300bhp per tonne
Discussion
R8VXF said:
ORD said:
What would be a typical 30-100mph time for a road car with that kind of p/w? About 5 seconds?
The VXR8 does it in 8 seconds as part of a 9.9second 0-100. Went on to a top speed of 166mph at the mile marker in 31.3 seconds.I wasnt criticising the VXR8 . It is pretty similar to a Mustang, but that isnt a criticism, is it?
ORD said:
R8VXF said:
ORD said:
What would be a typical 30-100mph time for a road car with that kind of p/w? About 5 seconds?
The VXR8 does it in 8 seconds as part of a 9.9second 0-100. Went on to a top speed of 166mph at the mile marker in 31.3 seconds.I wasnt criticising the VXR8 . It is pretty similar to a Mustang, but that isnt a criticism, is it?
But yeah, badly aero limited at the top end, not helped by the fact there was a fair old headwind 
. Was still accelerating so not sure what its true top end is. Plus quite a lot of knock retard on the stock tune.It is in no way similar to the mustang though apart from having an American sourced V8, but even they are totally different designs of engine. S/C VS N/A. Coupe vs saloon. Doesn't lose 5bhp due to being remastered for RHD. I definitely prefer the look of the GTS interior.
I know I should love the Mustang, but am more of a fan of the Camaro tbh.
Just checked my logs and 2.2s changing gears! Must work on that
neil1jnr said:
I thought BHP/tonne was measured at wheel horse power....
Why?It's a simple stat. Claimed power (which from car makers is always a form of Bhp at the flywheel) and weight in metric tonnes.
You could have hp at the wheels, but much harder to find data for a wider range of cars and far too much variance in how whp is derived.
The metric however would then be wBhp/tonne
300bhp/ton said:
Why?
It's a simple stat. Claimed power (which from car makers is always a form of Bhp at the flywheel) and weight in metric tonnes.
You could have hp at the wheels, but much harder to find data for a wider range of cars and far too much variance in how whp is derived.
The metric however would then be WHP/tonne
EFA It's a simple stat. Claimed power (which from car makers is always a form of Bhp at the flywheel) and weight in metric tonnes.
You could have hp at the wheels, but much harder to find data for a wider range of cars and far too much variance in how whp is derived.
The metric however would then be WHP/tonne
R8VXF said:
300bhp/ton said:
Why?
It's a simple stat. Claimed power (which from car makers is always a form of Bhp at the flywheel) and weight in metric tonnes.
You could have hp at the wheels, but much harder to find data for a wider range of cars and far too much variance in how whp is derived.
The metric however would then be WHP/tonne
EFA It's a simple stat. Claimed power (which from car makers is always a form of Bhp at the flywheel) and weight in metric tonnes.
You could have hp at the wheels, but much harder to find data for a wider range of cars and far too much variance in how whp is derived.
The metric however would then be WHP/tonne
This is because there many types of Horse Power (HP). For automotive use HP is derived from measuring Torque via a Brake device, aka a dynamometer, or dyno for short, be it a chassis (rolling road) or engine dyno.
The 'B' stands for Brake for brake device. So automotive HP derived from measuring torque at the driven wheels is still Bhp. You simply add the 'W' to indicate where the reading is from.
wBhp.
300bhp/ton said:
neil1jnr said:
I thought BHP/tonne was measured at wheel horse power....
Why?It's a simple stat. Claimed power (which from car makers is always a form of Bhp at the flywheel) and weight in metric tonnes.
You could have hp at the wheels, but much harder to find data for a wider range of cars and far too much variance in how whp is derived.
The metric however would then be wBhp/tonne
kambites said:
It appears that 68kg is actually lighter than the average adult woman in the UK, let alone the average adult overall!
Worryingly so. Average woman is just over 11stone 5lbs (72kg) and a size 16. (Gone up from 9st 12lbs and a size 12 in less than 5 decades)Average man has gone from 11st 2lbs to 12st 6lbs with waist/chest going from 34in/37in to 37in/42in in the same period.
64% of adults are now classed as obese (global average is 34%)....expected to hit 70% (80% for Men) by 2020.
We are a nation of fat b
ds. Maybe cars weight have just had to increased to cater for fatties?<pats trim 63kg frame>
Back on topic - 300bhp/tonne is a s
t lot. My old Caterham had 340bhp/tonne when I first got it, then rising to over 400/tonne. Even at 340, nothing at the time, on the road (private/track/etc) could keep up with it until the gearing topped it out at c125mph. Brutal.300bhp/ton said:
Nope. WHP is a poor acronym.
This is because there many types of Horse Power (HP). For automotive use HP is derived from measuring Torque via a Brake device, aka a dynamometer, or dyno for short, be it a chassis (rolling road) or engine dyno.
The 'B' stands for Brake for brake device. So automotive HP derived from measuring torque at the driven wheels is still Bhp. You simply add the 'W' to indicate where the reading is from.
wBhp.
Whilst that may be accurate, common usage dictates that BHP is FWHP measured through the dyno (never accurate) and WHP is power at the wheels when measured on a dyno This is because there many types of Horse Power (HP). For automotive use HP is derived from measuring Torque via a Brake device, aka a dynamometer, or dyno for short, be it a chassis (rolling road) or engine dyno.
The 'B' stands for Brake for brake device. So automotive HP derived from measuring torque at the driven wheels is still Bhp. You simply add the 'W' to indicate where the reading is from.
wBhp.
I measure mine through the on board torque sensors. Would that be FWTSHP?
ORD said:
JockySteer said:
Less than half the price and a lot less than half the car of the GT3!
Not a comparable car at all, really. The Mustang is a far better comparator. Those kind of cars are always cheap for the straight line performance.JockySteer said:
otolith said:
JockySteer said:
Less than half the price and a lot less than half the car of the GT3!
It's about 128% of the car the GT3 is!R8VXF said:
Still faster than a stock 996 911 Turbo But yeah, badly aero limited at the top end, not helped by the fact there was a fair old headwind . Was still accelerating so not sure what its true top end is. Plus quite a lot of knock retard on the stock tune.
It is in no way similar to the mustang though apart from having an American sourced V8, but even they are totally different designs of engine. S/C VS N/A. Coupe vs saloon. Doesn't lose 5bhp due to being remastered for RHD. I definitely prefer the look of the GTS interior.
I know I should love the Mustang, but am more of a fan of the Camaro tbh.
Just checked my logs and 2.2s changing gears! Must work on that
By any chance do you own a VXR8 mate? It's not very clear... But yeah, badly aero limited at the top end, not helped by the fact there was a fair old headwind . Was still accelerating so not sure what its true top end is. Plus quite a lot of knock retard on the stock tune.It is in no way similar to the mustang though apart from having an American sourced V8, but even they are totally different designs of engine. S/C VS N/A. Coupe vs saloon. Doesn't lose 5bhp due to being remastered for RHD. I definitely prefer the look of the GTS interior.
I know I should love the Mustang, but am more of a fan of the Camaro tbh.
Just checked my logs and 2.2s changing gears! Must work on that
otolith said:
JockySteer said:
otolith said:
JockySteer said:
Less than half the price and a lot less than half the car of the GT3!
It's about 128% of the car the GT3 is!
Can you do the same maths for the Mustang then please? 200kg difference there
Dapster said:
I had a Caterham 7 with a 150bhp K series so a bit less than 300/tonne with me on board. On twisty B roads and tight tracks nothing could hang on but on a motorway sliproad I would be outdragged by any junior hot exec (C Class AMG, S4 etc). Barn door aero and not much torque need to be considered too.
Up to what speed? I've been pleasantly surprised by how long it takes the lack of power to start to show in my BEC. Basically it accelerates like any other 300 bhp/tonne car until close on 100 or so and only starts to lose out to the big weight/big power cars after that really. http://www.topcarrating.com/power-weight.php?brand...
No ones mentioned the rxcellent Saleens.
Also Ferrari 250 GTO >300bhp/tonne 70 odd years ago wowzers.
No ones mentioned the rxcellent Saleens.
Also Ferrari 250 GTO >300bhp/tonne 70 odd years ago wowzers.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff