people off the lights (although at least 1/2 of those won't even be trying) and can still be fun.
I personally consider 10.x seconds to be the slowest 0-60 I'm prepared to accept in a car.
LukeR94 said:
Yeah Im fine now thanks fully recovered, luckily no lasting damage!
Aged 16 2.9 bhp Suzuki ts50er Aged 17 13 bhp Suzuki ts125er (struggled to keep front wheel on the ground)
Aged 19 40? bhp Z500 Struggled to hold on at speed, and braking hard from erm 70 to zero, with proper brakes was scarey. and my arms were no strong enough.
Aged 20 36? Bhp RD350LC (again Front wheel on ground issues)
Didn't crash, but there was always 6 weeks of readjustment, where throttle sensitivity wasn't always in tune with my brain.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff