RE: 400hp Abarth 500!
Discussion
The 0-62 time of 4.7 seconds is quite slow for a €100k, 400bhp car. Putting 400bhp through a Golf R will get you there in about 3.8 seconds, for example. Probably fairly nippy once rolling, though. Glad they still make such a bonkers car at bonkers money. It's basically a training shoe on wheels with a rocket under the hood.
Edited by Yipper on Friday 24th March 21:57
0-60 is a poor measure of power - a better test is 40-100, 30-130 or similar. I have fwd and I can't beat a 0-60 time of a rwd car with 150bhp less. A 4wd car with traction control but half the power of mine will beat me to 60.
This little 500 will be epic (at least in a straight line) once rolling. If the chassis is sorted, it could be handy in the bends too
This little 500 will be epic (at least in a straight line) once rolling. If the chassis is sorted, it could be handy in the bends too
Yipper said:
The 0-62 time of 4.7 seconds is quite slow for a €100k, 400bhp car. Putting 400bhp through a Golf R will get you there in about 3.8 seconds, for example. Probably fairly nippy once rolling, though. Glad they still make such a bonkers car at bonkers money. It's basically a training shoe on wheels with a rocket under the hood.
Are you surprised a 400bhp 4wd car with dsg and launch control is quicker than a manual 400bhp FWD? Edited by Yipper on Friday 24th March 21:57
nikaiyo2 said:
ecsrobin said:
These engines are great for power.
I've just got back from an Abarth specialist as I have a 180 Competizione a quick map and cone filter will obtain 220bhp not bad for minimum outlay.
Hi. Do you have a link to the specialist? I might tweak mine a bit I've just got back from an Abarth specialist as I have a 180 Competizione a quick map and cone filter will obtain 220bhp not bad for minimum outlay.
http://alfacare.co.uk
I had a rubbish dog slow hire 500 for a few days, sloooow ultra tarts handbag of a car, but, the chassis was fun and I immediately wanted a go in a fast one.
Then I spotted a 595 with a massive (guessing) aftermarket carbon rear diffuser, childish, silly, "the last thing I would ever do to a car", and I wanted it !!
Then I spotted a 595 with a massive (guessing) aftermarket carbon rear diffuser, childish, silly, "the last thing I would ever do to a car", and I wanted it !!
micksims said:
4.7 to 60? would have thought it would be quicker than that? My SQ5 weighs twice as much, 91hp down on this and still does it in 5.1!! Ok its 4wd but really!?
But SQ5 is the reverse of a car like this, as the SQ5 flatters to deceive ZF8/LC/AWD and a spurge of low down torque give a good 0-60 time for the power/weight on offer but after that it's not a quick car.The acceleration rate almost halves from 60-100mph, meaning a quick car like a C63/M3/QF/RS5 etc.. could let it get to 50mph and still beat it to 100mph.
The Alfa would be on another level, it be savage from 60mph onwards...
kambites said:
I know this isn't very "PH" but I really don't see the point in 400+bhp/tonne through the front wheels. Why not just start with a car which is setup up to actually generate some traction or at least an agreeable form of lack of traction?
Once upon a time the guys at Ford Boreham reckoned that it was a waste of time trying to put more than 170 bhp or so thriugh the front wheels. This was when they first looked at the Fiesta as a possible rally car.About the same time someone at Ford said that thet would never build a diesel car. He reckoned that if someone wanted a car as bad as a diesel would be they could build it cheaper as a petrol car.
Yipper said:
The 0-62 time of 4.7 seconds is quite slow for a €100k, 400bhp car. Putting 400bhp through a Golf R will get you there in about 3.8 seconds, for example. Probably fairly nippy once rolling, though. Glad they still make such a bonkers car at bonkers money. It's basically a training shoe on wheels with a rocket under the hood.
It's front wheel drive - that's incredibly quick for a car that has to stuff all its power through the front wheels IMO.Edited by Yipper on Friday 24th March 21:57
Once it's rolling I'd imagine that it would absolutely muller the aforementioned Audi SQ5 and Golf R
Gandahar said:
400 from 1.4 though. That's pushing it even for a modern engine. In the old days it would be a highly tuned Sierra Cosworth with so much fuel being pumped through the large exhaust you could smell the petrol as it overtook you and had to put out your ciggy pronto....
Not at all you can get 600hp or even 700hp from a 1400cc bike engineAll that money for the conversion, and it has wheel spacers. Not wheels with the correct offset, or if that's not possible new drive shafts. Didn't see a mention any changes to the wheel bearings to cope with the additional load of the wider track.
The poor 0-60 shows traction is limited to cope with the power.
The poor 0-60 shows traction is limited to cope with the power.
LMA37 said:
All that money for the conversion, and it has wheel spacers. Not wheels with the correct offset, or if that's not possible new drive shafts.
Driveshaft length doesn't have any influence on the position of the wheel on something with independent suspension. It's determined by the geometry of the hub/upright and wishbone/control arm lengths, though obviously the driveshaft has to fit the distance between hub and final drive. Making the lower control arm longer on a car with McPherson strut suspension messes up the camber, which would have to be corrected by moving the top mount out as well (or the horrible eccentric strut/upright bolts which only have limited adjustment anyway). This would all be very expensive unless you were going to make many of these cars.Additionally wheel spacers do not necessarily increase wheel bearing loads if combined with different wheels, it all depends on whether the centreline of the wheel has moved in relation to the hub.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff