It could last 1500km between service intervals
Or maybe change the engine every pit stop - oh wait, we're doing that in LFS right now
It could last 1500km between service intervals
Or maybe change the engine every pit stop - oh wait, we're doing that in LFS right now
What's wrong with the R10? Winning not cool enough for you guys?
I thought the XR-whatevers are representatives of older (as mentioned maybe 80's) cars, you know. these good old days of on-off turbos, nothing like "1.8 T" that doesn't even have anything close to 100 hp/liter and whose behavior is so unexciting that any fool can drive it on a snowy road and you wouldn't even guess a turbo if it wasn't for the "T" on the tailgate. 
hey, if you don't like the XRT, choose another car. oh, you've only got 3.
naaaah, I'm being rude.
I think you look at the XRT in a wrong way. I believe the turbo-behavior is meant to be shitty for the reasons above. I wouldn't want to depend on this car, but I still think it's fun to drive once in a while.
Oh, I'm posting in the Improvement-forum... shouldn't do that. It's soooo useless.
hey, if you don't like the XRT, choose another car. oh, you've only got 3.
naaaah, I'm being rude.I think you look at the XRT in a wrong way. I believe the turbo-behavior is meant to be shitty for the reasons above. I wouldn't want to depend on this car, but I still think it's fun to drive once in a while.
Oh, I'm posting in the Improvement-forum... shouldn't do that. It's soooo useless.
It's a highly effective device but it sounds like a tractor, isn't exciting and won't be remembered with great passion 40 years later. Given the quality of your avatar I thought you'd appreciate a real engine and an exciting car
Winning doesn't make you cool, neither does a good performance
Even a Fiat Panda has more soul than the R10
(they Panda is really a fun car, unless you want to drive it on roads or uphill)
How true is that..
No Herki, thats what makes diesels 'uncool' is the fact they AREN'T hyped, they are so under-rated, sure alot of them do sound-like tractors, but does the Scania V8 sound like a tractor? (if yes - Does the Scania V8 Sound good?) Diesels are under-rated because people seem to think a bad sound means a bad engine, and because of all the smoke on engine-startup they seem to think Diesels are dirty. Diesel engines are the best engines to ever go in a car. You can go just as fast as other cars but use half as much RPM, with twice as much torque. I'm sure if you heard the R10 in real-life you would think differently.. It can't sound anything as worse as the Mazda's...
but, saying all this proves I must be biased, as my uncle is a specialist in Tuning Diesel Engines, his 'loaner' car Mk3Golf TDi (the car that gets given to customers, whilst they are getting theirs fixed) does 14's on the 1/4 Mile, it was cool, because, it looks, sounds AND smells, like a bag of shit but unlike petrol engines, all the smoke and noise is actually DOING something.. Something is COMING of it, petrol engines scream and scream, but don't have the POWER that a diesel has, not peak power, just that raw surge from a low torque-band. You boys obviously just like making noise and rather make noise than go fast
aaaahhhhh.... yeah. which gives you exactly the same output-torque (torque on the wheel, or "power that is actually relevant"). so what's the point?
the best thing about diesels (turbo-diesels that is... the non-turbos are completely worthless) is their dumbo-proof power-curve (which is being incorrectly referred to as "lots of torque" by most people). even without being in the right gear you always have a reasonable amount of output-torque... unless you drop below the the point where the turbo starts to work - quite like a petrol turbo.
so for the average driver this is ok (i'm not going to talk about how harmful diesel or petrol is for the environment or human health because science is still not sure yet), whereas in sportive cars diesels are inappropriate, as - thanks to gearing - it is easier to get high output-torque from a petrol-engine. add a turbo there and the diesel looks WAY lame.
the r10 is nothing of a proof that diesels are better than petrol-engine. it's just a damn expensive promotion for diesel-engines.
Quit being mean
I'll have the cash for a license soon You think the XRT is meant to have lag from hell? A late '80s supra (Third gen, 2.5litre TT, or 3litre ST) will give good boost response stock. After exhaust and intake your looking about 12~ psi, and they don't have NEAR the turbo lag the XRT has. As for the XRT being a fun car to drive, hell yeah. It's fun that we can rev a 2litre ROAD car to 8,000 all day long, and actually be able to hug corners without much sway and under-steer. Can't wait until I can unleash on those GTR cars, they look fun.~Bryan~
Some cars are tenors, some are basses... not a lot of basses have solo albums on the market, or are memorable (name a few), but damn are they fun to sing with!
Precisely what interests me about any machine is that it is highly effective. The moreso, the merrier. I hold closely to the doctrine that Form should follow Function. Effective looks good and, IMO, sounds good as well.
I'm sure the R10 would be buckets o' fun to drive regardless of how it sounds or how memorable it will be--either way, I will not jump on the dis-the-R10 bandwagon simply because it's different.
Many people usually compare turbodiesel engines with ATMOSPHERIC petrol engines, this is wrong.
Here are a true comparation of 2 engines, diesel and petrol, both with same displacement and turbocharged.
Audi a3 2.0 TDI 140CV
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX 2.0 16v TURBO 280cv
In dyno tests, cars with petrol engines have 15% or so of transmision loss, instead 35% or so in diesels
illepallThis is principally what diesels sucks
Diesels are cooler, literally... They don't heat up as much
evidence to back that up please.
Why does the type of fuel change the efficiency of a gearbox/differential? Or did you just make that up?
People compare TD with NA gasoline because NA diesels are crap, and because FI petrols aren't very popular for mainstream cars due. And oddly enough a Turbocharged diesel has similar wheel torques to a NA gasoline.
The wider spread of torque is a benefit to diesels in real life, but the better top-end power of gasoline is better for high performance work (unless artificial rules give diesel an advantage, a la Le Mans).
The lack of throttling also helps diesels, but that benefit will be lost when petrol engines are unthrottled in the not so distant future, and when lean stratified injection becomes a realistic proposition.
Diesel, despite a slight resurgance of late due to fake sporting acheivements, and myths about CO2 outputs, are a failed concept like that of the steam automotive engine.
Sorry Tristan, but you just went DOWN. 'rep'-wise..
You can't say the only reason there has been Diesel success in Le-Mans is because of the rules.. The Diesel engines were made AROUND the rules, Just like petrol cars.. Sooner or later tho, Diesels will be banned, because Audi will continue to win and win and win with theirs. It happened with the A4 in Touring Cars, if you can't beat 'em , ban 'em...
And how DARE you say that the Steam Engine is a failed concept...
Soon enough if people carry on with their GW protection, you will be USING Steam Powered Vehicles... Without Steam Engines you wouldn't have Petrol Engines my friend, and you so you certainly wouldn't be on this forum voicing about it..
Whats wrong with you tonight Tristan
You can't say the only reason there has been Diesel success in Le-Mans is because of the rules.. The Diesel engines were made AROUND the rules, Just like petrol cars.. Sooner or later tho, Diesels will be banned, because Audi will continue to win and win and win with theirs. It happened with the A4 in Touring Cars, if you can't beat 'em , ban 'em...
And how DARE you say that the Steam Engine is a failed concept...
Soon enough if people carry on with their GW protection, you will be USING Steam Powered Vehicles... Without Steam Engines you wouldn't have Petrol Engines my friend, and you so you certainly wouldn't be on this forum voicing about it..
Whats wrong with you tonight Tristan
WTF.
AFAIK the only reason Diesels are owning in Le Mans is because the regulations let them hold more fuel, and thus stop less - Diesels with Audi's budget would do well, but they wouldn't own everything in site if they couldn't carry more fuel for no real reason.
A dyno test of a stock SEAT LEON TDI 150cv
178 normal horsepower, and 112cv in wheels, this is about 37% in transmision loss and corrections.
A dyno test of a stock OPEL CALIBRA 16v 150cv
148,2cv in engine, 121cv in wheels, 18,3% of transmision loss
Horsepower in wheels it's the real power that move the car on asphalt
More fuel? w/e Diesels will stop less anyway.. but blame those rules on the French. Peugeot etc.
give me some figures of two identical cars.
Restricions on lemans:
This is principally:
restrictions for diesel
5.5 litres of displacement
2,94 bar turbo full boost
restriction for petrol
4.0 litres of displacement
1.5 bar turbo full boost
Who is the engine that play with advantage?
This is principally:
restrictions for diesel
5.5 litres of displacement
2,94 bar turbo full boost
restriction for petrol
4.0 litres of displacement
1.5 bar turbo full boost
Who is the engine that play with advantage?
diesel, no doubt, common knowledge. but wasn't we just discussing loss?
The rules were adjusted to allow Diesels in. They are called Equivalency rules. Simple.
Of course it's a failed concept. You don't see a car on sale with a steam engine, do you? It might have been a precursor the IC gasoline engine, but nevertheless it's a failed concept. It's not even practical in trains anymore!
Nothing. You?
What sort of dyno test? A chassis or engine dyno? How were the figures at the wheels and at the flywheel compared? Identical conditions? Did the engine dyno use standard intake and exhaust systems, or the engine cell items? If it was a rolling road, was the flywheel power derrived from some random equation on overrun to best guess?
Was a petrol engine tested on the same running gear? Did it also show 37% transmission losses.
Just because ONE diesel car has 37% (and I don't believe it anyway) transmission losses does not make them higher ALL the time for diesels...
Linking random images which don't add a thing to your argument holds no water here I'm afraid. You'll have to show me a case where on the same day, in the same weather, a car was tested with both diesel and petrol engines, using the same running gear (you are, however, allowed to change the ratios to suit the engines, but the basic design of gearbox must remain identical.
So, can you prove that the fuel alters the transmission frequencies, or have we deduced you don't know what you're talking about?
All right.
Two stock calibra turbo 4x4, the dyno test made on FWD in the same day.
217,4cv engine, 189,4cv in wheels, 12,9% transmision loss.
223,3cv engine, 198,3cv in wheels, 11,2% transmision loss.
They 're old cars with many kms. the 2 of them, and we can see which is in the best condition, but the transmision loss it's near the same in this cars.
Note, the dyno test was made on FWD mode. In 4x4 the transmision loss would be more for sure.
Sorry, don't have diesel dynos
Actually that was what I meant.
So we could compare the diesel and petrol, my fault. And Tristan is way better at explaining exactly what I want.
I think I heard somewhere that diesel engines tend to be equipped with more "heavy-duty" components in average, which could explain the higher transmission loss. I have no evidence to back this up, so it could just be completely wrong - it's just what I heard, not what I know.
Well, more torque from the engine kinda puts more stress on the drivetrain
Realistic intake/exhaust?...
(74 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG