RE: New Civic Type R details
Discussion
Quite. My S2000 was faster down the long straight at Bedford than a friends remapped 270 odd BHP LCR. Peak figures mean nothing on their own, its the overall package. The S2000 was, and still is an absolute peach.
I haven't had my S2000 for nearly 3 years now, but currently have a Fabia VRS Estate with one of those 1.4 Twincharger 180 PS engines (the joys of getting older and having responsibility?... oh and a dog.)
Its ok, it could do with a bit more power, a bit less lean in corners, and a bit more feel through the steering wheel, but fundamentally, its pretty much opposite ends of the scale to the S2000.
I'd be interested whether Honda follow Ford and Skoda into the 'Warm Estate' market. Certainly if the new CTR has an engine that can sing and comes in estate, it will definitely make my 'test drive' list.
Newer engines just don't have the lungs of old ones. I'm pretty sure my old XUDT 306 D Turbo sounded more interesting than most of the stuff rolling off production lines these days
I haven't had my S2000 for nearly 3 years now, but currently have a Fabia VRS Estate with one of those 1.4 Twincharger 180 PS engines (the joys of getting older and having responsibility?... oh and a dog.)
Its ok, it could do with a bit more power, a bit less lean in corners, and a bit more feel through the steering wheel, but fundamentally, its pretty much opposite ends of the scale to the S2000.
I'd be interested whether Honda follow Ford and Skoda into the 'Warm Estate' market. Certainly if the new CTR has an engine that can sing and comes in estate, it will definitely make my 'test drive' list.
Newer engines just don't have the lungs of old ones. I'm pretty sure my old XUDT 306 D Turbo sounded more interesting than most of the stuff rolling off production lines these days
NoelWatson said:
Mr Whippy said:
RocketRabbit said:
Alfa159Ti said:
Thats fine in theory, but clearly in real world driving
I love this real world driving thing. When I had my S2000, in the real world no less, I could triple the torque to the rear wheels in under a second by manipulating a lever in my left hand. This i'd go straight to the car's power band, thus i'd accelerate nice and quickly.Never did I think 'Hmm, 4th gear at 45mph and I need to overtake - engine could do with a bit more torque because changing gear on one of the best manual boxes ever is such a chore....'
I wrote this article several years ago after getting annoyed at the 'Top Gear Torques' brigade :
Just ignore torque, look at power. Tadaaa!
An S2000 has 240bhp so it's about as fast as other cars with 240bhp and similar weight.
I guess that is why power is the headline figure
Dave
There is variance but it's generally slight for all intents and purposes.
Gearing is usually set appropriately for the power of a vehicle, very few are over or under geared.
So given gearing is proportional to power, and power is generally proportional to engine speed %, you can generally say that power to weight figure tells you enough for most cars on-road accelerative ability overall.
Going into any more detail than that and you need a pile of details and they generally get so complicated as a picture that they don't tell you anything significant.
It's too easy to get bogged down in numbers when a single power to weight tells you all you need to know of a cars capability.
If a driver doesn't like revving an engine then that is an entirely different kettle of fish to revvy vs torquey engines and their relative performance differences.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
NoelWatson said:
Mr Whippy said:
RocketRabbit said:
Alfa159Ti said:
Thats fine in theory, but clearly in real world driving
I love this real world driving thing. When I had my S2000, in the real world no less, I could triple the torque to the rear wheels in under a second by manipulating a lever in my left hand. This i'd go straight to the car's power band, thus i'd accelerate nice and quickly.Never did I think 'Hmm, 4th gear at 45mph and I need to overtake - engine could do with a bit more torque because changing gear on one of the best manual boxes ever is such a chore....'
I wrote this article several years ago after getting annoyed at the 'Top Gear Torques' brigade :
Just ignore torque, look at power. Tadaaa!
An S2000 has 240bhp so it's about as fast as other cars with 240bhp and similar weight.
I guess that is why power is the headline figure
Dave
There is variance but it's generally slight for all intents and purposes.
Gearing is usually set appropriately for the power of a vehicle, very few are over or under geared.
So given gearing is proportional to power, and power is generally proportional to engine speed %, you can generally say that power to weight figure tells you enough for most cars on-road accelerative ability overall.
Going into any more detail than that and you need a pile of details and they generally get so complicated as a picture that they don't tell you anything significant.
It's too easy to get bogged down in numbers when a single power to weight tells you all you need to know of a cars capability.
If a driver doesn't like revving an engine then that is an entirely different kettle of fish to revvy vs torquey engines and their relative performance differences.
Dave
Power curve - agree that curve is linear, but some cars develop peak power close to the limiter whereas others have a power curve that is pretty flat beyond peak power to the limiter (NSX has a range of ~15 flywheel bhp from 6500-8000rpm. Something like an Aston 4.3 will have a much greater difference over corresponding percentage of revs.
Kozy said:
NoelWatson said:
(NSX has a range of ~15 flywheel bhp from 6500-8000rpm. Something like an Aston 4.3 will have a much greater difference over corresponding percentage of revs.
Is that true? All over VTEC engines are pretty much a linear increase from about 2000rpm to redline...Not sure if this has been mentioned but I just got the Vertu Honda mag in the post and they had a little square about the new Type R and a picture to go with it. They say Nurburgring testing this year. Car doesn't look bad in the photo either, but its quite a low res shot and is likely a rendering. Looks good though, diffuser style rear bumper and a rear wing not too dissimilar to the last type R's effort.
CraigyMc said:
Not so. In 2014 each car only gets 5 engines for the whole season, and each of those engines will have to run for at least 4000km.
Renault has already been talking to LMP1 teams about supplying them since the distances just became sensible (you need just over 5000km for an LPM1 engine at Le Mans).
C
I get what you're saying but still, 5k km still isn't much better.Renault has already been talking to LMP1 teams about supplying them since the distances just became sensible (you need just over 5000km for an LPM1 engine at Le Mans).
C
Bladedancer said:
CraigyMc said:
Not so. In 2014 each car only gets 5 engines for the whole season, and each of those engines will have to run for at least 4000km.
Renault has already been talking to LMP1 teams about supplying them since the distances just became sensible (you need just over 5000km for an LPM1 engine at Le Mans).
C
I get what you're saying but still, 5k km still isn't much better.Renault has already been talking to LMP1 teams about supplying them since the distances just became sensible (you need just over 5000km for an LPM1 engine at Le Mans).
C
C
Article said:
active suspension set-up that takes the novel approach of only being applied to the back axle. Which is a world first, incidentally.
emm citroen xantia activahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQT7IMHvBGo
SystemParanoia said:
Article said:
active suspension set-up that takes the novel approach of only being applied to the back axle. Which is a world first, incidentally.
emm citroen xantia activahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQT7IMHvBGo
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff