Utilising the power on a VERY powerful car...

[Zod]

xRIEx said:

Many a true word spoken in jest.

When I rode, if there was someone quicker than me behind who got too close I'd let them past; in the car, if I'm quicker than a bike in front of me, I'll leave a reasonable stopping distance. Going into the back of a car is annoying for all parties, going into the back of a bike could be fatal for the rider.

I never go close to bikes from behind. The danger to the biker is too great. I make sure that the biker is fully aware of me and wait for his signal before I pass.

[E65Ross]

braddo said:

E65Ross said:

MC Bodge said:

I the context of long distance motorway driving, a big, thirsty engine is fairly pointless, though!

Except it isn't though. I recently did 500 miles in a day in my 745i.

.....

You missed the bit about "long distance motorway driving". You may have a point in what you said in your post, but it misses the point that MC Bodge was making.

Especially in Europe where the motorways are often less busy and the distances greater, big thirsty engines can be a bit pointless.

Needing to put fuel in the car at every rest stop gets annoying. It makes the rest stop less restful and slows your average journey speed. The time, hassle and expense all add up significantly on big trips (e.g. south of France, Alps, Italy etc) so I absolutely agree with people that say a 2.0 diesel can do the job admirably.

Personally, I've done such journeys in a 300hp 4.3L V8 that averages about 25mpg on the motorway. For me, it's worth it for the extra performance and noise and the fun when I get to my destination. If I were doing such trips more than once or twice a year, however, i'd consider changing to something a bit more efficient.

It was initially said that a big engine IS pointless. When in reality what should have been said was "A big engine is pointless for my requirements"

The additional fuel stops (I manage 4-500+ miles on a tank....fine by me) from a bigger engine doesn't bother me, yet having more power etc for overtaking, and the more relaxed nature of the drive means it certainly isn't pointless.

Frankly, I find anything much slower than my 745i can get a little frustrating at times. I guess you get used to power quite quickly....and my 745i is brisk, it's not rapid.

You can look at these things very logically, and in a very boring way and say "well a 1.9 tdi will get you there just as quick as you won't need to stop for fuel as often, it'll be cheaper and it'll do the job well." But for me, a car is so much more than just a tool. It's something I can derive pleasure from, and having a sodding big engine up front purely so I can have a smile on my face from time to time means it's certainly not pointless. Pointless from a logical point of view, perhaps, yes. But since when was being 100% logical fun.

Whilst I totally understand the reasoning behind someone thinking they are pointless, for them to say they ARE pointless as if it were a fact, it wrong.

[E65Ross]

Max_Torque said:

It's worth noting that powerful RWD cars need progressive throttle inputs to "find" all the traction they can develop. If you just jump on the throttle hard, when there is no rearwards weight transfer (because the car is not accelerating) they will immediately spin the wheels (or flash the DSC light). But feed the throttle in over the period of about a second, the car sits back on the drive wheels and will take pretty much full throttle even in the wet (potholes/whitelines/diesel/leaves/smalldogs permitting of course!)

Most people who i drive with, in powerful cars who complain of a "lack of traction" are there own undoing............

Exactly; said M5 with 295 section Michelin PSS will have more traction than a 180bhp 520d on thinner rubber....

[BigBen]

crosseyedlion said:

Randomthoughts said:

crosseyedlion said:

You missed my point entirely, the fact is most car's aren't those listed. Look at the cars on he average British commute or supermarket car park.

1 in 100 being golf mk5 r32 performance or faster is a about right. And having driven 3 of the diesels listed and 4 of the hatches listed, the ones I've driven wouldn't beat the golf in a straight line.

And saying you're bored with something when it was my first comment on it is one hell of an attitude.

Every other car on the road is a GTI or a VXR round my way. I'm sat next to a (office block) car park which has a good 50% ratio on same/faster than an R32.

Let's be clear. Very powerful cars start at around 350bhp, or weigh the same as a packet of fags. They aren't Dullfs with a mediocre power output. Don't take it the wrong way, it's still a perfectly pleasant place to be, but it's not a 'very powerful car'.

Edited by Randomthoughts on Thursday 27th November 09:03

Firstly, I wont take it the wrong way - I don't own a golf, my own transport is quicker. An office building isn't really representative of most vehicles on the road. There's plenty that look powerful around me, but most of them are powered by diesel.

Never once did I say it was a powerful car, I agree that it isn't a very powerful car. It will, however - beat most cars you see on the road.

May I ask what do you drive?

I did a short and unscientific survey on the way to work this morning and passed about 300 cars. Of those faster than an R32 there were a Boxster S, an M5, an SL55 and as a control the Alpina Roadster I was in passengering in.

Therefore I reckon 98% is probably a safer number than 99%. The majority of cars were new-ish rep specs with 2.0 diesels.

[braddo]

crosseyedlion said:

I was doing 500 miles between stops on my summer jaunt...

Fuel economy wise on the motorway it was the same as the 2.0 Clio I had before it.

Tank size and economy are not tied to engine size.

The E500's relative economy and range is impressive. And, I would say, not respentative of the typical figures people have in mind when using 'very powerful' cars for continental trips. At the other end of the spectrum is stuff like the E60 M5 (small tank and horrendous economy) and the traditional GT cars - Aston DB9s, Bentley Conti GT etc.

The C43 has a smaller tank and shorter gearing than the E500, hence having a much smaller range and why an E500 would be one of the options I consider for a replacement.

[Zod]

E65Ross said:

Exactly; said M5 with 295 section Michelin PSS will have more traction than a 180bhp 520d on thinner rubber....

It can break traction very easily in first, but if you don't actually want to break traction, it's not difficult to modulate your throttle input.

[liner33]

I remember the day I collected my modified R33 after it had been mapped up to 400hp , the drive home was awesome , felt it was all the power I'd ever need but within the month I felt it was so slow that it must be broken Didnt take long for me to add another 75hp and the cycle started again

Its depressing how quickly performance that once felt scary feels mundane , ask any drag racer.

[MC Bodge]

E65Ross said:

Frankly, I find anything much slower than my 745i can get a little frustrating at times. I guess you get used to power quite quickly....and my 745i is brisk, it's not rapid.

I would say that is a pretty fast car, especially for such a big one.

Would you not prefer a smaller, lighter car?

I don't believe that a 2.0 diesel is the last word in performance motoring, and have owned and driven faster cars but the view from some that 4 cylinder cars are all awful or that a 2.0 diesel is a chore to drive (especially on a motorway) strike me as somewhat odd, and untrue.

I speak as somebody who does like driving ( and rides a bike that is fairly quick up to an alleged ton-20) and to get a move on, but drove my entertaining-in-places route to work in a 64bhp hatchback this morning and may well ride the motorbike tomorrow.

[ORD]

MC Bodge said:

E65Ross said:

Frankly, I find anything much slower than my 745i can get a little frustrating at times. I guess you get used to power quite quickly....and my 745i is brisk, it's not rapid.

I would say that is a pretty fast car, especially for such a big one.

Would you not prefer a smaller, lighter car?

I don't believe that a 2.0 diesel is the last word in performance motoring, and have owned and driven faster cars but the view from some that 4 cylinder cars are all awful or that a 2.0 diesel is a chore to drive (especially on a motorway) strike me as somewhat odd, and untrue.

I speak as somebody who does like driving ( and rides a bike that is fairly quick up to an alleged ton-20) and to get a move on, but drove my entertaining-in-places route to work in a 64bhp hatchback this morning and may well ride the motorbike tomorrow.

Not all 4 pots are awful, but they are all worse than an equivalent 6 pot with the same power and torque. All the 4 pot brings is slightly (often very slightly) better fuel efficiency.

For example, an NA or lightly blown 6 in the Golf R would make that car irresistible!

[StottyEvo]

Max_Torque said:

E65Ross said:

StottyEvo said:

A women I work with sold her M5 for this specific reason, whenever pulling out of junctions in the wet the TC was kicking in and it annoyed her greatly. Shes always had high powered cars so drives quickly, but shes 50, not exactly a yobbo... She traded the M5 in for an M3!

In this case it really is a case of just not pressing the throttle as much.

On 295 section rubber and partial throttle there shouldn't be any more wheelspin than in any other rwd car. If you can get away without spinning in a car with 150bhp, you can do the same in something with more power if you are a bit more gentle with the throttle. I found with the E92 M3 and the F13 M6 the more gentle throttle map settings are superb for this. On the aggressive settings it can be a bit too much, just feather the throttle and it gives a noticeable amount of poke.

It's worth noting that powerful RWD cars need progressive throttle inputs to "find" all the traction they can develop. If you just jump on the throttle hard, when there is no rearwards weight transfer (because the car is not accelerating) they will immediately spin the wheels (or flash the DSC light). But feed the throttle in over the period of about a second, the car sits back on the drive wheels and will take pretty much full throttle even in the wet (potholes/whitelines/diesel/leaves/smalldogs permitting of course!)

Most people who i drive with, in powerful cars who complain of a "lack of traction" are there own undoing............

It probably is her, she just gets in and drives like 99% of people out there. Funnily enough she's now in an Evoque, 9geared diesel, Its effortless to drive briskly! The 9 gear auto box and huge grip/traction are probably why.

[E65Ross]

MC Bodge said:

E65Ross said:

Frankly, I find anything much slower than my 745i can get a little frustrating at times. I guess you get used to power quite quickly....and my 745i is brisk, it's not rapid.

I would say that is a pretty fast car, especially for such a big one.

Would you not prefer a smaller, lighter car?

I don't believe that a 2.0 diesel is the last word in performance motoring, and have owned and driven faster cars but the view from some that 4 cylinder cars are all awful or that a 2.0 diesel is a chore to drive (especially on a motorway) strike me as somewhat odd, and untrue.

I speak as somebody who does like driving ( and rides a bike that is fairly quick up to an alleged ton-20) and to get a move on, but drove my entertaining-in-places route to work in a 64bhp hatchback this morning and may well ride the motorbike tomorrow.

I don't want anything smaller, I absolutely adore the vastness of the 7 series, the space inside is a massive appeal.

Lighter..... Yes, but I wouldn't want to compromise on what makes the E65 so good.... Just how quiet and comfortable it is. Compared to something like a 3 series, it really is in another league.

I didn't think twice about 4 cylinder diesels, I thought they were good. Until you get used to regularly driving a petrol with 6 or more cylinders you realise that they really are quite crude things. For some people, the things that I think make them crude (noise, vibrations especially at low rpm, power delivery etc) matter not one jot compared to the benefits.... But I don't think it can be denied that their only benefits are for saving money. That's absolutely fine, but to claim something bigger is pointless (which wasn't you, I appreciate) is utterly absurd.

[donutsina911]

BlueEyedBoy said:

and also had previously a 4.5 Cerbera) and don't / didn't struggle at all using most of the power regulary in 1st to 3rd.

You must have a delicate right boot - the last 2 days in the peeing rain have been 'eventful' - there's no way I can use anywhere close to 'most' of the 1-3rd gear power in the Tuscan S without ending up arse about face, especially when it's damp!

[XJ Flyer]

braddo said:

E65Ross said:

MC Bodge said:

I the context of long distance motorway driving, a big, thirsty engine is fairly pointless, though!

Except it isn't though. I recently did 500 miles in a day in my 745i.

.....

You missed the bit about "long distance motorway driving". You may have a point in what you said in your post, but it misses the point that MC Bodge was making.

Especially in Europe where the motorways are often less busy and the distances greater, big thirsty engines can be a bit pointless.

Needing to put fuel in the car at every rest stop gets annoying. It makes the rest stop less restful and slows your average journey speed. The time, hassle and expense all add up significantly on big trips (e.g. south of France, Alps, Italy etc) so I absolutely agree with people that say a 2.0 diesel can do the job admirably.

Personally, I've done such journeys in a 300hp 4.3L V8 that averages about 25mpg on the motorway. For me, it's worth it for the extra performance and noise and the fun when I get to my destination. If I were doing such trips more than once or twice a year, however, i'd consider changing to something a bit more efficient.

That argument only works assuming strictly limited speeds at all times.Throw in autobahn type speeds and 'making progress' over some big mountain climbs then it all looks a bit different.The fact is speed requires fuel and there is no way that you can haul equivalent weight at equivalent speeds without burning similar/same amounts of fuel.In an environment that is mostly about acceleration in the 80-140 mph + range and/or acceleration between the corners on long mountain climbs bigger more powerful is better.It is just a shame that the general speed regime in Europe and fuel costs are now making smaller engined less powerful cars 'seem' more attractive.

The question then being,depending on the reason for the trip,the idea of pandering to that by going for less power and better fuel economy just defeats the object of the run.In which case I'm still happy to run down to Italy with 6 litres and 12 cylinders at 15 mpg or sometimes less.At least while it is still possible to find places in Europe where that and more can be fully exploited.On that note someone mentioned a Ferrari 550 previously which would probably be one of the ideal choices in that environment.

[okgo]

Ross what car have you got?

[anonymous-user]

StottyEvo said:

It probably is her, she just gets in and drives like 99% of people out there. Funnily enough she's now in an Evoque, 9geared diesel, Its effortless to drive briskly! The 9 gear auto box and huge grip/traction are probably why.

Indeed. And unfortunately the fact they are brisk (ish) at low speeds makes their drivers forget just how much faster a proper, actual fast car is. These days, i'm often "held up" by some twonk in a SUV making what is probably reasonable progress, but far, far slower than I can easily go. They tend to also do things like straight line roundabouts, or sit in the outside lane too, convinced they are the fastest thing out there. Often they look surprised when, after finally having released the outside lane, one comes past like they have just selected reverse......... ;-)

[900T-R]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

So you've got a Veyron, which according to PH wisdom, can't be enjoyed to the full on public roads because it smashes some de facto p/w ratio. So what? I've got a 1000 watt RMS domestic AV system, which I can't use to the full. Does that mean I should sell it and by a 10 watt stereo because I can play it louder more often?

Swap your cheap megawatt amp for a good 10W single ended triode (with proper output transformers - not cheap) or something from Nelson Pass' First Watt range, then report back. It's not just that you can't use 1,000 watts, they work against you when you're not listening at deafening levels, too. Simpler circuitry (and better components as you need to have less of them) = less getting in the way of the music signal.

With cars & power, it's simply the fact that if you have 10x the power, you don't get 10x the throttle travel with it and given that your own 'motorics' don't change accordingly, past a certain point it gets a lot more difficult to meter out the correct amount of grunt for a given situation. Most of the time, driving such a car is an act of physical restraint more than anything else. It gets tiring. It's one of the main reasons massively powerful cars are being reined in by electronics (incl. DBW throttle) pretty much all the time; the other is that road tyres simply are overwhelmed by the power in most conditions, at least if they're specified to work in a sufficiently wide range of conditions to deem them fit for use on public roads.

[jhonn]

liner33 said:

I remember the day I collected my modified R33 after it had been mapped up to 400hp , the drive home was awesome , felt it was all the power I'd ever need but within the month I felt it was so slow that it must be broken Didnt take long for me to add another 75hp and the cycle started again

Its depressing how quickly performance that once felt scary feels mundane , ask any drag racer.

Rather than spending time, money and effort continually upgrading your R33, consider buying and running (or borrowing) a low-powered mundane runabout for a short while (a couple of weeks) - guaranteed that when you get back in the R33 it will feel like a rocketship!
Repeat every time that you feel yourself getting acclimitised.

[Pan Pan]

plenty said:

DKL said:

Isn't it a case of what you use them for? In a daily, through traffic, on congested roads, its pointless.
Your power use is limited by your surroundings.
If you are lucky enough to have traffic free roads and the time to use them then a bit more power would be great. Maybe the north york moors, northumberland or the highlands and being prepared to get up early to use them?

Pan Pan said:

I find supercars are not really fit for the environment they will be most often used in, of course for the odd occasion where the roads are clear, and there are no cameras, or speed patrols they will be outstanding, but if one reflects on the reality of driving on the roads in this country at least, those times will likely be few and far between.

There’s a time and a place for everything. If you’re willing to put some effort in, it’s still entirely possible to enjoy power responsibly on the road. The antidote to clogged roads and proliferating cameras is “event” driving, with pre-planning to minimise their impact.

I completely get what you are saying. Even in the seven, I should not really be able to use its full performance on public roads (but occasionally I do so it is a matter of being in the right car, on the right road, and at the right time, which unfortunately given increased traffic / speed monitoring etc doesn't seem to happen so often.
But when have a go in a supercar, I found having to keep off the loud pedal, almost all of the time a bit tedious, and frustrating. Arguably the 7 might be a bit better to suited to taking advantage of what opportunities might arise for a little bit of `spirited' driving, on todays over crowded, over monitored UK roads, especially back roads, which tend to be a bit narrow for doing the same in some supercars.

[mon the fish]

XJ Flyer said:

That argument only works assuming strictly limited speeds at all times.Throw in autobahn type speeds and 'making progress' over some big mountain climbs then it all looks a bit different.The fact is speed requires fuel and there is no way that you can haul equivalent weight at equivalent speeds without burning similar/same amounts of fuel.In an environment that is mostly about acceleration in the 80-140 mph + range and/or acceleration between the corners on long mountain climbs bigger more powerful is better.It is just a shame that the general speed regime in Europe and fuel costs are now making smaller engined less powerful cars 'seem' more attractive.

The question then being,depending on the reason for the trip,the idea of pandering to that by going for less power and better fuel economy just defeats the object of the run.In which case I'm still happy to run down to Italy with 6 litres and 12 cylinders at 15 mpg or sometimes less.At least while it is still possible to find places in Europe where that and more can be fully exploited.On that note someone mentioned a Ferrari 550 previously which would probably be one of the ideal choices in that environment.

Might have been me, and on a steady 120mph through Germany and into Italy, I got 16mpg which isn't much less than it gives at 70!

Being able to drive safely and legally at those speeds, just makes you realise how much of a 'caged animal' big powerful cars are in this country, and how we don't use all their potential.

Saying that, I wouldn't give up my V12 for the world, as I love the feeling of massive reserves of power and torque. But I doubt any more power would be at all usable, since it's not often I can wring it out in 2nd and 3rd

[cerb4.5lee]

donutsina911 said:

BlueEyedBoy said:

and also had previously a 4.5 Cerbera) and don't / didn't struggle at all using most of the power regulary in 1st to 3rd.

You must have a delicate right boot - the last 2 days in the peeing rain have been 'eventful' - there's no way I can use anywhere close to 'most' of the 1-3rd gear power in the Tuscan S without ending up arse about face, especially when it's damp!

I agree and to use all the power in 1st to 3rd in a Cerb in warm dry conditions is occasionally almost doable but any grease or wet conditions expect to come off the road very quickly!