bhp per tonne?
bhp per tonne?
How do you work it out..trying to show some girl with a neon that his car aint all that.
-
bstardchild
- Moderator
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:53 pm
- Location: Norfolk - "Its just Black & Dirty"
Re: bhp per tonne?
BHP divided by weight in tonnesmetz wrote:How do you work it out..trying to show some girl with a neon that his car aint all that.
So example 150 BHP divided by 1.2 Tonne
= 125 BHP per tonne
OK
-
carmadaaron
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:55 pm
- Location: Scotland
-
bstardchild
- Moderator
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:53 pm
- Location: Norfolk - "Its just Black & Dirty"
-
david burton
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 3082
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:31 pm
- Location: Reading
- Contact:
from http://media.chrysler.co.uk/press_packs ... h_Spec.htm
weight: 2.0 RT model = 1325kg, 150bhp = 113bhp per tonne
weight: 2.0 LX model = 1325kg, 131bhp = 99bhp per tonne
so a 6N2 GTI would be better than the 2.0 RT (I believe) and a 2.0 LX would be on a par with the 16v 6N Polo.
ROUGHLY
weight: 2.0 RT model = 1325kg, 150bhp = 113bhp per tonne
weight: 2.0 LX model = 1325kg, 131bhp = 99bhp per tonne
so a 6N2 GTI would be better than the 2.0 RT (I believe) and a 2.0 LX would be on a par with the 16v 6N Polo.
ROUGHLY
-
Karl_CLCoupe
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 11:43 am
- Location: Southport AKA: Mr Sambuca
- Contact:
-
Gareth_GT_Hatch
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Manchester Drives: '83 GL Classic
-
carmadaaron
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:55 pm
- Location: Scotland
-
bstardchild
- Moderator
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:53 pm
- Location: Norfolk - "Its just Black & Dirty"
Cheers fellacarmadaaron wrote:LregG wrote:My G40 has roughly 165bhp and it weighs in at 830kg
Thats 198bhp/ton
A civic type R is 165bhp/ton!!
nice!
An auto box will not make a difference to bhp/ton. They did use to make cars slower to 0-60 but the new semi-auto in the TT is actually quicker than a human changing gear (apparently!!)
-
Tahrey1043
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 5184
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:15 am
- Location: Birmingham! Enjoys: The pseudo-G-Smiles provided by a 1.6 Megane Sport valver...
- Contact:
That's only because its a funkatoasticious DSG.... which is basically two three-speed manuals wedged into one box with a pair of computer controlled clutches. I want one...
An ordinary automatic, however, is a thing of great evil in the performance and economy stakes unless it's been VERY well made. Some late 70s / early 80s Pontiacs allegedly had very responsive and perky 3 speed autos that had a somewhat rough shift as compromise... or it might have been something to do with the 4 litre engines, i dunno...
It's the torque converter that's at fault, and it by rights should affect the BHP per ton as it robs you of power by way of high transmission loss - if you were to work it out on the more accurate basis of Wheel BHP per ton rather than the usually quoted Engine BHP per ton, you'd see a difference.
Most small 80s cars will crap all over a modern equivalent with the same engine BHP because of weight issues - there was a lot less metal and plastic in them; crash safety legistlation has led to great strides in the cleverness of designs, but an inescapable weight increase as well.
BTW anyone know what the weight of an average Saxo is, and their spread of engine outputs? I finally found a worthy opponent on the Distressway last night, who managed to just out-rocket the Ashtray. Unfortunately he was a tailgating f*ckwit in a Saxo who nearly wiped out on the final corner.... oh well... but he had no badges or spoiler or anything, so I'm wondering if he's the one Paxologist who's gone down the subtle sleeper route and debadged a VTR/VTS... or if i had my ass handed to me by a standard granny carriage
... mind you i'm only running the same Pwr:Wt ratio as a mildly tuned 1.3 CL anyhow
An ordinary automatic, however, is a thing of great evil in the performance and economy stakes unless it's been VERY well made. Some late 70s / early 80s Pontiacs allegedly had very responsive and perky 3 speed autos that had a somewhat rough shift as compromise... or it might have been something to do with the 4 litre engines, i dunno...
It's the torque converter that's at fault, and it by rights should affect the BHP per ton as it robs you of power by way of high transmission loss - if you were to work it out on the more accurate basis of Wheel BHP per ton rather than the usually quoted Engine BHP per ton, you'd see a difference.
Most small 80s cars will crap all over a modern equivalent with the same engine BHP because of weight issues - there was a lot less metal and plastic in them; crash safety legistlation has led to great strides in the cleverness of designs, but an inescapable weight increase as well.
BTW anyone know what the weight of an average Saxo is, and their spread of engine outputs? I finally found a worthy opponent on the Distressway last night, who managed to just out-rocket the Ashtray. Unfortunately he was a tailgating f*ckwit in a Saxo who nearly wiped out on the final corner.... oh well... but he had no badges or spoiler or anything, so I'm wondering if he's the one Paxologist who's gone down the subtle sleeper route and debadged a VTR/VTS... or if i had my ass handed to me by a standard granny carriage
... mind you i'm only running the same Pwr:Wt ratio as a mildly tuned 1.3 CL anyhow