Why do some engines rev quicker than others?
Discussion
Just a random wondering I had the other day, some engines seem to rev up quicker than others, why?!
Like for like example that i've owned both of....
Pug 306 gti6/Xsara vts 2.0 16v = very good vs mk2 toyota mr2 n/a 2.0 16v = not good (slow and sluggish). Both similar weights of cars, and similar bhp output.
Other one i've owned that was good was a VAG 1.8T, obviously turbo in that case may help.
Like for like example that i've owned both of....
Pug 306 gti6/Xsara vts 2.0 16v = very good vs mk2 toyota mr2 n/a 2.0 16v = not good (slow and sluggish). Both similar weights of cars, and similar bhp output.
Other one i've owned that was good was a VAG 1.8T, obviously turbo in that case may help.
The lower friction/lighter the rotating components of the engine, generally the quicker it'll spin up on its own.
So an engine without too many accessories and a nice, light flighwheel will have easy revving characteristics, but a diesel with AC, PAS, Alt, water pump etc all going and a heavy DMF in the way it will be harder to spin it up.
So an engine without too many accessories and a nice, light flighwheel will have easy revving characteristics, but a diesel with AC, PAS, Alt, water pump etc all going and a heavy DMF in the way it will be harder to spin it up.
acf8181 said:
Just a random wondering I had the other day, some engines seem to rev up quicker than others, why?!
Like for like example that i've owned both of....
Pug 306 gti6/Xsara vts 2.0 16v = very good vs mk2 toyota mr2 n/a 2.0 16v = not good (slow and sluggish). Both similar weights of cars, and similar bhp output.
Other one i've owned that was good was a VAG 1.8T, obviously turbo in that case may help.
My MR2 revs very quick imho.Like for like example that i've owned both of....
Pug 306 gti6/Xsara vts 2.0 16v = very good vs mk2 toyota mr2 n/a 2.0 16v = not good (slow and sluggish). Both similar weights of cars, and similar bhp output.
Other one i've owned that was good was a VAG 1.8T, obviously turbo in that case may help.
Ratio of rotational inertia (including rotating engine mass, cylinder/conrod weights and flywheel) to torque. Torque is not constant over the rev range either so the instantaneous rate of rotational acceleration will be proportional to instantaneous torque over the rotational inertia.
acf8181 said:
mk2 toyota mr2 n/a 2.0 16v = not good (slow and sluggish)..
The MR2 has a long 2nd gear so that it hits 60mph without needing a 2nd gear change. At least mine did in NA form. [Assuming you're talking while moving (rather than sitting in neutral/with clutch in - see replies above if that's the case)]I certainly wouldn't call it "slow and sluggish" though.
Benbay001 said:
My MR2 revs very quick imho.
My MR2 Turbo had a really sharp throttle for a turbocharged car. It was utterly fantastic, it was practically at N/A levels of response. My 106 Rallye takes it a step further, with an extremely light flywheel, a freer flowing exhaust, and a small engine driving few ancilliaries; it's a crazy little thing on cam. No idea why, but these are the best and worst in my ownership - both 1.4 petrols.
Worst - Lupo 1.4 16v. Felt reasonable when in gear but when out of gear it seemed to take an age to build the revs.
Best - Citroen AX GT. If I didn't know any better I'd swear it didn't have a flywheel. It revved like a motorbike.
Worst - Lupo 1.4 16v. Felt reasonable when in gear but when out of gear it seemed to take an age to build the revs.
Best - Citroen AX GT. If I didn't know any better I'd swear it didn't have a flywheel. It revved like a motorbike.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff


