RE: Prior Convictions: Adding lightness

[Searider]

Krikkit said:

Agree on your point Matt - taking weight out of the car is usually to the benefits of its dynamic ability.

That said, the XU5JA and XU9JA in the 205 GTI's were almost identical weight - the difference was <10kg.

Beat me to it. As a former 1.9 owner I really don't know what the "1.6 is better than 1.9" comments were all about.
As you said, the weight was all but the same. The only difference that would make a difference to how they drove would be the shorter gearing of the 1.6 and the 14" rather than 15" wheels.

[Penguinracer]

Wrong - a lighter motor DOES NOT always make for a sweeter model: Witness the Holden Commodre VH Series four -cylinder (with the GM 1.9 litre Starfire four) vs the six-cylinder variant with the old 202 (3.3 litre) motor.

The six was superior in every way!

[Ares]

I had a Caterham with a fireblade engine. Whilst owning it I drive everything unto an R500 and other, more powerful bike engine applications. I maintain, my little fireblade engine made for by far the sweetest drive.

Opposite end of the spectrum, I also drove a Ferrari California with a California T - the later car was better with it's lighter lump compared to the N/A.

[Krikkit]

TooMany2cvs said:

Krikkit said:

Agree on your point Matt - taking weight out of the car is usually to the benefits of its dynamic ability.

That said, the XU5JA and XU9JA in the 205 GTI's were almost identical weight - the difference was <10kg.

Same engine, though - both XUs. The weight savings come where you've got different engine families, usually with differing numbers of cylinders.

The Douvrin-engined CXs were much nicer than the pushrod ones, f'rinstance.

True, but particularly with PSA, some engines with the same basic architecture can be significantly different in terms of construction - the XU10 was an iron-blocked version which was a bit heavier.

[Raudus42]

Mk1 Land Rover Discovery and Range Rover - when they introduced the diesel it was a pos that could barely move.

[TurboHatchback]

I agree with the sentiment, bigger engines usually make cars handle worse. It's a question of balance and whether the improvement in handling is worth the degradation of power and smoothness compared to the bigger engine. As a general rule I think in barges the smoothness and power is more important hence big engines are good and in sportscars handling is paramount so they should have the lightest engine practicable.

[treeroy]

Benrad said:

F-Type...

I've driven none of them but it's available with 4, 6 and 8 cylinders. Is anyone claiming the 4 cyl is the pick of the bunch?

Ditto most executive saloons

Otherwise a great point, I just enjoy the chance to fun the exceptions!

yeah there are, I read several reviews when the 2 litre was released that said it's the best F-type.

[treeroy]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this. Youre really saying that the low power version is better than the high power version, in every single case?

e.g. 2.3 Mustang vs 5.0 V8 Mustang

[SidewaysSi]

PHMatt said:

skylarking808 said:

My experience with BMW E30's echos this.

The E30 1.8l sport was a better handling/steer than the 2.5l sport. Better balanced so the rear was not as light, and improved direction changes etc.I think this was the reason the original M3 had a four pot?

Beat me to it.
This likely had something to do with the 6 pots of the time having iron blocks that weighed a st ton though.

Although.... the S54 in the E46 M3 had an iron block whereas the regular M54 6 pots had aluminum and were much lighter,

Strange eh!

The E46 M3 is a lardy old thing and the main reason I am not changing my E36 328i for one.

[Jobbo]

Mammasaid said:

Car Magazine

Car Magazine said:

It’s very good, if not flawless..

Do you choose quotes for movie posters? They immediately go on to list the flaws over the other versions, such as mushier throttle response

As much a criticism of Car’s turn of phrase there, I admit.

[va1o]

I’ve recently ‘downsized’ to a TT 2.0 TFSI after previously having an M135i and before that an S5 4.2 V8. I’ve found it quite a refreshing experience, the 1230kg weight certainly helps the driving experience a lot and it’s still sub 6s 0-60. All I’m missing really is the soundtrack you get from more cylinders!

[Mound Dawg]

Searider said:

Krikkit said:

Agree on your point Matt - taking weight out of the car is usually to the benefits of its dynamic ability.

That said, the XU5JA and XU9JA in the 205 GTI's were almost identical weight - the difference was <10kg.

Beat me to it. As a former 1.9 owner I really don't know what the "1.6 is better than 1.9" comments were all about.
As you said, the weight was all but the same. The only difference that would make a difference to how they drove would be the shorter gearing of the 1.6 and the 14" rather than 15" wheels.

It's a long time since I drove either but I remember that the 1.6 had much more benign on the limit handling than the 1.9 but that's nothing to do with the engine in either.

[AndStilliRise]

Informative. I would prefer a Golf GTI to a Golf VR6.

[E65Ross]

That doesn't mean the car is better for it. I've driven enough cars with different engines in to realise I often prefer larger engines. The most notable one was a BMW E34 525i with the M50....so, so much better than the 4 cylinder petrol car!

Depends on the car I guess and they'll always be a sweetspot, but I wouldn't like a DB11 with a 4 cylinder turbo....

[drpep]

This almost a garbage argument though. All things being equal, less weight is better. But in the real world, this is never the case other than a manufacturer/emissions-induced downsizing.

In almost every other capacity, other factors are brought into play. A C300 Mercedes is a very different prospect to a C63. And who wouldn't take a C63. Sure, the weight of a 4 pot instead of the bi-turbo V8 would be better but it's rarely the case where one component is simply downsized.

Lightness may beget lightness, but all to often lightness begets stty poverty-spec automotive transit. And that isn't always fun. With notable exceptions.

[anonymous-user]

It's not the same though. Build a decent C Class with a light but powerful NA engine and put it against the same with the C63 engine and i'd wager the outcome might not be so clear?

[E65Ross]

How about a new shape 440i or a 318i?

Id rather the 440i ta.

[V8 FOU]

Raudus42 said:

Mk1 Land Rover Discovery and Range Rover - when they introduced the diesel it was a pos that could barely move.

Had a drive in a new TDi Discovery auto when they came out. Dangerously slow - pulling out at a junction was like playing Russian roulette. Made the mistake of buying a VM engined R/Rover manual. Total pos. Slow. Very slow. Hatefull thing.

[Gandahar]

After seeing Rolls Royce going around the Nurburgring for a completely pointless exercise I now see the Bentley Posh London Cab attempting Pikes Peak.

The car world is insane for speed and I blame the Germans.

They will be invading the Channel islands (again! ) and building some abhorrent test track to get an Audi Q7 to hit (88 x1.60934) km per hour.

Nuts

[Huff]

I bought an E39-based Alpina B10 3.3 (manual) over the several E39 M5s I'd tried for this very reason.

To my taste - it's so very much nicer a thing to drive everywhere: better/more-precise handling, finer feedback and esp precision in turn-in and corner exit. Yet it gives a ride that is so far ahead, and quieter, than BMW settings in any e39 it makes one giggle. I don't care about the c.80hp deficit: the benefits of a 300KG weight saving (c 2/3rds of which are over the front axle in the M5...) - the R&P steering, and Alpina's spring/damper/geo/set-up know-how made it an utter wash for me. The B10 3.3 is deft, and sharp, and yet - more soothing on a long run, too.

Oh, and that wonderful hand built straight-6...

(The difference in purchase price meanwhile more than paid for a full Alpina susp refresh & bushes everywhere...and a few other things. Zero regrets. I'm keeping this one.)