Question about "power"

Thesaltmustflow

SallyDucati said:

BOWFER said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

There's all sorts of things one can only glean from test driving a car, such as whether it is ergonomically suitable or if the seats are sufficiently comfortable.  One might find that the clutch action is poor, or the steering too heavy, that the radio sounds awful or the heater doesn't blow out enough air.  I've driven loads of cars that I haven't 'liked', and tend to go off feelings rather than any objective measure.  

You must be hyper picky, as out of the fair amount of cars we've had lately I can't remember any that weren't "ergonomically suitable", had any clutch/steering issues or had 'weak blowers'.
Really, honestly, all new cars these days are much of a muchness, they can't afford to be crap in any department.
Used cars, fair enough, you might want to drive it and make sure everything works.
I personally wouldn't (and haven't) let anyone else drive a car I was selling though.
I'll let you be a passenger while I drive, if you're not happy go away.

Then I'm hyper picky too!  For one thing I know I find my sisters brand new Peugot uncomfortable and could never own one,  Not something you'd know without trying it out.

Horses for courses I guess, I quite like my 'new' Peugeot, nothing compared to the new X5 I had years ago, in fact quite basic especially on the inside in the way of electrics but less to go wrong imo, it drives quite well, feels nice and firm, good brakes, easy clutch and box and steers straight with no wobbles.

[Deleted User]

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

Thesaltmustflow

Deleted_User said:

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

Capri 3 litre ahhh what a car. I had 2 of the later 2.8i Capris, the early 4 speed and later 5 speed, loads of low end power but loved skipping the back end out especially on roundabouts or if it had rained more than 0.5mm.  

caprikid1

Deleted_User said:

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

I'll still stick with my 3.0 Capri (-; sometimes life is not about the destination more about the journey.

BOWFER

Deleted_User said:

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

I had this discussion with someone recently, he could not get his head around a three-cylinder 1000cc turbo engine putting out as much power/torque as a normally aspirated 2000cc engine from 'his era', reliably.
He was convinced the things are on the edge of grenading themselves into a thousand pieces.
basically his argument was "they must be"
Like someone who refuses to believe an iphone has more computing power than an old spacecraft.

Ebe_Scrooge

BOWFER said:

Deleted_User said:

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

I had this discussion with someone recently, he could not get his head around a three-cylinder 1000cc turbo engine putting out as much power/torque as a normally aspirated 2000cc engine from 'his era', reliably.
He was convinced the things are on the edge of grenading themselves into a thousand pieces.
basically his argument was "they must be"
Like someone who refuses to believe an iphone has more computing power than an old spacecraft.

Interesting discussion.  Obviously, technology has moved on, and you can now extract more power from a given size of engine than you used to be able to.  Simple things, like fuel injection is far more accurate than a carburettor, and there's all sorts of electronic wizardry in an engine to make it more efficient, and tons of other developments.

But I do recall reading somewhere, many moons ago, someone asking why cars in America have such big engines.  The gist of the reply was that fuel is (or was) dirt cheap over there, so they took the approach of sticking a massive engine in, and it's barely ticking over for most normal driving, not stressed at all, so it lasts forever.  In Europe, fuel was far more expensive, so they took smaller engines and tuned and tweaked them to squeeze every last ounce of power out of them.  Better fuel economy, but more stress on the engine.

Dunno how much truth there is in this, but it does sound eminently logical?

AdrianC

There's a vague element of truth to it - think back to the 50s, 60s when your average yank family saloon had a 5 litre v8 that put out about 200bhp to drag around two tons or so, while the UK equivalent was half the weight, with a third of the power from an engine a third of the capacity. Then the US slapped their emissions stuff on in the early 70s, while European cars got a bit more oomph, and suddenly it was half or two-thirds the power from a third of the capacity, still with half the weight.

Injection's been mainstream for 35 years or so now. Turbocharging has been mainstream for nearly as long.

There's been mention of the good ol' Capri 3.0 - 135bhp...
The 2.8i came along damn near 40 years ago - primarily because the 3.0 was so ancient and creaky that it couldn't meet emissions targets even back then - with 150bhp.
And that was regarded as a powerful, fast car back then... Largely because it weighed barely more than a ton. Two thirds of a Golf's weight today...

The world has moved on a LOT.

Thesaltmustflow

I remember 'thinking' my 2.8i Capris were fast and I guess for the time they were but they felt heavy, like steering a tugboat and when I switched to a 205 1.9gti, what a difference!!!!! only 126bhp on the Pug, 150bhp on the Capri but worlds apart so everything was in play even back then with weight/power ratios. The world has indeed moved on a LOT. 

onomatopoeia99

Deleted_User said:

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

The Essex engine fitted to the 3.0 Capri (as also used in the Transit of that era) was something of a boat anchor and wasn't exactly a free revving screamer out of the factory, even in RS3100 form.  It could be tuned to work at higher revs and produce more power (TVR used it in some cars at one point), but you wanted to retrofit a Cosworth GA if you really wanted it to go as they revved past 9000 and produced over 450bhp. However they were also mindbendingly expensive.

[Deleted User]

onomatopoeia99 said:

Deleted_User said:=

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

The Essex engine fitted to the 3.0 Capri (as also used in the Transit of that era) was something of a boat anchor and wasn't exactly a free revving screamer out of the factory, even in RS3100 form.  It could be tuned to work at higher revs and produce more power (TVR used it in some cars at one point), but you wanted to retrofit a Cosworth GA if you really wanted it to go as they revved past 9000 and produced over 450bhp. However they were also mindbendingly expensive.

My Capri 3000s had a full length Webasto sunroof and Recaro interior, and used to average 20mpg !!

I was a 23 year old student at the time - the Capri was immaculate and then the rear axle destroyed itself - I part exchanged the  Capri for  a Cavalier SRi - and received less than £1000 in part ex - today, in good condition, the Capri could have been worth around £50k !!