Why are people buying expensive diesels?
Discussion
Wills2 said:
gizlaroc said:
Devil2575 said:
Please explain how more power is superior to more torque?
...given that power is simply torqe x engine speed.
What he is saying is, as nice as torque is, it is power that is the only figure that matters. ...given that power is simply torqe x engine speed.
700nm of torque on a car is brilliant, but not when you only have 2500rpm it's not.
It isn't rocket science.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.” ? Winston Churchill
The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
Devil2575 said:
Actualy he's wrong.
The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
What a great example you used there. The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
700bhp car?
And one that gets there with 150lb/ft?
Oh, and revs to 18,000rpm?
For a start that doesn't even calculate, you would need it to rev to 25,0000 rpm, which makes your example even more absurd.
But if you stuck with your 150lb/ft, and went to 8000rpm you would get 230bhp, which could be a very fun car to drive.
Let's be realistic though as no one is going to design a 700bhp road car with 18000rpm limit and only 150lb/ft. That is pretty much F1 engine specs.
700nm with 4000rpm gives you 390bhp. Nice.
350nm with 8000rpm gives you 390bhp. Nice.
Up to you what you prefer.
I like cars that can rev, ideally I guess I would like around 6500rpm as a minimum, which would mean I need 430nm of torque for it to be as quick as either of the above. That to me would be a good everyday car that is also fun. What fuel it uses is pretty irrelevant.
Devil2575 said:
Actualy he's wrong.
The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
Those outputs almost exactly match that of the previous generation F1 V8 engines The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
gizlaroc said:
Devil2575 said:
Actualy he's wrong.
The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
What a great example you used there. The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
700bhp car?
And one that gets there with 150lb/ft?
Oh, and revs to 18,000rpm?
For a start that doesn't even calculate, you would need it to rev to 25,0000 rpm, which makes your example even more absurd.
But if you stuck with your 150lb/ft, and went to 8000rpm you would get 230bhp, which could be a very fun car to drive.
Let's be realistic though as no one is going to design a 700bhp road car with 18000rpm limit and only 150lb/ft. That is pretty much F1 engine specs.
700nm with 4000rpm gives you 390bhp. Nice.
350nm with 8000rpm gives you 390bhp. Nice.
Up to you what you prefer.
I like cars that can rev, ideally I guess I would like around 6500rpm as a minimum, which would mean I need 430nm of torque for it to be as quick as either of the above. That to me would be a good everyday car that is also fun. What fuel it uses is pretty irrelevant.
My point is simply that you cannot look at the headline figures, you need to look at the whole curve to get any idea of whether and engine is going to be good in a certain appication or not.
To be honest peak power and peak torque figues by themselves tell you very little.
Olivera said:
Devil2575 said:
Actualy he's wrong.
The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
Those outputs almost exactly match that of the previous generation F1 V8 engines The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
Devil2575 said:
I didn't calculate the numbers, they were just for the purposes of making the point. I could have said 25,000 rpm or used a higher torque number, it wouldn't have changed the meaning of my post.
My point is simply that you cannot look at the headline figures, you need to look at the whole curve to get any idea of whether and engine is going to be good in a certain appication or not.
To be honest peak power and peak torque figues by themselves tell you very little.
I think we are both saying the same thing really, I think I have taken you out of context and you likewise me. My point is simply that you cannot look at the headline figures, you need to look at the whole curve to get any idea of whether and engine is going to be good in a certain appication or not.
To be honest peak power and peak torque figues by themselves tell you very little.
I'm was just pointing out that 700nm of torque is a meaningless figure if you don't have any revs, and like you say, all the power in the world is pointless if no torque.
It is about finding a decent balance of both.
Diesel can be cool - check this out (82 Volvo with "interesting" mods)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ol8bzv-894
Who wouldn't want that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ol8bzv-894
Who wouldn't want that?
Granfondo said:
405dogvan said:
A VW in the test station, yesterday?
Too soon??
Too soon??
They'll have people go around putting leaflets on cars etc. etc.
The 21st Century way of making money - ladies and gentlemen
gizlaroc said:
What a great example you used there.
700bhp car?
And one that gets there with 150lb/ft?
Oh, and revs to 18,000rpm?
For a start that doesn't even calculate, you would need it to rev to 25,0000 rpm, which makes your example even more absurd.
But if you stuck with your 150lb/ft, and went to 8000rpm you would get 230bhp, which could be a very fun car to drive.
Let's be realistic though as no one is going to design a 700bhp road car with 18000rpm limit and only 150lb/ft. That is pretty much F1 engine specs.
700nm with 4000rpm gives you 390bhp. Nice.
350nm with 8000rpm gives you 390bhp. Nice.
Up to you what you prefer.
I like cars that can rev, ideally I guess I would like around 6500rpm as a minimum, which would mean I need 430nm of torque for it to be as quick as either of the above. That to me would be a good everyday car that is also fun. What fuel it uses is pretty irrelevant.
Pretty much the statistics for my car's engine 700bhp car?
And one that gets there with 150lb/ft?
Oh, and revs to 18,000rpm?
For a start that doesn't even calculate, you would need it to rev to 25,0000 rpm, which makes your example even more absurd.
But if you stuck with your 150lb/ft, and went to 8000rpm you would get 230bhp, which could be a very fun car to drive.
Let's be realistic though as no one is going to design a 700bhp road car with 18000rpm limit and only 150lb/ft. That is pretty much F1 engine specs.
700nm with 4000rpm gives you 390bhp. Nice.
350nm with 8000rpm gives you 390bhp. Nice.
Up to you what you prefer.
I like cars that can rev, ideally I guess I would like around 6500rpm as a minimum, which would mean I need 430nm of torque for it to be as quick as either of the above. That to me would be a good everyday car that is also fun. What fuel it uses is pretty irrelevant.
Devil2575 said:
I was thinking of an F1 engine when I typed it. A great engine in an F1 car but it wouldn't be much good in a 5 series.
it wouldn't but for other reasons (mainly longevity)look what F1 engine in Espace could do, and it has lot less torque than diesel Espace sold now
http://www.supercars.net/cars/1672.html (disregard torque figure as it's twice lower in reality)
yupp, 0-60 in 2.8
AreOut said:
Devil2575 said:
I was thinking of an F1 engine when I typed it. A great engine in an F1 car but it wouldn't be much good in a 5 series.
it wouldn't but for other reasons (mainly longevity)look what F1 engine in Espace could do, and it has lot less torque than diesel Espace sold now
http://www.supercars.net/cars/1672.html (disregard torque figure as it's twice lower in reality)
yupp, 0-60 in 2.8
If they put that engine into into a 5 series how many would they sell compared to the M5?
Interesting and no doubt mental to drive but not really fit for purpose.
gizlaroc said:
ZX10R NIN said:
Olivera said:
Yes you won't get that, you'll get better. The 340i makes more power which is far superior to extra torque. Heck 4 cylinder cars such as the A45 have more bhp.
340i 326bhp 330 lbft 0-60mph 4.8 seconds 335d 313bhp 465 lbft 0-60mph 4.7 seconds
Olivera said:
ZX10R NIN said:
Olivera said:
Yes you won't get that, you'll get better. The 340i makes more power which is far superior to extra torque. Heck 4 cylinder cars such as the A45 have more bhp.
340i 326bhp 330 lbft 0-60mph 4.8 seconds 335d 313bhp 465 lbft 0-60mph 4.7 seconds
Anyway you are correct the 335d does have a faster 0-60mph time, but it's xdrive and the 340i isnt. 340i xdrive is available in the US and is faster still
Elysium said:
The 335i was designed to feel as much like an NA engine as possible.
The twin turbos on the original version were small and each ran a bank of 3 cylinders. The idea was to give a little bit more power than the 330i, but to keep the throttle response immediate and eliminate lag.
The 335d was designed to match the 335i, so that it was a genuine alternative.
I don't think they have a preference to sell either model and they are aimed at a similar customer base.
What BMW have done for years is creatively manipulate tuning (and model names) to create layers throughout the range.
For example the 325d e90 was initially a 2.5 litre straight six diesel, but was then re-launched as an LCI model with the same 3.0 litre engine used in the 330d. The only difference was the tuning.
In the case of the 335i it's fairly clear that they manipulated the power to keep a healthy gap between it and the M3
This is very true. The 335i (now 340i) is not meant to be an ultimate power machine - it was done moreso for emissions/economy. Getting a c50bhp leg up on the 330i without destroying the consumption. Same as they have now done with the latest 330i (a blown 4-pot....sacrilegious in my book).The twin turbos on the original version were small and each ran a bank of 3 cylinders. The idea was to give a little bit more power than the 330i, but to keep the throttle response immediate and eliminate lag.
The 335d was designed to match the 335i, so that it was a genuine alternative.
I don't think they have a preference to sell either model and they are aimed at a similar customer base.
What BMW have done for years is creatively manipulate tuning (and model names) to create layers throughout the range.
For example the 325d e90 was initially a 2.5 litre straight six diesel, but was then re-launched as an LCI model with the same 3.0 litre engine used in the 330d. The only difference was the tuning.
In the case of the 335i it's fairly clear that they manipulated the power to keep a healthy gap between it and the M3
The M3/M4 show what the 335i *could* be like. Higher tuned 3l turbo putting out nigh-on 450bhp. That is taking turbocharging seriously.
Devil2575 said:
Actualy he's wrong.
The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
Not quite that extreme, but my old Caterham had c160bhp but rev'd to 15000rpm. It was bloody hard work.....but my god was it quick when you took the effort.The power curve is what matters and that is related directly to the torque curve.
700 bhp in a car is great but not if you have to rev to 18,000 rpm to get it and you only have 150lb/ft of torque
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff