Power, Now vs Then vs Reality

[redgriff500]

Found one !

[otolith]

The M3 thing - it's the VTEC effect, an engine with a really good top end will feel relatively flat at low revs, even if it's actually not.

[2thumbs]

otolith said:

The M3 thing - it's the VTEC effect, an engine with a really good top end will feel relatively flat at low revs, even if it's actually not.

Or my m3 is fked

[RobCrezz]

redgriff500 said:

Found one !

I wonder if Vixpy1 has any for a 328i to compare?

[2thumbs]

Just to add, the m3 'feels' much heavier than the 328 too. This might have something to do with it.

Edit:

Around 120kgs difference apparently.

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 16:46

[AreOut]

Sub5s said:

When I got my M3, I was excited at first, but got used to it quickly. It's still a rapid car by all means, there's not much on the road that'll keep up with it, and I probably use only half of its capabilities on most days, but it has changed my perception of 300+ bhp cars, and it makes it really hard to consider cars with less power. On the other hand, for a couple of my friends with slower cars it's still a breathtaking supercar.

the same situation with my M5, the point is when you drive 400 hp car you can drive it like it has 100, but if you have 100 hp car there is no way you can drive it like it has 400...

[Scuffers]

otolith said:

The M3 thing - it's the VTEC effect, an engine with a really good top end will feel relatively flat at low revs, even if it's actually not.

not based on that graph it's not....

[AreOut]

M3 has better low grunt than 328i, but the power of M3 rises much faster with rpms than power of 328i, thus you have that feeling

[TameRacingDriver]

Gotta admit my 328 didn't exactly feel massively urgent low down particularly after some of the comments I've read on here.

Then again contrary to most I have found my current 1.8 mk1 mx5 with all of its 130 bhp to be pretty pokey in most situations. Low weight and short gearing andnot too highly strung of an engine all being contributing factors.

I have to smile at the "I can't overtake with less than 200 bhp" comments ; I manage perfectly fine with 130. I'd even go so far as to say its pretty easy unless the other guy tries to speed up, which again, unlike most it seems, is incredibly rare.

Also what's this about getting dusted by TDI reps. The mx5 will still hit 60 in around 8 seconds. Most TDI reps are slower than this!? (Obviously the odd mapped BMW may pose a problem but so what?). You simply shouldn't be getting "dusted" by run of the mill cars even in a "slow" 8 second RWD car, surely?

[300bhp/ton]

Scuffers said:

otolith said:

The M3 thing - it's the VTEC effect, an engine with a really good top end will feel relatively flat at low revs, even if it's actually not.

not based on that graph it's not....

Maybe not. But looking at that graph it never noses over. Not even past 7000rpm. So the more revs you pile on the more power you'll get. I can see this having a SOTP feel that it lacks low end grunt compared to a 328i which likely noses over much earlier.

[Guibo]

300bhp/ton said:

There is a flip side though, in that a powerful car can often require far more effort to drive at the limit, and it's limit might actually be far lower due to the ease of spinning the wheels.
So in many ways to attain this:
"Because (at least for me) the fun in driving a car comes from pushing a car as close to its limits as I safety can"
Is actually more rewarding and challenging in cars with more power at time. E.g. it's more rewarding to push my TR7 to it's limits, but with the extra power comes traction issues. You simply can't plant it like you can in the Roadster. Even if you are going slower.

But if you've already breached the limit with, say, 200 hp then of what use is another 200 hp? Just because a car requires more effort doesn't necessarily mean it's more rewarding. Some may just be frustrating. For example, the "challenge" seems to be in trying get that extra 200 hp on the road, but if you're not doing it (because the original 200 was already enough to break traction), then where is the reward? Fighting the front end of a car due to tramlining issues brought on by too-wide tires is likewise not rewarding IMO.

Scuffers said:

exactly, we might just as well all drive round in G-Wizzes by the sound sounds of it.
time for some to hand in their MAN-Cards?

I don't think anyone is saying that *all* should drive low-hp cars. The issue, as it was brought up, centered mainly around entry level sports cars that *some* of us might reasonably afford. If 266 hp/tonne is the entry into the "fun" category and 500 hp/tonne is the entry way into "fast," then I think for the vast majority of us without the means for a 400-hp Lotus, we're f*cked!

Scuffers said:

To a point, although at the end of the day that comes down to how much grip you have.
In the last 20 years, tires have moved on massively, put graph old three on a car now, its a completely different story.
(reminds me of monkey Harris on spacesavers)

Edited by Scuffers on Friday 10th February 08:40

I'm sure vehicle weight figures into this too, but cannot it not be said that the increase in tire sizes has come about as a result of increasing horsepower?

Have to agree that sound of an engine also makes a huge difference in the enjoyment of a car. As well as the comments about the context of how/where that speed is being acheived. It is not just the magnitude of the power/wt ratio, it's how it's delivered that matters to me.

[300bhp/ton]

TameRacingDriver said:

Gotta admit my 328 didn't exactly feel massively urgent low down particularly after some of the comments I've read on here.

Then again contrary to most I have found my current 1.8 mk1 mx5 with all of its 130 bhp to be pretty pokey in most situations. Low weight and short gearing andnot too highly strung of an engine all being contributing factors.

I have to smile at the "I can't overtake with less than 200 bhp" comments ; I manage perfectly fine with 130. I'd even go so far as to say its pretty easy unless the other guy tries to speed up, which again, unlike most it seems, is incredibly rare.

Also what's this about getting dusted by TDI reps. The mx5 will still hit 60 in around 8 seconds. Most TDI reps are slower than this!? (Obviously the odd mapped BMW may pose a problem but so what?). You simply shouldn't be getting "dusted" by run of the mill cars even in a "slow" 8 second RWD car, surely?

The MX-5 is party that quick to 60 due to rwd. It'd likely be a second slower maybe more if it was fwd. Also I suspect it's 0-100mph time isn't as impressive. So 20-80mph rolling start means a lot of normal cars will pace or beat it.

Lasty there's deployability. Even with short gearing you've still got to work the 1.8 to get the most from it. Many modern diesels actually respond well bein driven at nearer 70% rather than 100%. So they can deploy what power they have often and with relative ease.

[2thumbs]

300bhp/ton said:

Maybe not. But looking at that graph it never noses over. Not even past 7000rpm. So the more revs you pile on the more power you'll get. I can see this having a SOTP feel that it lacks low end grunt compared to a 328i which likely noses over much earlier.

SOTP?

[AreOut]

seat of the pants

[2thumbs]

thanks! & noses over?

Excuse my ignorance

[J4CKO]

Power is irrelevant, according to my drive back from Macclesfield to Wilmslow, the Civic in front was driven so badly overtaking would have been mental, eventually turned right with no indicator after spending 2 miles slowing down for oncoming cars to 20 mph in an NSL.

[AreOut]

regarding overtakes, yes you can overtake with 50 hp but you would do it much faster with 500 hp..and sometimes 1/10th faster overtaking can save you (and others)

[TameRacingDriver]

300bhp/ton said:

The MX-5 is party that quick to 60 due to rwd. It'd likely be a second slower maybe more if it was fwd. Also I suspect it's 0-100mph time isn't as impressive. So 20-80mph rolling start means a lot of normal cars will pace or beat it.

Lasty there's deployability. Even with short gearing you've still got to work the 1.8 to get the most from it. Many modern diesels actually respond well bein driven at nearer 70% rather than 100%. So they can deploy what power they have often and with relative ease.

Oh don't get me wrong, I would never claim an MX5 is mega quick, but I've never subscribed to it being as slow as some make out either, a good driver can pedal these along pretty quickly, and, given that it feels like a biscuit tin on wheels, it certainly feels quick enough, and is certainly more than quick enough to overtake on an A-road, and hold its own at the lights. Up to about 80 its got decent enough performance. Having come from an E36 328, and could probably hold its own up to 80 or so (well OK, maybe not 0-60 as the BMW had pretty enormous traction, but in normal use where one didn't want to destroy the clutch, not as much in it as you might think). After that, yes its not quick at all, but its not really about top speed. Its about handling, and fun, and it delivers in droves. In fact it is those reasons I keep it around, as its not the best looking, or the fastest, and it would be a pain in the arse to use as a daily driver, but as a fun, cheap, weekend toy, its brilliant.

Edited by TameRacingDriver on Friday 10th February 20:31

[redgriff500]

TameRacingDriver said:

Then again contrary to most I have found my current 1.8 mk1 mx5 with all of its 130 bhp to be pretty pokey in most situations. Low weight and short gearing andnot too highly strung of an engine all being contributing factors.

I have to smile at the "I can't overtake with less than 200 bhp" comments ; I manage perfectly fine with 130. I'd even go so far as to say its pretty easy unless the other guy tries to speed up, which again, unlike most it seems, is incredibly rare.

Also what's this about getting dusted by TDI reps. The mx5 will still hit 60 in around 8 seconds. Most TDI reps are slower than this!? (Obviously the odd mapped BMW may pose a problem but so what?). You simply shouldn't be getting "dusted" by run of the mill cars even in a "slow" 8 second RWD car, surely?

I love the fact you assume I was talking about 1.8s when I got into MX5s I paid £7500 for a tatty 1.6 I think that was about 14yrs ago now.

I came down from a 3dr Cosworth and 8v Integrale.

You can't overtake a car going 60+ on the straights but slow on the bends with 115bhp in very many places.

And lots of modern TDis have 170+bhp and close to 300lbs of torque.

[TameRacingDriver]

Why would you want to overtake a car going 60 mph on a straight? Its against the law you know...