RE: Prior Convictions: Adding lightness

[Debaser]

cybersimon said:

Porsche Cayman 981 Vs 718 ?

I’ve read the 4cyl turbo is no lighter than the previous 6cyl na.

[Debaser]

Herbs said:

Agree with the sentiment but surely the V10 R8 is a better car than than the V8?

Depends what you mean by better. The V8 feels lighter, better balanced and more fun to chuck around. The V10 is faster.

When I was looking for one I drove both and preferred the V8.

[blade7]

A 2wd 911 hasn't got much weight over the front wheels compared to a 944, which handles better?

[TooMany2cvs]

AndStilliRise said:

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

I had Mk3 GTi (8v) and VR6 back-to-back, back in the day. The VR6 was infinitely better than the utterly mediocre GTi. The 16v might have been a different story, but...

[Peanus]

drpep said:

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.

I get the feeling this article was very carefully constructed so that the criteria for measurement were extremely difficult to argue. Thus the 981 vs 718 debate is not able to contradict Matt’s article. He remains “right”. Want to argue that the MkV Golf R32 is better than the MkV GTI? HAHA NOT THE SAME CAR I’M STILL RIGHT!

“Driving dynamics can be felt all the time”. Rubbish. Try saying that about a Nissan 370Z vs the Nismo version on the road. The fact that the Nismo has much “better” driving dynamics than the standard car is actually in many cases a detriment to the higher spec version because you cannot legally explore that car’s limits on the road. You can up to a point do so in the non-Nismo version. The Nismo feels much more sedate at legal driving and speeds. Many cars cannot legally be explored in this way on the road because they are simply too fast and it barely feels like you’re cornering unless you like risking life and license. You can take them to the track to drive and push to the limit, but this moots the entire argument doesn’t it?

I would like to offer a counterpoint: noise. My ears can hear the engine all the time, just as supposedly so can driving dynamics be felt all the time. According to the logic of your argument therefore a better sounding engine makes for a better car, thus asmaller engines detract from the driving experience.

Silly blanket article that doesn’t really offer much in the way of insight. It’s a good way to boost forum activity, though. I’ll give it that.

[samoht]

To be precise, adding a smaller engine isn't better, adding a lighter one is. Often these go together, but if you have an engine that's more powerful / larger capacity but the same mass or lighter, then it's a win/win. The obvious example is the all-alloy ex-Buick Rover V8 which replaced a variety of cast-iron boat-anchors in all sorts of cars, improving both handling and performance.

What's somewhat interesting is mid-engined cars like the Audi R8 - I'd have thought that the engine was near enough the centre of gravity to make no real difference between V8 and V10, but people say it does. I wonder if the bigger engined model has other differences in suspension or drivetrain?

[myhandle]

AndStilliRise said:

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

As I recall, the Mk3 GTI had terrible reviews, but the VR6 generally positive reviews? Apart from the famous CAR magazine cover of course, but their car was a very early VR6 produced before the faults were solved.

Edited by myhandle on Saturday 20th January 18:20

[Loyly]

bigbadbikercats said:

Agree with the general point, disagree with some of the specifics - as far as I’m aware there wasn’t a significant difference in weight (or its distribution) between either the 1.6 and 1.9 versions of the Peugeot 205 or the Ducati 916/748.

I’m not going to comment on the Peugeot but I’ve been lucky enough to ride a number of Ducati 748/916 variants back to back on circuits over the years, and what made me consistently prefer the smaller engined variant was its smoother, revvier, more progressive power delivery. A 916 would often have me opening the throttle to exit a corner at a point in its operating range where between a steeply rising torque curve and explosive throttle response I felt (rightly or wrongly) one tiny twitch away from being high-sided to the moon on somebody else’s expensive pride and joy, the 748 in contrast would be spinning a bit faster in a much flatter part of the torque curve and I always felt I could open the throttle sooner, harder, and faster without risk of disaster.

In fairness I should point out that I never actually got bitten by a 916 (I’m probably just not fast enough for it to be a real risk), it just always felt like it might...

An interesting read. I had always heard that the 748 was a bit asthmatic (87hp before transmission losses) but the handling was great. I hadn't considered it in relation to the 916 in that sense because when I was reading buyer's guides for those bikes they usually said to bypass the 748 for the 916 of funds allowed.

It's mentioned by someone overleaf that 600cc bikes make their power easier to access than 1000cc bikes. I don't agree, as whilst neither are hard to move quickly, litre bikes can do warp speed without much effort whereas the supersports keep their most ballistic performance locked away at the top of the rev range. For quick thrills, little beats the ability of the litre bikes. However, I think 600's are more forgiving in the corners and that comes down to a lack of tyre shredding torque. Provided you're in a low enough gear to drive through the bend, a 600 is pretty docile whereas the 1000's can really shuffle under throttle leading to high side wobbles. I think it takes more skill and bigger stones to push a litre bike in the bends - not least because they're much faster.

[Loyly]

myhandle said:

As I recall, the Mk3 GTI had terrible reviews, but the VR6 generally positive reviews? Apart from the famous CAR magazine cover of course, but their car was a very early VR6 produced before the faults were solved.

Edited by myhandle on Saturday 20th January 18:20

Indeed but the MK3 GTi was a pretty limp hot hatch whereas the VR6 was typically considered more of a luxury/mini GT model than a hot hatch and received commensurate praise. It certainly didn't handle like a hot hatch and wasn't received as such.

[DonkeyApple]

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.

An element of the ‘smaller (cheaper) engine is better’ argument that has gone on for decades is all to do with the money aspect. Some cars genuinely are nicer to steer with the slightly smaller variant and the weight gain gives a better nimbleness in corners that compensated for the slight loss in straight line speed. But, too many of these ‘tales’ are the typical man tt bhing due to wanting to stick it to the chap who bought the more expensive car. It’s gone on since the dawn of time. Chap turns up at pub with the more expensive model, pub tt and serial loser instantly goes into ‘that’s st’ mode.

The Pug 205 being an all time classic example of the pub tt opening his pointless mouth and spouting words with no intelligence behind them because the 1.9 was more expensive than the 1.6.

[givablondabone]

samoht said:

To be precise, adding a smaller engine isn't better, adding a lighter one is. Often these go together, but if you have an engine that's more powerful / larger capacity but the same mass or lighter, then it's a win/win. The obvious example is the all-alloy ex-Buick Rover V8 which replaced a variety of cast-iron boat-anchors in all sorts of cars, improving both handling and performance.

What's somewhat interesting is mid-engined cars like the Audi R8 - I'd have thought that the engine was near enough the centre of gravity to make no real difference between V8 and V10, but people say it does. I wonder if the bigger engined model has other differences in suspension or drivetrain?

Damn beat me to it. I seem to remember it weighing similar to the then 2.0 Pinto................................

[V8RX7]

Removing weight is good.

However having owned:

205 GTi 1.6 and 1.9 - I'll take the 1.9
Golf GTi MK1 1.6 & 1.8 - I'll take the 1.8
MX5 1.6 & 1.8 - you can probably guess...

When you have a large amount of power the subtleties become more important but at the lower end beating the Rep in his diesel away from the lights matters most so you have the clear road ahead of you.

[aramid]

Mound Dawg said:

Alfa 75s are the same, yeah the V6 makes a great noise but the extra weight and overlong gearing mean that point to point the four pot Twinspark is a faster car.

Alfa 156 the same. Test drove a friend’s Twinspark which was exquisitely balanced for a FWD car. Bought a V6 for the power and fizz (and let’s be honest, bragging rights). Faster, but it was leaden by comparison.

[robm3]

treeroy said:

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.

Although I had a V8 on test for a weekend I then tried a V6S, the V6S made a nicer noise to my ears and I preferred the drive so that's the model I brought, I'm in the minority though I suspect.

Currently have a 428i with the twin turbo 4 cylinder as a Mileage Mule, it's a capable but soulless lump, well below BMW's finest for character. Their sixes are world class and I'd much rather have one of those up front.

[hoegaardenruls]

va1o said:

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!

Likewise, I've driven both Mk1 and 2 TT's with the four cylinder engine (1.8T/2.0T) and the respective 3.2 V6. While the V6 might sound better it is also heavier and more prone to understeer, than the 4-pot,

[DanS]

What about the GTC4Lusso vs the GTC4Lusso T?

[g7jhp]

Searider said:

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.

I've had both 1.6 and 1.9 GTI's.

Haven't driven them back to back, but I remember the 1.6 as being buzzier so it felt on it.

The 1.9 felt more lethargic (although obviously wasn't).

Both great little cars.