Is torque really relevant?
Discussion
ddom said:
Yes, it must be shock for you to not be able to bully people on the internet. Hilarious.
Oh, do stop whiiiining about being bullied, you pathetic little troll.If you think that others on here are too stupid to see through your attempted deflections and evasions, you're in for a nasty shock yourself.
Without wanting to join the pissing contest. The ZF box is brilliant. But, I think it kind of spoils a good engine (the supercharged jag V8 leaps to mind) as you lose so much feeling of the torque curve of the engine. It’s a fabulously smooth, fast and efficient box, but it makes an interesting engine almost redundant.
Hungrymc said:
Without wanting to join the pissing contest. The ZF box is brilliant. But, I think it kind of spoils a good engine (the supercharged jag V8 leaps to mind) as you lose so much feeling of the torque curve of the engine. It’s a fabulously smooth, fast and efficient box, but it makes an interesting engine almost redundant.
Yes, but for some it makes driving 'easier' and that is apparently what sells cars these days.Hungrymc said:
The ZF box is brilliant. But, I think it kind of spoils a good engine (the supercharged jag V8 leaps to mind) as you lose so much feeling of the torque curve of the engine. It’s a fabulously smooth, fast and efficient box, but it makes an interesting engine almost redundant.
That's not really what it's about though, is it? It was never intended as a 'sporting' gearbox - it was designed to be as unobtrusive but fuel-efficient as possible in relatively high-powered executive cars. You might as well complain about the Caterham 6 speed being too frenetic?
ddom said:
Hungrymc said:
Without wanting to join the pissing contest. The ZF box is brilliant. But, I think it kind of spoils a good engine (the supercharged jag V8 leaps to mind) as you lose so much feeling of the torque curve of the engine. It’s a fabulously smooth, fast and efficient box, but it makes an interesting engine almost redundant.
Yes, but for some it makes driving 'easier' and that is apparently what sells cars these days.For example my wife’s Skoda Fabia Monte Carlo has a 115bhp engine and a 6 speed manual box, clearly a generic box from the Vag arsenal as the gear ratios are awful ( far too long ) despite it being a pleasant if not slightly ‘rubbery’ change , certainly not as good as the Ford gearboxes in the fiesta for example , I mentioned this In passing to the salesman when I test drove it and he looked at me like I’d just spoken in Swahili to him.
MC Bodge said:
What was being discussed was being able to cruise along in top gear and having to change down a couple of gears, or not, to allow reasonable, not maximum, acceleration on the road.
I missed this, but I think it was a relevant point. You’re talking about slow cars. I haven’t had to do what you describe in any of my high revving cars. Not the Civic, not the RX-8, not Elise, not the Z4M.If you’re talking about things with a s
tty power to weight ratio even in the right gear, yeah, you’ll have to drop gears. NewUsername said:
... those of us who care about the nuances of a car’s performance are the tiny minority.
And even some of those of us who care about the nuances of a car's performance recognise that there's a time and a place.I've owned some of the most extreme road cars its possible to own (example: Westfield FW400 with carbon tub, no windscreen, a highly-tuned K-series and a Hewland straight-cut dog engagement gearbox that was like sharing the cockpit with a hammer drill and made the most godawful noises if you got the gearchange even slightly wrong).
... But I'm also sensible enough to recognise that most people (including myself) want lazy, unobtrusive refinement from the car they use as an everyday mile-muncher. You don't want to do a 400-mile round trip in a car that leaves you continually wired.
Remember: the OP's question was about a BMW 5-series/Audi A4, not some track-day refugee.
Equus said:
NewUsername said:
... those of us who care about the nuances of a car’s performance are the tiny minority.
And even some of those of us who care about the nuances of a car's performance recognise that there's a time and a place.I've owned some of the most extreme road cars its possible to own (example: Westfield FW400 with carbon tub, no windscreen, a highly-tuned K-series and a Hewland straight-cut dog engagement gearbox that was like sharing the cockpit with a hammer drill and made the most godawful noises if you got the gearchange even slightly wrong).
... But I'm also sensible enough to recognise that most people (including myself) want lazy, unobtrusive refinement from the car they use as an everyday mile-muncher. You don't want to do a 400-mile round trip in a car that leaves you continually wired.
Remember: the OP's question was about a BMW 5-series/Audi A4, not some track-day refugee.
I’m a big advocate of a torquey diesel for commuting etc. The flexibility and in gear performance just works for me
ddom said:
Hungrymc said:
Without wanting to join the pissing contest. The ZF box is brilliant. But, I think it kind of spoils a good engine (the supercharged jag V8 leaps to mind) as you lose so much feeling of the torque curve of the engine. It’s a fabulously smooth, fast and efficient box, but it makes an interesting engine almost redundant.
Yes, but for some it makes driving 'easier' and that is apparently what sells cars these days.Equus said:
Hungrymc said:
The ZF box is brilliant. But, I think it kind of spoils a good engine (the supercharged jag V8 leaps to mind) as you lose so much feeling of the torque curve of the engine. It’s a fabulously smooth, fast and efficient box, but it makes an interesting engine almost redundant.
That's not really what it's about though, is it? It was never intended as a 'sporting' gearbox - it was designed to be as unobtrusive but fuel-efficient as possible in relatively high-powered executive cars. You might as well complain about the Caterham 6 speed being too frenetic?
Struggling to see the parallel to the caterham.
Hungrymc said:
ddom said:
Hungrymc said:
Without wanting to join the pissing contest. The ZF box is brilliant. But, I think it kind of spoils a good engine (the supercharged jag V8 leaps to mind) as you lose so much feeling of the torque curve of the engine. It’s a fabulously smooth, fast and efficient box, but it makes an interesting engine almost redundant.
Yes, but for some it makes driving 'easier' and that is apparently what sells cars these days.
I'm convinced my car's ZF8 box isn't configured to work with the car's engine properly. Apparently my car has 560Nm of torque between 1500rpm and just over 3000rpm. If I push the throttle down in drive, after a second of faffing about with gears, the gearbox selects a gear that delivers about 3000rpm, right at the top of the engine's torque peak. It then shuffles through gears frantically as I accelerate, keeping things between 3k and 4k. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure the car accelerates best between about 1600 and 3000, plus that involves no gearchanges and results in a doubling of my road speed, which is enough for most overtakes. One day I'll time it on a TED test to find out.
RobM77 said:
I'm convinced my car's ZF8 box isn't configured to work with the car's engine properly. Apparently my car has 560Nm of torque between 1500rpm and just over 3000rpm. If I push the throttle down in drive, after a second of faffing about with gears, the gearbox selects a gear that delivers about 3000rpm, right at the top of the engine's torque peak. It then shuffles through gears frantically as I accelerate, keeping things between 3k and 4k. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure the car accelerates best between about 1600 and 3000, plus that involves no gearchanges and results in a doubling of my road speed, which is enough for most overtakes. One day I'll time it on a TED test to find out.otolith said:
RobM77 said:
I'm convinced my car's ZF8 box isn't configured to work with the car's engine properly. Apparently my car has 560Nm of torque between 1500rpm and just over 3000rpm. If I push the throttle down in drive, after a second of faffing about with gears, the gearbox selects a gear that delivers about 3000rpm, right at the top of the engine's torque peak. It then shuffles through gears frantically as I accelerate, keeping things between 3k and 4k. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure the car accelerates best between about 1600 and 3000, plus that involves no gearchanges and results in a doubling of my road speed, which is enough for most overtakes. One day I'll time it on a TED test to find out.Hmm just come back to this thread today and its a mess. It falls into the same trap that all PH threads fall into after a while.
Too many people contributing all at different stages of understanding of the topic. Too many people posting and not enough actually listening to what has already been said on the thread, so inevitable endless repetition without any progress.
Interesting topic though so I look forward to the start of the next thread on the subject.
Too many people contributing all at different stages of understanding of the topic. Too many people posting and not enough actually listening to what has already been said on the thread, so inevitable endless repetition without any progress.
Interesting topic though so I look forward to the start of the next thread on the subject.
ddom said:
Isn't that also due to how acceleration feels from low speed.
The speed/s shouldn't make a difference. The feeling of acceleration is just a force caused by a change in speed, whether you start at 10mph or 150mph won't make a difference to how a given acceleration feels (for example, a gain of 10mph per second). The only thing that will make a difference will be a change in that force (i.e. the second derivative of distance wrt time).
ddom said:
In the case of a modern FI diesel the torque curve is short and steep.
Nope, the torque curve from my engine is completely flat between the revs I mentioned:
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff