Discussion
1000rpm (held data linear to 1000rpm from earliest dyno point, imagine slipping clutch here) > 6500rpm...
Ultimately it comes down to the Supra weighing less and having a touch more power, it's always going to be quicker.
The Monaro is showing it's worth at the lower rpm range in higher gears though, but that Supra will always be quicker with it's raw stats.
Would be interesting with the auto losses accounted for vs a manual box (might be 5% there) and the 5 ratio's in the auto...
Need a way to attach the XLS file, because you can then have a play and make sure your ratio's and weights are right etc. I just used what I could find for now.
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 13th April 17:36
Nice one! 
Great to see some quantitative analysis to balance out the usual bullshit on these types of thread
However I'd like to emphasise one fairly essential point. The curves for each gear should represent *for real* the rev range of the engines i.e. no curves going past the rev limiters please Conversely, cutting a car's rev range short by 500 rpm can make it look substantially worse.
After all, the TT vs CTR curves shown above clearly show that the maximum accelerative force at *any* road speed over 30 mph is achieved, surprisingly, by the CTR but by the simple expedient of holding a lower gear ratio, which the CTR can do because of the extended rev range.
If the TT could actually rev 500 rpm higher, or the CTR rev limiter kicks in 300 rpm earlier, etc. then the graph suddenly looks a LOT different. It's utterly essential to be absolutely accurate here, since what we're really getting at with these dissimilar engines is whether the low-torque high-rev engine has enough range to hold a lower gear long enough to get an advantage over the high-torque low-rev engine.
Obviously you can prove anything with statistics, so whilst I said originally that we really need graphs like this, we also require that the data on the graphs are correct - most importantly the rev limiters
Great to see some quantitative analysis to balance out the usual bullshit on these types of thread
However I'd like to emphasise one fairly essential point. The curves for each gear should represent *for real* the rev range of the engines i.e. no curves going past the rev limiters please
Conversely, cutting a car's rev range short by 500 rpm can make it look substantially worse. After all, the TT vs CTR curves shown above clearly show that the maximum accelerative force at *any* road speed over 30 mph is achieved, surprisingly, by the CTR but by the simple expedient of holding a lower gear ratio, which the CTR can do because of the extended rev range.
If the TT could actually rev 500 rpm higher, or the CTR rev limiter kicks in 300 rpm earlier, etc. then the graph suddenly looks a LOT different. It's utterly essential to be absolutely accurate here, since what we're really getting at with these dissimilar engines is whether the low-torque high-rev engine has enough range to hold a lower gear long enough to get an advantage over the high-torque low-rev engine.
Obviously you can prove anything with statistics, so whilst I said originally that we really need graphs like this, we also require that the data on the graphs are correct - most importantly the rev limiters
cyberface said:
Nice one!
Great to see some quantitative analysis to balance out the usual bullshit on these types of thread
However I'd like to emphasise one fairly essential point. The curves for each gear should represent *for real* the rev range of the engines i.e. no curves going past the rev limiters please Conversely, cutting a car's rev range short by 500 rpm can make it look substantially worse.
After all, the TT vs CTR curves shown above clearly show that the maximum accelerative force at *any* road speed over 30 mph is achieved, surprisingly, by the CTR but by the simple expedient of holding a lower gear ratio, which the CTR can do because of the extended rev range.
If the TT could actually rev 500 rpm higher, or the CTR rev limiter kicks in 300 rpm earlier, etc. then the graph suddenly looks a LOT different. It's utterly essential to be absolutely accurate here, since what we're really getting at with these dissimilar engines is whether the low-torque high-rev engine has enough range to hold a lower gear long enough to get an advantage over the high-torque low-rev engine.
Obviously you can prove anything with statistics, so whilst I said originally that we really need graphs like this, we also require that the data on the graphs are correct - most importantly the rev limiters
Great to see some quantitative analysis to balance out the usual bullshit on these types of thread
However I'd like to emphasise one fairly essential point. The curves for each gear should represent *for real* the rev range of the engines i.e. no curves going past the rev limiters please
Conversely, cutting a car's rev range short by 500 rpm can make it look substantially worse. After all, the TT vs CTR curves shown above clearly show that the maximum accelerative force at *any* road speed over 30 mph is achieved, surprisingly, by the CTR but by the simple expedient of holding a lower gear ratio, which the CTR can do because of the extended rev range.
If the TT could actually rev 500 rpm higher, or the CTR rev limiter kicks in 300 rpm earlier, etc. then the graph suddenly looks a LOT different. It's utterly essential to be absolutely accurate here, since what we're really getting at with these dissimilar engines is whether the low-torque high-rev engine has enough range to hold a lower gear long enough to get an advantage over the high-torque low-rev engine.
Obviously you can prove anything with statistics, so whilst I said originally that we really need graphs like this, we also require that the data on the graphs are correct - most importantly the rev limiters
The TT there is revving to 6000rpm, 500rpm beyond it's peak power. It will rev further to it's limiter though, but this data is hard to find.
The CTR is revving to 8000rpm, 500rpm (ish) beyond it's peak power, and again off it's rev limiter.
The main thing is that for all the gears but 1st and 2nd, the TT's accelerative force drops to that of the CTR in that gear anyway, so no matter how far it revved the CTR is still ahead on accelerative force there. However, because the TT is ahead earlier, it may well be ahead by 1 car length and simply loose it and be equal at gear change.
This graph isn't really showing anything except the "push in the back" (as intended) each gear gives relative to other cars gears over the respective gears speed... the rpm's all reach peak power so for what it's worth in that respect it shows enough.
I don't think it's usefull to use for judging accelerative potential outright, traction issues, lag, gearshift times, transmission losses, aero drag etc etc all influence this. It's just a quick and dirty "grunt" ometer
I agree getting the data 100% is important, but as said the intention here was mainly showing things like top gear out of bends and the CTR being gutless, when in reality it's not etc etc... IF I could source the data accurately, get cars on weigh bridges with defined fuel load, luggage etc, and a decent dyno dynamics @ wheels readout of torque, along with the real ratio's, rev limiter point and all that, then I could do it
But for now it's just rough to show that NA's vs FI's etc are not really that different, usually high torque = slow engine maybe more weight and low torque = faster engine and maybe less weight, and all said and done things usually balance out, and once and again the old axiom of power to weight is king shows through as an overall indicator, irrelevant of the torque!
Dave
_Lee_ said:
Dave, can you please do the CTR against the Leon Cupra 180 which another poster claimed is able to out-punch the CTR?
Thanks,
Lee.
Thanks,
Lee.
CTR 1000>8000rpm
Leon 180 1000>6500rpm (used LCR gears and wheels)
Weights from letstorquebhp.com
Dyno's from superchips.co.uk stock for Leon 180 and dyno dynamics readout and manufacturer figures for CTR (as earlier)
Kinda proves the power to weight is a good all-round figure. CTR has more = faster, irrespective of the torque figures at engine. You've got to ignore torque because gearing makes so much difference. Power/weight is the useful figure, even in the mid-range. Not many production cars have excessive mid-range power or lack of power, almost any power curve is more or less a smooth linear line, so the higher it is at the end the better all across!
Dave
It's clearly down to driver skill, Lee! 
Interesting stuff by Mr Whippy... it's good to see the graphs, which nicely demonstrate the fact that it's actually thrust at the wheels that makes the difference and, as others have said, this is very dependent on gearing. That's why Fireblade engined kit cars can accelerate so quickly despite the engine's lack of torque... the downside, though, is that their gearing is s short that they are bouncing off the rev limiter (at 12K+ revs!) at a little over the ton in many cases. It's also the reason that my funny little 1960's sports car can out accelerate a CTR up to 100mph... but I run out of revs at about 115mph where the CTR can carry on to 146.
Two observations, though:
Mr Whippy has quite correctly pointed uot that you need to take account of transmission loss and rolling resistance, which is bad for the TT's 4WD system. But you also need to take account of aerodynamic drag. The force available for acceleration is basically the thrust at the tyre contact patch, minus the rolling resistance/transmission loss, minus the aerodynamic drag. Drag is a function of drag coefficient (Cd) multiplied by frontal area. Since the TT is lower slung than the Civic's 'mini MPV' bodyshell, this will probably compensate to some extent for the extra transmission loss in the upper speed ranges.
Secondly:
I think the bit I've italicized is incorrect and misleading in most road driving situations.
Referring back to Mr Whippy's graph for the TT vs. CTR, lets assume both cars exit a corner in 3rd gear at 40mph. The area between the TT's blue line and the CTR's red line represents the TT accelerating away. It's not until they reach 70mph (by which time the CTR will have lagged substantially behind) that the graphs cross again.
In other words, the chances are that rather than probably pulling out a big gap, the CTR is probably starting to claw back some of the distance that the TT has opened up.
What the graph demonstrates rather well is that compared to the TT, the CTR's engine/gearing characteristics are such that 2nd gear doesn't really come into it's own until 50mph, 3rd gear until 70mph, and 4th gear until over 90. Most people simply don't drive that way on public roads, 95% of the time... apart from anything else, if you spend your life driving round on urban roads in 1st & 2nd gear at 8000 revs, you'll look a bit of a
!
Interesting stuff by Mr Whippy... it's good to see the graphs, which nicely demonstrate the fact that it's actually thrust at the wheels that makes the difference and, as others have said, this is very dependent on gearing. That's why Fireblade engined kit cars can accelerate so quickly despite the engine's lack of torque... the downside, though, is that their gearing is s short that they are bouncing off the rev limiter (at 12K+ revs!) at a little over the ton in many cases. It's also the reason that my funny little 1960's sports car can out accelerate a CTR up to 100mph... but I run out of revs at about 115mph where the CTR can carry on to 146.
Two observations, though:
Mr Whippy has quite correctly pointed uot that you need to take account of transmission loss and rolling resistance, which is bad for the TT's 4WD system. But you also need to take account of aerodynamic drag. The force available for acceleration is basically the thrust at the tyre contact patch, minus the rolling resistance/transmission loss, minus the aerodynamic drag. Drag is a function of drag coefficient (Cd) multiplied by frontal area. Since the TT is lower slung than the Civic's 'mini MPV' bodyshell, this will probably compensate to some extent for the extra transmission loss in the upper speed ranges.
Secondly:
Mr Whippy said:
You can see the TT has alot more torque, but the CTR is revving another 10-15mph per gear when the TT changes and probably pulling out a big gap.
I think the bit I've italicized is incorrect and misleading in most road driving situations.
Referring back to Mr Whippy's graph for the TT vs. CTR, lets assume both cars exit a corner in 3rd gear at 40mph. The area between the TT's blue line and the CTR's red line represents the TT accelerating away. It's not until they reach 70mph (by which time the CTR will have lagged substantially behind) that the graphs cross again.
In other words, the chances are that rather than probably pulling out a big gap, the CTR is probably starting to claw back some of the distance that the TT has opened up.
What the graph demonstrates rather well is that compared to the TT, the CTR's engine/gearing characteristics are such that 2nd gear doesn't really come into it's own until 50mph, 3rd gear until 70mph, and 4th gear until over 90. Most people simply don't drive that way on public roads, 95% of the time... apart from anything else, if you spend your life driving round on urban roads in 1st & 2nd gear at 8000 revs, you'll look a bit of a
! Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 14th April 11:38
Sam_68 said:
Referring back to Mr Whippy's graph for the TT vs. CTR, lets assume both cars exit a corner in 3rd gear at 40mph. The area between the TT's blue line and the CTR's red line represents the TT accelerating away. It's not until they reach 70mph (by which time the CTR will have lagged substantially behind) that the graphs cross again.
Why? That makes no sense, if you are going maximum attack in the CTR again you are completely in the wrong gear. Comparing gears is ludicrous as pointed out before as they have different ratio's and engine characteristics.
One area the CTR excel's? Noise
I agree with some of the other stuff posted though.
Edited by _Lee_ on Saturday 14th April 11:36
_Lee_ said:
Why? That makes no sense, if you are going maximum attack in the CTR again you are completely in the wrong gear.
Because for a variety of practical reasons, you cannot drive at 'maximum attack', as you put it, on public roads without seriously endangering yourself and other road users. You can only exploit such opportunities as make themselves available, and a car with a performance envelope that is easily exploitable will tend to make quicker progress.
If you do drive at the absolute limit a high proportion of the time on public roads, then you are dangerously irresponsible and should be banned... simple as that!
Sam_68 said:
_Lee_ said:
Why? That makes no sense, if you are going maximum attack in the CTR again you are completely in the wrong gear.
Because for a variety of practical reasons, you cannot drive at 'maximum attack', as you put it, on public roads without seriously endangering yourself and other road users. You can only exploit such opportunities as make themselves available, and a car with a performance envelope that is easily exploitable will tend to make quicker progress.
If you do drive at the absolute limit a high proportion of the time on public roads, then you are dangerously irresponsible and should be banned... simple as that!
So based on what you have said the performance comparison is completely pointless then.
If I want to use the wrong gear while making decent progress I will buy a diesel.
_LEE_ said:
So based on what you have said the performance comparison is completely pointless then.
Pretty much, yes! The CTR is faster on a race track. The TT faster on the road (given equally skilled drivers, in both cases).
So if you want it for track use, the CTR is the better option... except that if you want a track car, you might as well buy a Seven or a secondhand Radical, which will be so much quicker than the CTR that it's comical!
_LEE_ said:
If I want to use the wrong gear while making decent progress I will buy a diesel.
You really don't get it, do you? It's not a matter of using the 'wrong gear'. It's that using the right part of the right gear, with a CTR, isn't as easy as it is with the VAG turbo engine. Do you seriously expect me to believe that in general road driving you never change into 2nd below 50 miles an hour, 3rd below 70mph, or 4th below 90mph? 'Cos that's what it would take for the CTR to be in the 'right gear' to pull away from the VAG engined car, all other things being equal!
Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 14th April 12:19
Sam_68 said:
You really don't get it, do you? I
I don't think it is me that isn't getting it here.
Sam_68 said:
It's that using the right part of the right gear, with a CTR, isn't as easy as it is with the VAG turbo engine
You are completely correct but that is what makes the CTR rewarding to drive.
Sam_68 said:
t's not a matter of using the 'wrong gear'.. Do you seriously expect me to believe that in general road driving you never change into 2nd below 50 miles an hour, 3rd below 70mph, or 4th below 90mph? 'Cos that's what it would take for the CTR to be in the 'right gear' to pull away from the VAG engined car, all other things being equal!
Who said this? We are talking about extracting performance and it makes no sense to compare the CTR to another car when you have it in the wrong gear. It is about as relevant as comparing CTR track times to the Leon's track times, hence the reason it hasn't been mentioned.
Sam_68 said:
_LEE_ said:
So based on what you have said the performance comparison is completely pointless then.
Pretty much, yes! The CTR is faster on a race track. The TT faster on the road (given equally skilled drivers, in both cases).
So if you want it for track use, the CTR is the better option... except that if you want a track car, you might as well buy a Seven or a secondhand Radical, which will be so much quicker than the CTR that it's comical!
_LEE_ said:
If I want to use the wrong gear while making decent progress I will buy a diesel.
You really don't get it, do you? It's not a matter of using the 'wrong gear'. It's that using the right part of the right gear, with a CTR, isn't as easy as it is with the VAG turbo engine. Do you seriously expect me to believe that in general road driving you never change into 2nd below 50 miles an hour, 3rd below 70mph, or 4th below 90mph? 'Cos that's what it would take for the CTR to be in the 'right gear' to pull away from the VAG engined car, all other things being equal!
Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 14th April 12:19
What this was all about was that the gear choice cost isn't often *that* bad though.
Look at 4th gear in the CTR vs Leon180... the CTR is better from very low rpm, and not so much behind in the mid-rpm range. Looking at the absolute graph heights it's not night and day, it's maybe 5-10% at it's best... so just as where the CTR needs to be in it's revs to get it's advantage, so does the Leon (middle of rpm's), but the Leon also looses out in that lovely tractability area at very low rpm.
Again, not saying which is best, just that it's hard to perceptualise and this helps you get an idea of push in the back over road speeds in different gears vs other cars gears
Ultimately it helps point out why I see the CTR as purer in it's engine delivery sense. Linear power delivery. You pick how much acceleration you want and take it in the gear that gives it, instantly
and the price you pay ISN'T that far behind the FI route anyway. Dave
Mr Whippy said:
...I see the CTR as purer in it's engine delivery sense. Linear power delivery.
Each to their own, but one of the things I find really dull about modern engines (not the V-TEC specifically, I hasten to add) is linear power delivery. I like to feel that I'm driving a petrol engine, that has a power curve and that comes on-cam, rather than a whirry little Japanese washing machine, but there you go...
Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 14th April 13:28
But thats about character not effectiveness.
If they dumper the VTEC and just ran the wild cam the engine would certainly have tons more character, BUT you could then be justified in calling it gutless at low rpm
I agree though, character is very important. A work colleague has an ST170 that has VVT so the low-end torque is peaking around 2000rpm and it just revs through. Great you might say, when tootling the engine is better, but when your tootling do you really care about 15% more torque? I certainly wouldn't... but there is little occasion because of it, little excitement when you stretch the engine.
My little 306 Gti on the other hand is like a 1 in 6 gradient from idle to peak torque, then it plateau's, and you can feel it get better and better as you rev more. In that it had long gears (156mph in top theoretically) and things, and I never tired of it's surprising flexibility *considering* it's nature...
Overtaking, well you can choose an appropriate gear before any change of course or speed, so that wasn't an issue for me, infact it was a nice change in character from fairly sedated 4 pot 2.0 to a bit of a monster
Not so quick outright, but oozing character. But thats not what I was talking about, I was just talking about a lag-free, low-inertia, revvy, relatively torquey output engine with a nice linear delivery and it's benefits purely for driving fast!
Dave
If they dumper the VTEC and just ran the wild cam the engine would certainly have tons more character, BUT you could then be justified in calling it gutless at low rpm
I agree though, character is very important. A work colleague has an ST170 that has VVT so the low-end torque is peaking around 2000rpm and it just revs through. Great you might say, when tootling the engine is better, but when your tootling do you really care about 15% more torque? I certainly wouldn't... but there is little occasion because of it, little excitement when you stretch the engine.
My little 306 Gti on the other hand is like a 1 in 6 gradient from idle to peak torque, then it plateau's, and you can feel it get better and better as you rev more. In that it had long gears (156mph in top theoretically) and things, and I never tired of it's surprising flexibility *considering* it's nature...
Overtaking, well you can choose an appropriate gear before any change of course or speed, so that wasn't an issue for me, infact it was a nice change in character from fairly sedated 4 pot 2.0 to a bit of a monster
Not so quick outright, but oozing character. But thats not what I was talking about, I was just talking about a lag-free, low-inertia, revvy, relatively torquey output engine with a nice linear delivery and it's benefits purely for driving fast!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
But thats about character not effectiveness.
And as you can see from my profile, I'm willing to sacrifice quite a lot of 'effectiveness' - which can't be exploited on modern roads - for 'character', which can. At the end of the day, I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent on this thread, because I wouldn't want a TT as my only car, no matter what - they are effective, but just plain dull. But then that's why I don't really 'get' the CTR either. It has more character than the TT, but only really shows it 5% of the time... the rest of the time, it's just a Japanese hatch with a lot of annoying flaws.
For me, the only solution was to get a dull but effective company car and a couple of more characterful alteratives for track and road use, for the times when I don't want to be annoyed by excessively stiff suspension, gutlessly linear power delivery and wooly steering feel.
As I've said previously, I guess if you only have the option of a single car, then it will depend on your personal balance of priorities...
Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 14th April 14:03
Sam_68 said:
As I've said previously, I guess if you only have the option of a single car, then it will depend on your personal balance of priorities...
Yep, I like alot of aspects of the TT, but then I hate alot of aspects about it, much like the CTR, for the reasons you have given.
That is why really for a hatch today, if I ever got a "fast" one again it'd probably be a Focus RS, just because it has so many different things about it that are interesting
Dave
Gazboy said:
Mr Whippy- thanks for the Supra vs Monaro graphs. I was genuinely surprised that the Supra could live with the Monaro just using the first turbo- I was expecting both to be online just for the Supra to keep up never mind be quicker, which was totaly unexpected.
It surprised me a bit actually since peak torque and power are very similar. Assuming similar gear ratios I'd expect the difference to be smaller than the graph suggests, especially as the weight difference is only 6%.
Now for a real world comparison!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff