I hope the title explains it.
My dads old Punto 1.1 was from memory 17 seconds to 60, it had the 1.1 8V FIRE engine and produced 54bhp. It was a Euro II I assume.
My Panda has exactly the same 1.1 engine in it but has all the modern Euro 4 stuff with it. It produces 54bhp and weighs the same as the Punto did.
I can't find the figures for say an Escort MK1 Popular with the 1.3 engine in it but I seem to remember they produced around 55bhp too and 0-60 took 20 seconds, I imagine it would have weight similer to the Panda.
So how have cars got quicker 0-60 if the engine produces the same power and the car weighs the same? Is it do the gearbox and flyhweel?
|
|
Gearing mainly -possibly an older engine may have lost its "sparkle" as well
|
|
Well the fitures were partly assuming the car was new. I actually have a Which magazine from 1989 some where with a lot of stats in them. I see if I can confirm it although by that time I think things have got faster and there were no cats to suck power.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 26 Jan 11 at 23:07
|
>> I can't find the figures for say an Escort MK1 Popular with the 1.3 engine
>> in it but I seem to remember they produced around 55bhp too and 0-60 took
>> 20 seconds, I imagine it would have weight similer to the Panda.
This website makes it a bit quicker at 16.1:
www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/ford_escort_mark_1_technical_specifications.htm
We started off with a 1.1 - I hate to think how slow that was, but it took us round Denmark during one summer holidays. We progressed to 1.3s later.
EDIT: perhaps you were thinking of the quarter mile time
Last edited by: Focus on Wed 26 Jan 11 at 23:08
|
|
What is interested on that is I didn't know they did a 16v 1.3 MK1? I always thought Triumph was the first, unless it is actually an 8v with only 4 valves per cam? I can't see how that would work though.
|
Got my Which but sadly no power figures but for example Astra MK2 1.3 8V 0-60 18.9 seconds, the diesel was 21 seconds but that is the time to cover 1/4 of a mile from rest. I have no idea how translates to 0-60 times too late for such sums.
Should also add the MK1 Punto was 55bhp not 54bhp :). It was soon replaced with the 1.2 FIRE unit in around 1997, my dads was one of the first of Puntos though, in SX form.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 26 Jan 11 at 23:14
|
>> This website makes it a bit quicker at 16.1:
>> www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/ford_escort_mark_1_technical_specifications.htm
Just noticed that's an Aussie site - don't know if specs were same as UK.
|
|
Perhaps it's modern, fatter tyres means you get less initial wheel-spin?
|
Gearing, wider power band, more toruqe, aero improvements ...
|
Lighter engines moved away from cast iron heads to alluminium.
Single point injection done away with troblesome carbs that flood and auto chokes don't work.
No points and condensors to fail "reliable" coil packs.!
16v opposed to 8v more air in cylinders better burn rate more power & turbo's fitted to diesel units were non fitted years back.
|
"Gearing, wider power band, more toruqe,"
Which reminds us that the BHP figure that is given for cars is the maximum BHP - in other words, BHP at a certain number of revs.
|
>> So how have cars got quicker 0-60 if the engine produces the same power and
>> the car weighs the same? Is it do the gearbox and flyhweel?
Have you any hard figures to say how much quicker a particular new car is compared to a particular old one of the same power?
|
Actually they've stayed about the same over the years.
A 45yr old Rover 2000TC has close to the same BHP as a new 1.6 HDi C5 and is broadly the same class of car. The 0-60 time is almost identical. The C5 weighs about 200kg more but I guess this is offset as speeds rise by aerodynamics.
|
I am not sure, 70's Triumph 2000 was 84bhp and an advanced for the time 16v Dolomite Sprint 127bhp, both 2ltr, where as a modern 2ltr n/a engine is typically 140 to 170bhp.
Re the 2000TC/1.6HDi comparison, of course the respective fuel consumption figures are telling.
|
>>>Re the 2000TC/1.6HDi comparison, of course the respective fuel consumption figures are telling.
Yes indeed. You had to drive the Rover quite carefully to see 26mpg at speeds that would see the C5 getting 54mpg.
Some may say the petrol/diesel aspect isn't fair but it's just a powerplant at the end of the day.
|
The same bhp will give the same performance all other things being equal. The important variables are the car's weight, aerodynamics and gearing (some cars will go faster in fourth than a very high economy fifth, and very annoying it is).
But modern injected electronically-controlled engines do give more power and torque, and better power delivery, for the same capacity as carburetted cars with contact-breaker ignition. Stands to reason dunnit? So modern cars tend on the whole to be much more 'driveable' and as a bonus hold their tune more or less indefinitely, until the plugs need replacing.
I can still remember US claims of superb performance and economy from the latest thing: high compression engines. Upping the cr from say 7 to 1 to 9 or 10 to one did indeed improve performance, but to do that various other things had to be right too - mixture and ignition advance curve, etc. Unless all those things were spot on you might get more power at the top end but delivery might be very lumpy or sudden, with flat spots, as a host of head-skimming amateur tuners discovered.
I'd quite like to try one of these 1.4 VWs with a turbo and an engine-driven supercharger (are they still making them?) but we all know that 'there's no substitute for cubic inches'... all other things being equal of course. I'll take a snorting-monster Holden Monaro thanks.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 11:37
|
Depends whether bhp was measured at flywheel or wheels. Modern gearboxes and drivetrains have lower power losses than those of 30 years ago.
I would imagine that the Rover lost 25% of its bhp by the time it got to the wheels...
|
>> Modern gearboxes and drivetrains have lower power losses than those of 30 years ago.
>>
>> I would imagine that the Rover lost 25% of its bhp by the time it got to the wheels...
They're not much different. Lubrication could be the biggest change. A car can't "lose 25% of its bhp by the time it got to the wheels", that's where the BHP is measured, by definition. If a vehicle "lost" say 25% of 100 crankshaft HP before the wheels, something would probably either melt, or burst into flames.
|
>>ooks like they still do>>
See my contributions in this thread:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=4783
|
>>I'd quite like to try one of these 1.4 VWs with a turbo and an engine-driven supercharger (are they still making them?) >>
Yes, very much so...:-)
However my 1.4 170 (168bhp) was eventually replaced by the 160 (158bhp) with virtually the same performance figures because, more than likely, it was too close to the 197bhp two-litre FSi unt in the Golf GTi for VW's comfort.
See same link as in reply to above posting.
Last edited by: Stuartli on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 16:25
|
>> See same link as in reply to above posting.
I must say that sounds excellent, Stuartli. Pity they've softened it to make the GTI seem better though.
How is it standing up to daily use?
Fuel consumption in 3 figures in 6th at motorway speeds? Really better than 100mpg according to the readout? Chapeau!
Does it do better than 40mpg in normal day-to-day use? If so, perhaps there is a substitute for cubic inches after all.
|
|
It was done to knock the CO2 down by 20g/km.
|
The question in the OP was "how have cars got quicker given the same BHP?"
To answer this it is necessary, in the first instance, to find two cars with the same power output (BHP) and ascertain that one is indeed quicker than the other. This hasn't been done yet. Stuff about MPG and speculation on gearboxes and aerodynamics are side issues.
|
|
Yer 0-60 has little to do with ordinary acceleration, IMHO. It's a boy-racer/journalists holy grail. Unless you want to destroy clutch and geabox its not possible to expect more than say half a dozen such extreme excursions in a road car without mechanical failure. 4000rpm, slide foot off clutch, right foot into carpet, change into 2nd without clutch depression or lifting, still right foot buried. I'd not dare to do that on my own car.... In-gear times might be a better guide.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 21:04
|
no way does a modern panda weigh the same as a punto mk1
and a mk1 escort weighed even more,especially when the rot everywhere scouped up the water into the rust, you could weld a new sill on one of those and still be sweeping up a week later
for the record a new panda would i assume weigh in at something like 900kg
an old escort weighed over a ton and always achieved £40 on the bridge of death
|
|
Did cars get lighter before they started gaining weight in the 1990s? My 1989 three-door Escort 1.3 weighed 830kg empty. It had only 63bhp but it always felt reasonably lively and returned a consistent 42mpg. In what Melvyn Bragg might call a very real sense it was the best car I've had, because its predecessor was the bus.
|
'95 Punto 55s weighed 850kg, 55bhp, 0-60 16.0 seconds
'04 Panda 1.1 weighed 840kg, 54bhp, 0-60 14.5 seconds
I think one of the key points here is about power. The peak figures are just that. I suspect that the newer car has better power delivery, perhaps more low down torque. The gear ratios are most likely slightly different as well.
|
"Yer 0-60 has little to do with ordinary acceleration" strictly speaking that's true and I recall a tv car programme getting a bunch of yobs, errr young gentlemen, together, and their cas could not match the advertised 0 - 60 times. 1. they were rubbish drivers 2. you always get the best 0 - 60 times in someone elses car! You wouldn't want to damage your own now, would you?
If you want a car that feels brisk you need to find one that cracks 10 seconds to 60mph and pay attention to the torque figure. Lots of torques is good, at any speed.
John
|
|
For me the standing 1/4 mile time is a better measure of acceleration
|
Maybe but how often do you see it published?
That reminds me. Advert the other day for a Mito Sport (or some such). Looked nice. Well, for a cross eyed Mito that is. I wondered how it went. No figures!! Just fuel consumption and emissions. Blasted pc! It did show 95BHP from it's 1.4 engine though. Gosh!!! Errr, my Rover 214 1.4 knocked out 95BHP back in the last century and later models 103 (?). Wife's 1.4 Golf, admittedly with a turbo, is 124BHP. And Alfas are supposed to be sporty? Nice marketing chaps, keep knitting the wool to pull over the punters eyes.
John
|
...matching claimed 0-60mph times...
One of the many qualities of an auto XJ6 was the performance was so accessible.
Even more so with an XJ12, just tickle the throttle and off it went.
Other cars might have been faster on paper, but it was so much easier for the Jaguar owner to use more of the available oomph.
|
That Rover 214 engine was exhausting to live with, though. The horses stayed resolutely in their stables until the needle passed 4000, and the gearing was so low that motorway trips were best done in another car.
Mrs Beest had one for a while in the mid-90s. She liked it but I didn't take to it. The Astra 1.4 8v I had at the same time was a bad buy in many ways but its engine was a gem: only 82 horses but far less agoraphobic beasts, always willing to help out when required. Still wish I'd bought a 306 instead, though.
|
True, you needed to be at least 2 gears lower than you might expect to wake it up.
John
|
"Other cars might have been faster on paper, but it was so much easier for the Jaguar owner to use more of the available oomph."
Exactly. And some manual cars with a more useable power delivery might give better performance than expected using moderate revs. Was it not Ford who surveyed driving habits and found that very few ventured to 4000 rpm, never mind 6000. All those 16 valve engines slumbering unused except in the dreams of teenagers:).
|
How have cars got quicker given the same BHP? - R.P.
