What is the accelerational efficiency of your car(s)?
Discussion
Warning: nerd content below.
So I was thinking about the improvements made in the 0-60 times cars can manage with surprisingly modest power and it led me on to thinking about how close we are to the maximum achievable exploitation of available power and how it has changed over the years. We can calculate this very simply:
E = 1/2MV^2 and of course P=E/T thus theoretical accelerational efficiency = (1/2MV^2)/PT
V is fixed at 60mph and the units are SI (kW and M/S) so if we substitute the constant and convert to mph and bhp this becomes:
Efficiency = 0.482M/PT where M=Mass in kg, P = power in BHP and T = 0-60 time in seconds.
Obviously the discrepancy is made up by rolling resistance, wind resistance, tyre slip, clutch or torque converter slip, power curves and gear ratios that don't allow maximum power at all times, electrical drain, energy stored rotationally in the wheels and drivetrain etc etc. I thought it would be interesting to see how far manufacturers have got in minimising these factors, I predict the best results from a modern DSG diesel with relatively low power of some kind.
My car (E90 330i manual) does quite poorly, 258bhp, 1490kg and 6.4s = 43.5% efficiency.
I tried a B9 A4 Quattro TDI 272 and it does much better, 268bhp, 1665kg and 5.1s = 58.8% efficiency.
How do your cars compare and what examples can you think of that fare particularly well or poorly?
So I was thinking about the improvements made in the 0-60 times cars can manage with surprisingly modest power and it led me on to thinking about how close we are to the maximum achievable exploitation of available power and how it has changed over the years. We can calculate this very simply:
E = 1/2MV^2 and of course P=E/T thus theoretical accelerational efficiency = (1/2MV^2)/PT
V is fixed at 60mph and the units are SI (kW and M/S) so if we substitute the constant and convert to mph and bhp this becomes:
Efficiency = 0.482M/PT where M=Mass in kg, P = power in BHP and T = 0-60 time in seconds.
Obviously the discrepancy is made up by rolling resistance, wind resistance, tyre slip, clutch or torque converter slip, power curves and gear ratios that don't allow maximum power at all times, electrical drain, energy stored rotationally in the wheels and drivetrain etc etc. I thought it would be interesting to see how far manufacturers have got in minimising these factors, I predict the best results from a modern DSG diesel with relatively low power of some kind.
My car (E90 330i manual) does quite poorly, 258bhp, 1490kg and 6.4s = 43.5% efficiency.
I tried a B9 A4 Quattro TDI 272 and it does much better, 268bhp, 1665kg and 5.1s = 58.8% efficiency.
How do your cars compare and what examples can you think of that fare particularly well or poorly?
TurboHatchback said:
I predict the best results from a modern DSG diesel with relatively low power of some kind.
Can't see it - I reckon it's going to be an electric of some sort. Having driven shopping carts like the I-Miev, they can outrun pretty much anything from a standing start.0-60mph can be drastically reduced with just the right tyres and maybe a gearing change. Same weight, power and torque. I’m no mathematician, how does your equation cope for this?
Part of the reason we see such good 0-60mph times these days are down to tyres and launch control systems. Rather than outright power or low weight.
Part of the reason we see such good 0-60mph times these days are down to tyres and launch control systems. Rather than outright power or low weight.
300bhp/ton said:
0-60mph can be drastically reduced with just the right tyres and maybe a gearing change. Same weight, power and torque. I’m no mathematician, how does your equation cope for this?
Part of the reason we see such good 0-60mph times these days are down to tyres and launch control systems. Rather than outright power or low weight.
The equation is very simply the linear kinetic energy at 60mph divided by the maximum possible energy output of the engine in the time taken to get to 60mph.Part of the reason we see such good 0-60mph times these days are down to tyres and launch control systems. Rather than outright power or low weight.
300bhp/ton said:
0-60mph can be drastically reduced with just the right tyres and maybe a gearing change. Same weight, power and torque. I’m no mathematician, how does your equation cope for this?
Part of the reason we see such good 0-60mph times these days are down to tyres and launch control systems. Rather than outright power or low weight.
Agree, just look at mine - Part of the reason we see such good 0-60mph times these days are down to tyres and launch control systems. Rather than outright power or low weight.
Disco Sport - 54%
Street Triple bike (with a 70kg rider) - 39%
So a 2 tonne 4x4 is much more efficient than a bike.
FunkyNige said:
Agree, just look at mine -
Disco Sport - 54%
Street Triple bike (with a 70kg rider) - 39%
So a 2 tonne 4x4 is much more efficient than a bike.
That's exactly what I'd expect, the figure is a measurement of how much of the engines potential output is converted into kinetic energy in the time taken to reach 60mph. A diesel 4x4 with a flat power curve, lots of gear ratios and perfect traction should do reasonably well, limited by high wind and rolling resistance mostly.Disco Sport - 54%
Street Triple bike (with a 70kg rider) - 39%
So a 2 tonne 4x4 is much more efficient than a bike.
Edited by TurboHatchback on Friday 21st February 10:11
Well this is surprising...
2004 Mercedes E500
Mass = 1815kg (DIN) / 1890kg (EU)
Power = 251.3kW (dyno'd at MSL)
0-60 = 5.4s (on road. I've got it down to 5s dead on a sticky runway)
I'm getting a result of 64.5% with the 5.4s figure and 1815kg mass, and if I cherry pick the 5s and EU mass it's 72.5%. That seems high compared with the others. Max revs in 2nd is just over 100kph, which probably helps, but I'm wondering if the weight is overstated seeing as that is the only variable I haven't measured.
2004 Mercedes E500
Mass = 1815kg (DIN) / 1890kg (EU)
Power = 251.3kW (dyno'd at MSL)
0-60 = 5.4s (on road. I've got it down to 5s dead on a sticky runway)
I'm getting a result of 64.5% with the 5.4s figure and 1815kg mass, and if I cherry pick the 5s and EU mass it's 72.5%. That seems high compared with the others. Max revs in 2nd is just over 100kph, which probably helps, but I'm wondering if the weight is overstated seeing as that is the only variable I haven't measured.
0-60 is too limited by other factors (traction, gearing and mass distribution) to make any valid comparisons imo.
EVs for example, are brilliant when it comes to traction, but actually very poor when it comes to using peak power of their motor, because they lack gears!
ICEs are tpoor when it comes to traction (having to suddenly couple a high inertia spining engine to some stationary wheels is difficult to do perfectly) but brilliant when it comes to leveraging peak power (lots of gears these days)
And of course, the slower your car is, the more total energy is lost to drag for any given drag co-efficient, so slow / low power cars will always come out worse and fast/high power ones come out better (which is why the Tesla that takes less than 3 sec to sprint to 60 looks so good!)
EVs for example, are brilliant when it comes to traction, but actually very poor when it comes to using peak power of their motor, because they lack gears!
ICEs are tpoor when it comes to traction (having to suddenly couple a high inertia spining engine to some stationary wheels is difficult to do perfectly) but brilliant when it comes to leveraging peak power (lots of gears these days)
And of course, the slower your car is, the more total energy is lost to drag for any given drag co-efficient, so slow / low power cars will always come out worse and fast/high power ones come out better (which is why the Tesla that takes less than 3 sec to sprint to 60 looks so good!)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff