Re : The Alpine A110 (finally) cometh | PH Fleet

[s m]

Another A110 vs Cayman T4 duel in EVO this month

Looks like they’re planning a 110S vs 6-pot article soon too

[Miserablegit]

They’ve always given a glowing review to the Alpine so I’m not sure what another t4 head to head will give us.

I anticipate the cayman 6 getting glorious praise for the new 6 pot, Manual gearbox and 20k of extras, the 110s being praised but the Cayman taking it for the manual gearbox and engine despite the moon-landing gearing.

[Gary C]

bcr5784 said:

Gary C said:

Actually, you could save more weight by getting rid of the turbo engine and putting in a high revving NA and you could save gearbox weight by not having to manage the torque from the turbo motor

Edited by Gary C on Friday 17th January 15:52

I'm doubtful. To match performance you'd need at least 275bhp (because of reduced torque) - so lets say 2.75 litres - which would need 6 cylinders to rev high enough reliably (unless Honda made it!) Debatable whether that would be any lighter the 4T. It wouldn't fit so the car would need to be bigger....

Wasn't really serious !

[bcr5784]

Gary C said:

Wasn't really serious !

Didn't really think you were. Interesting option to kick around for both of us (I hope)

[Gary C]

bcr5784 said:

Gary C said:

Wasn't really serious !

Didn't really think you were. Interesting option to kick around for both of us (I hope)

I think the Alpine would have been an ideal platform for a small 240hp NA engine with a manual, but im sure the package as it is is nice.

Interestingly, the new A110 has only about 30hp per tonne more than the original 60's car, but I bet that one was a peaky bd

[bcr5784]

Gary C said:

Interestingly, the new A110 has only about 30hp per tonne more than the original 60's car, but I bet that one was a peaky bd

Not sure what figures you are using but the quickest 1600 A110 i can find developed 140ps See http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel6621-1919.htm for comparative performance. Did you notice the price!!! Not sure of the rate of exchange, but at current day values twice the price of an Elan!!!

Edited by bcr5784 on Sunday 19th January 17:51

[Gad-Westy]

bcr5784 said:

Gary C said:

Interestingly, the new A110 has only about 30hp per tonne more than the original 60's car, but I bet that one was a peaky bd

Not sure what figures you are using but the quickest 1600 A110 i can find developed 140ps See http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel6621-1919.htm for comparative performance. Did you notice the price!!! Not sure of the rate of exchange, but at current day values twice the price of an Elan!!!

Edited by bcr5784 on Sunday 19th January 17:51

Original A110
140ps = 138bhp
670kg
So 206 bhp/tonne

Current A110
249bhp
1103kg
So 226 bhp/tonne

Only 20bhp difference. Though the lighter car's figures always falls off faster once you start adding drivers and fuel into the equation.

[bcr5784]

Gad-Westy said:

Original A110
140ps = 138bhp
670kg
So 206 bhp/tonne

Current A110
249bhp
1103kg
So 226 bhp/tonne

Only 20bhp difference. Though the lighter car's figures always falls off faster once you start adding drivers and fuel into the equation.

True - but when you look at the actual performance the A110 II is in a completely different league.Even allowing for all sorts of fudge factors it's difficult to make the sums add up.

[otolith]

Gad-Westy said:

Only 20bhp difference. Though the lighter car's figures always falls off faster once you start adding drivers and fuel into the equation.

And aerodynamic drag.

250bhp/1100kg (and a turbocharged engine giving a flat 236 lbft from 2,000–5,000rpm) is going to be markedly quicker than a peaky 140bhp/670kg. I think the lighter car would be more fun, though.

[bcr5784]

otolith said:

And aerodynamic drag.

250bhp/1100kg (and a turbocharged engine giving a flat 236 lbft from 2,000–5,000rpm) is going to be markedly quicker than a peaky 140bhp/670kg. I think the lighter car would be more fun, though.

Never driven an "old" one so would be interested in the views of those who have owned or driven both.

[otolith]

bcr5784 said:

otolith said:

And aerodynamic drag.

250bhp/1100kg (and a turbocharged engine giving a flat 236 lbft from 2,000–5,000rpm) is going to be markedly quicker than a peaky 140bhp/670kg. I think the lighter car would be more fun, though.

Never driven an "old" one so would be interested in the views of those who have owned or driven both.

Me neither, I meant in general with two cars of the same power to weight the lighter car is usually slower but more fun.

[Gary C]

bcr5784 said:

Gad-Westy said:

Original A110
140ps = 138bhp
670kg
So 206 bhp/tonne

Current A110
249bhp
1103kg
So 226 bhp/tonne

Only 20bhp difference. Though the lighter car's figures always falls off faster once you start adding drivers and fuel into the equation.

True - but when you look at the actual performance the A110 II is in a completely different league.Even allowing for all sorts of fudge factors it's difficult to make the sums add up.

It was an interesting aside, that even though the new A110 is seen as a lightweight, its positively lardy compared to a 60's car

[fido]

CABC said:

that said, Porsche had a 3.0 4 cyl in the 944. a modern version of that would be high revving and 275hp?
but yes, nothing available today.

A modern direct injection 2.75 I-4 would easily produce 275bhp at 7k rpm but it would have rubbish mpg, emissions and relatively weak low rpm torque compared to a turbo 4 with a smaller capacity. Turbos are so good these days.

[bcr5784]

otolith said:

And aerodynamic drag.

250bhp/1100kg (and a turbocharged engine giving a flat 236 lbft from 2,000–5,000rpm) is going to be markedly quicker than a peaky 140bhp/670kg. I think the lighter car would be more fun, though.

If you look at http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1919-1340.htm comparing the old A110 with a 143 bhp Elise S (100kg heavier) you would have to conclude that the Alpine has ponies rather than horses.

[otolith]

bcr5784 said:

otolith said:

And aerodynamic drag.

250bhp/1100kg (and a turbocharged engine giving a flat 236 lbft from 2,000–5,000rpm) is going to be markedly quicker than a peaky 140bhp/670kg. I think the lighter car would be more fun, though.

If you look at http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1919-1340.htm comparing the old A110 with a 143 bhp Elise S (100kg heavier) you would have to conclude that the Alpine has ponies rather than horses.

That's less markedly different if you look at the detail (which includes ranges of test figures, not just averages) - but yes, the Lotus is quicker. Suspect that a fuel injected 90's engine of larger capacity has a broader spread of torque and that the Lotus has a lot more traction off the line due to weight distribution and tyres. Possibly better aerodynamics too, though the Lotus has a fairly high drag coefficient for its time and they have similar top speeds so maybe not.

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/match1340-1919.htm

[Miserablegit]

This one might be a pit peaky...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0mwWaK_9K8

[a110au]

Miserablegit said:

They’ve always given a glowing review to the Alpine so I’m not sure what another t4 head to head will give us.

I anticipate the cayman 6 getting glorious praise for the new 6 pot, Manual gearbox and 20k of extras, the 110s being praised but the Cayman taking it for the manual gearbox and engine despite the moon-landing gearing.

in australia the gts will be 172k “plus onroads” (options would push it towards 200k)
the a110s is much cheaper, the a110 much much cheaper.

[nickfrog]

otolith said:

Me neither, I meant in general with two cars of the same power to weight the lighter car is usually slower but more fun.

I would have thought the lighter car would have more lateral grip and therefore be as quick if not quicker than the heavier one.

[otolith]

nickfrog said:

otolith said:

Me neither, I meant in general with two cars of the same power to weight the lighter car is usually slower but more fun.

I would have thought the lighter car would have more lateral grip and therefore be as quick if not quicker than the heavier one.

Lighter cars have no more or less lateral grip than heavier cars unless there is significant reliance on aerodynamic downforce. To a first approximation, the lateral force the tyres can generate through friction is proportional to the mass of the car, as is the force required for any particular lateral acceleration. F=uR, F=ma

[nickfrog]

otolith said:

Lighter cars have no more or less lateral grip than heavier cars unless there is significant reliance on aerodynamic downforce. To a first approximation, the lateral force the tyres can generate through friction is proportional to the mass of the car, as is the force required for any particular lateral acceleration. F=uR, F=ma

I think you are confusing traction and lateral grip. Traction is indeed proportional to mass, the heavier the more traction.
Sadly it is the opposite for lateral as the centripetal/centrifugal forces trying to prevent the car from turning are proportional to the lateral weight transfers, which themselves are obviously proportional to the mass, at a given CoG.
So lat grip is inversely proportional to mass.