new bmw 335i

[arbitor]

I know plenty of nobs that drive vws, skodas,hondas,pugs,mercs

that argument is bs and doesnt stand up

[Rave]

Right, I've driven both. The diesel is faster. It has loads more torque. That's why. The figures kinda speak for themselves. The gearing CANNOT make up for a 100lbft difference... Trust me.

Trust you? I think I'd rather trust the physics, TBH. If the diesel is faster despite both cars being optimally geared (which is not something to take for granted, but never mind), then it's faster because it has a better spread of power, not because it has a peak torque figure that's 100lbft higher. If it has a better spread of power that's due to it making more torque over a wider rev range (which you'd expect, seeing as it's a diesel, and it's turbocharged). So, since it can make more power for longer, the car accelerates faster. Power is what accelerates cars.

I daresay the diesel has more peak torque than the 1.8T petrol engine- but it won't out accelerate it, because it doesn't have a better spread of power.

Making inferences about a car's performance from its peak torque figure is about as sensible as going by how high the speedo goes. How much peak torque does a Hayabusa engined Radical or Fisher Fury have, for example?

[J4MES]

tbh you argument keeps changing... yes, it has more torque, yes it's better spread, so yes it's quicker... so now we agree?

peak power could be argued to be just as insignificant, as there are more important factors to 'performance' - notably weight (or lack thereof), handling & grip, and (most importantly?) driver skill...

anyhoo - bimmer drivers... moroons, all of them, and that's official.

[dave87]

anyhoo - bimmer drivers... moroons, all of them, and that's official.

Like all scoobie drivers are chavs?

[badass]

Right, I've driven both. The diesel is faster. It has loads more torque. That's why. The figures kinda speak for themselves. The gearing CANNOT make up for a 100lbft difference... Trust me.



I, also, have an A level in physics. and maths. and chemistry. but this is about torque, not my CV.

Kindly back that up with some figures please.

I only say because according to Autocar, the acceleration figures for a Mk4 Golf GTI 150BHP diesel and and the 150 BHP Gti 1.8 Turbo are pretty much identical, with the Petrol having a 0.2sec advantage to 60.

I'll take some properly measured figures over anyones subjective opinion.

I will also point out that "on the road" no Golf GTI 150BHP diesel can touch my 167 BHP 146 lb ft petrol car that isn;t much lighter.
The Golf has over 100lb ft more!

[badass]

Making inferences about a car's performance from its peak torque figure is about as sensible as going by how high the speedo goes.

Or where it redlines....

[badass]

In fact, lets put some money on it.
£100 says that in a standing quarter, an S2000 with 240 BHP and 150 lb ft will beat a Golf GTI diesel with 150 BHP and 250 Lb ft. Provided both cars are driven properly.

[Howard]

That's far too easy. I'm willing to bet even a lesser car, perhaps a Civic Type-S will beat any Golf diesel, be it a GT TDI 150 or a 75BHP SDI model in a standing quarter mile sprint

[J4MES]

Kindly ...

kindly read my post - I was comparing a 1.6 Golf (105 bhp, 109lbft) and a GT TDi (115 bhp, 200lbft)

[Howard]

I still don't think there'll be much in it.

Unless we're taking, say, 30 to 60mph in 4th gear for example.

On standing sprints petrols will "hold their own" better.

[badass]

kindly read my post - I was comparing a 1.6 Golf (105 bhp, 109lbft) and a GT TDi (115 bhp, 200lbft)

Ahh I see - you are comparing the flat out performance of a car with less power and torque to the flat out performance of a car with more power and torque. Going to be going for the Nobel Physics prize with that profound truth
You didn't quantify how much faster but unless you were saying its a lot faster flat out it seemed a pointless thing to say. Plus you used the smiley pointing to my earlier post so I suppose you are disagreeing with me.
Do you think this 115BHP Tdi is faster when driven properly than say a 1.8 16v 125 BHP and 120 ish lb ft Golf?
If not then that surely proves what me, Howard and Rave have been saying all along. Peak torque figures are completely meaningless when it comes to driving cars properly. Peak power figures give a better idea of what an engine is capable of, but neither is as good as the power curve to tell what a car is capable of.

Answer this.
There are 2 cars that are identical bar the engines and gearboxes. Both are floored. There is no slipping occurring and they are both travelling at excatily the same speed.
Car 1 is at a point where its engine is developing 250 BHP and 350 LB ft of torque
Car 2 is at a point where the engine is developing 260 BHP and only 170 lb ft of torque.

Which one is accelerating faster at this point in time?

[Howard]

Do you mean if they're both doing exactly the same speed and in the same gear?

In that case it's then that torque becomes meaningful, so probably the one with 350 lb-ft

[J4MES]

...stuff with more numbers...

thanks for reading my post - now, if you have a look at the rest of the thread, you'd get a feel for how I was contributing...

[J4MES]

Like all scoobie drivers are chavs?

saw that coming...

[J4MES]

I still don't think there'll be much in it.

Unless we're taking, say, 30 to 60mph in 4th gear for example.

On standing sprints petrols will "hold their own" better.

yes, Howard, you're proabaly right - after all, you're guessing and I've driven them both...



it was a simple comparison between 2 cars with similar power but one with almost double the torque (in identical cars!!) and the one with more torque is faster... but that's not enough, oh no, clearly I'll need to run them on the same road (I should really use a track, levelled off with a spirit level from Halfords) with the same timing gear (can I bowwor the HEXUS G-meter?) and I should really use the Stig too, to make sure they're being driven 'properly'. Hell, if I could just focus-the-suns-rays then I could distort the space-time continuum enough to actually have them driven on the same spot, at the same time (on a Tuesday afternoon when we all know the atmospheric conditions are at their optimum, but only if the Month has a J in it) in order to establish in a scientific manner whether or not...

balls. what was the argument?

...oh yeah, whether or not a silver car with tints is faster (by faster we mean it cooks sausages quicker) than a black one with slugs strapped to the wheels instead of tyres.

When I look at the specs of a car, I'll look at both the power and torque outputs in order to create an idea of how the car performs (I think to ignore torque is unfair on that most vital of statistics)... it's subjective (unlike driving them, for example!) but it gives you a better idea of it's characteristics than a peak power figure in isolation. Clearly a high-revving high output, low torque engine (CBR600) needs the nuts revving off it to get the best out of it, whereas a low power, high torque engine (TDi) should have more grunt lower down...

[Howard]

clearly I'll need to run them on the same road (I should really use a track, levelled off with a spirit level from Halfords) with the same timing gear (can I bowwor the HEXUS G-meter?) and I should really use the Stig too, to make sure they're being driven 'properly'.

Well, yeah, you should..