RE: Ecoboost-Powered Radical Revealed

[thinfourth2]

In this weather can i have mine with a big diesel engine, 4wd and studded tyres

It would make a great snowplough

[RobM77]

Mark Wibble said:

RobM77 said:

I'm a bit confused how an engine is "eco" because it's got a turbo, if it's always going to run flat out with the turbo on full song? Doesn't the turbo effectively just increase the capacity by forcing more air in per unit time, and an equivalent amount of fuel is required to maintain the fuel/air ratio? I suppose the frictional losses are a bit less?!

The "eco" bit is just taken from the engine's name from Ford- obviously in this application it will be far from "eco"! :-)

In answer to the other bit of your question, you're right in what the turbo is doing, but when you're off-boost you're flowing a disproportionately small mass of air hence need much less fuel to keep ticking over. So you can have a car with a lot of power that's relatively economical when pottering about.

It's not necessarily quite that simple, but something like that anyway...

I understand that bit, but the Radical of course won't be doing much pottering about, thus in typical use surely it's going to pump out pretty much the emissions as a normally aspirated engine, and I know which I'd choose on paper (I'm reserving judgement, having not obviously driven this car yet).

[HundredthIdiot]

Not sure about turbos necesarily being bad on a track car. I had a few passenger laps in a pre-production Westfield XTR4 a few years ago and the power seemed plenty controllable from where I was sitting.

Nice and quiet too which is convenient these days.

[RobM77]

HundredthIdiot said:

Not sure about turbos necesarily being bad on a track car. I had a few passenger laps in a pre-production Westfield XTR4 a few years ago and the power seemed plenty controllable from where I was sitting.

Nice and quiet too which is convenient these days.

It might depend on the car, or the driver. I had a few laps in an M400 a few years ago and found the turbos very obstructive to what was otherwise a wonderfully sorted car.

[HundredthIdiot]

RobM77 said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Not sure about turbos necesarily being bad on a track car. I had a few passenger laps in a pre-production Westfield XTR4 a few years ago and the power seemed plenty controllable from where I was sitting.

Nice and quiet too which is convenient these days.

It might depend on the car, or the driver. I had a few laps in an M400 a few years ago and found the turbos very obstructive to what was otherwise a wonderfully sorted car.

Looks easy enough in this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEnjqOjY0LA

[rhinochopig]

HundredthIdiot said:

Not sure about turbos necesarily being bad on a track car. I had a few passenger laps in a pre-production Westfield XTR4 a few years ago and the power seemed plenty controllable from where I was sitting.

Nice and quiet too which is convenient these days.

Have you been in an XTR2 for comparison though?

[HundredthIdiot]

rhinochopig said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Not sure about turbos necesarily being bad on a track car. I had a few passenger laps in a pre-production Westfield XTR4 a few years ago and the power seemed plenty controllable from where I was sitting.

Nice and quiet too which is convenient these days.

Have you been in an XTR2 for comparison though?

Nope. Mostly just various flavours of N/A Caterham.

[Scuffers]

rhinochopig said:

Ford still make the Duratec don't they - the 2.3 or the 2.0 that Caterham use in their 500s. I've no idea where they fit with Euro emission regs though.

makes no odds anyway, just because the engine when fitted in a Ford is EU5 compliant, does not automatically mean it will be in a Radical, it will have to be submitted for testing just the same as any other car.

Somehow, I can't see Radical doing this though, they will all be ESVA'ed or the like.

[Dave J]

the eco bit probably comes from the very low CO2 rating the engine gets as std. The turbo and requirements of the emissions tests are rigged with engine mapping and gearbox modes to generate false low CO2 readings and mpg that in the real world will never be delivered......

My merc E250, claims something like 50 odd mpg. I get regular 36 and 41 on a long motorway run. The CO2 is very low at 159 ish so the tax is low etc etc.... bluefficiency my arse

[RobM77]

HundredthIdiot said:

RobM77 said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Not sure about turbos necesarily being bad on a track car. I had a few passenger laps in a pre-production Westfield XTR4 a few years ago and the power seemed plenty controllable from where I was sitting.

Nice and quiet too which is convenient these days.

It might depend on the car, or the driver. I had a few laps in an M400 a few years ago and found the turbos very obstructive to what was otherwise a wonderfully sorted car.

Looks easy enough in this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEnjqOjY0LA

I can't view videos at work, but in the car I drove it was annoying me through the corners. For some of the corners the turbos would suddenly spool up mid corner or halfway through corner exit, pushing me a bit wide. I expect with more time in the car I could have got used to it, but it was certainly distracting during my time in the car. Corners are what I enjoy in a car, and I hate cars that make them a chore, when they should be a joy.

[HundredthIdiot]

RobM77 said:

I can't view videos at work, but in the car I drove it was annoying me through the corners. For some of the corners the turbos would suddenly spool up mid corner or halfway through corner exit, pushing me a bit wide. I expect with more time in the car I could have got used to it, but it was certainly distracting during my time in the car. Corners are what I enjoy in a car, and I hate cars that make them a chore, when they should be a joy.

Ah, right. It was a video of a CTR on the Ring (included for comedy value).

I haven't driven turbos much, but I'm not sure you should suffer from the "spool up" problem on a well-developed car driven properly. If you enter the corner in the correct gear you should stay "on boost" throughout the corner. Dropping off-boost might indicate inappropriate gearing or poor gear selection.

I await correction by the more experienced.

Empirically, there is a long history of turbos in motorsport, so maybe we just need to HTFU.

[havoc]

Andrew[MG] said:

Is anyone actually making a suitable 2.0l N/A engine at the moment?

Mugen. See the Atom article last week - 270bhp from a K20A is just glorious lunacy!

[Scuffers]

Dave J said:

the eco bit probably comes from the very low CO2 rating the engine gets as std. The turbo and requirements of the emissions tests are rigged with engine mapping and gearbox modes to generate false low CO2 readings and mpg that in the real world will never be delivered......

My merc E250, claims something like 50 odd mpg. I get regular 36 and 41 on a long motorway run. The CO2 is very low at 159 ish so the tax is low etc etc.... bluefficiency my arse

you do realise that EU5 test (as in pass/fail) has NOTHING to do with CO2 levels don't you?

[RobM77]

HundredthIdiot said:

RobM77 said:

I can't view videos at work, but in the car I drove it was annoying me through the corners. For some of the corners the turbos would suddenly spool up mid corner or halfway through corner exit, pushing me a bit wide. I expect with more time in the car I could have got used to it, but it was certainly distracting during my time in the car. Corners are what I enjoy in a car, and I hate cars that make them a chore, when they should be a joy.

Ah, right. It was a video of a CTR on the Ring (included for comedy value).

I haven't driven turbos much, but I'm not sure you should suffer from the "spool up" problem on a well-developed car driven properly. If you enter the corner in the correct gear you should stay "on boost" throughout the corner. Dropping off-boost might indicate inappropriate gearing or poor gear selection.

I await correction by the more experienced.

Empirically, there is a long history of turbos in motorsport, so maybe we just need to HTFU.

More time with the car may have helped. Turbos have been used extensively in motorsport, yes, although they always caused additional problems with the way they had to be driven. Personally, I prefer normally aspirated engines, although it'll be interested to see what developments are made over the next few years as turbos become more common.

[rhinochopig]

HundredthIdiot said:

RobM77 said:

I can't view videos at work, but in the car I drove it was annoying me through the corners. For some of the corners the turbos would suddenly spool up mid corner or halfway through corner exit, pushing me a bit wide. I expect with more time in the car I could have got used to it, but it was certainly distracting during my time in the car. Corners are what I enjoy in a car, and I hate cars that make them a chore, when they should be a joy.

Ah, right. It was a video of a CTR on the Ring (included for comedy value).

I haven't driven turbos much, but I'm not sure you should suffer from the "spool up" problem on a well-developed car driven properly. If you enter the corner in the correct gear you should stay "on boost" throughout the corner. Dropping off-boost might indicate inappropriate gearing or poor gear selection.

I await correction by the more experienced.

Empirically, there is a long history of turbos in motorsport, so maybe we just need to HTFU.

In my old westy megabird, you could play with the throttle mid corner. Lift off - lots of engine braking and transfer of weight - and the back would gently swing round and when it had swung enough, back on the power and hold the slide. If you wanted more or less yaw, you simply flexed your right foot. Or you could go slow in, lots of power and power oversteer out; the degree of yaw being dictated by your foot.

In my Evo VIIRS running a standard fast spooling turbo with minimum lag @ around 300bhp you don't really have the first option. You lift off and the back will swing round, but when you apply the throttle, the delay before power is back does not allow you play with the yaw of the car as much and I don't thing it's a 4wd drive thing either. The option to play by being on-off on-off the throttle just isn't available.

You end up turning in, power on, and wait until traction is lost and then catch the slide mainly using steering corrections rather than a balanced combination of both, which is fun in its own right, but not as...delicate or rewarding for want of some better words. In essence the turbo dominates the experience, which is a shame because the Evo has a really quite tactile chassis.

[Logie]

That the Ford engine that people are raving about? Supposed to be one of the best engines for a long time

[edb49]

RobM77 said:

edb49 said:

675kg though, how come a Caterham R500 is 175kg lighter with a 2ltr Ford engine?

The Caterham is a different sort of car. For comparison Sports 2000s weigh about 600kg I think with the 2L n/a Duratec onboard. For a start, a Caterham is physically smaller, so it has less chassis and less bodywork. I'd also guess that the Radical is a bit stronger too, and don't forget that the full race cage on a Caterham race car weighs a good bit more than the standard rollbar that Caterham use for their quoted weights (out of interest, most owners have the FIA rollbar, which weighs a similar amount to a full cage). If you look at the lap times, the Radical is a lot faster for a given bhp, which is down to grip, mainly mechanical but with mild downforce; and that mechanical grip requires bigger and heavier tyres and wheels, which require stronger suspension components etc. Also, the turbo gubbins on the engine must weigh a fair bit. It is an interesting comparison though, and I was slightly surprised to see the weight of this Radical so far above 600kg.

Take your points, but not sure it should add up to 170kg? I've just bought a Juno, which is pretty comparable to this new Radical. Same size, aero, 2ltr NA engine, F3 transaxle, etc etc. It's 580kg. So there's 100kg in the Radical, can't just be down to a turbo and intercooler!

Interestingly I've never heard of an SR3 weighing in at <600kg, and that's with a bike engine.

[mikEsprit]

Dude, I would be like so embarrassed to tell someone I drove a gnarly Radical.

[RobM77]

edb49 said:

RobM77 said:

edb49 said:

675kg though, how come a Caterham R500 is 175kg lighter with a 2ltr Ford engine?

The Caterham is a different sort of car. For comparison Sports 2000s weigh about 600kg I think with the 2L n/a Duratec onboard. For a start, a Caterham is physically smaller, so it has less chassis and less bodywork. I'd also guess that the Radical is a bit stronger too, and don't forget that the full race cage on a Caterham race car weighs a good bit more than the standard rollbar that Caterham use for their quoted weights (out of interest, most owners have the FIA rollbar, which weighs a similar amount to a full cage). If you look at the lap times, the Radical is a lot faster for a given bhp, which is down to grip, mainly mechanical but with mild downforce; and that mechanical grip requires bigger and heavier tyres and wheels, which require stronger suspension components etc. Also, the turbo gubbins on the engine must weigh a fair bit. It is an interesting comparison though, and I was slightly surprised to see the weight of this Radical so far above 600kg.

Take your points, but not sure it should add up to 170kg? I've just bought a Juno, which is pretty comparable to this new Radical. Same size, aero, 2ltr NA engine, F3 transaxle, etc etc. It's 580kg. So there's 100kg in the Radical, can't just be down to a turbo and intercooler!

Interestingly I've never heard of an SR3 weighing in at <600kg, and that's with a bike engine.

I agree; thus my final comment. I was expecting a weight comparable to one of the Duratec Sports 2000 cars, or a Juno like yours. As someone pointed out earlier though, it may not be a comparable dry weight.

[GTRene]

when you look at the car picture it looks more car...
stronger build so to speak, all made a bit more robust?
I like that, that weight is still lightweight, make it to light and it flies after a hill @ the Nurburgring and with that power/torque it needs to be stronger too I guess.