Quote from ajp71 :

7.4 litres of Detroit iron is equivalent to about 2 litres of proper engine. If you want to talk about specific power output (not a diesels strong point)
then the diesel looks pretty rubbish, the CanAm Porsche 917/30 produced well in excess of 1000bhp in race trim with a 5.4 litre engine.

If you're going for specific output though the diesel is fairly hopeless at 151 bhp/litre, most big bikes (and bike engined cars) will beat that easily and standard road cars are getting ever closer to it. True high power for capacity comes from petrol engines, the BRM V16 was producing over 300 bhp/litre 50 years ago and the BMW F1 cars produced over 650 bhp/litre.

F... the engine, and love the power present !
Who cares what produces that force, as long as it is present, and useable !!

I lsimply love the Audi diesel engines

What about them Smart Car's?

OT: Is not only about power, it´s also about driving pleasure and excitement. That´s the reason Porsche has not a diesel engine (That´s what a Porsche managerial said)

But the same way the UF1 and XFG rival each other, and the UFR and XFR rival each other, wont we need a UFT as well, so the XFT isn't left standing out in the rain on its own?

I think We can close this topic now

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=893780#post893780

And these are the stats for the 2008 Scirroco:
http://www.carfolio.com/specif ... ns/models/car/?car=184613

The FXO will have serious trouble

Quote from Frank H :

I think We can close this topic now

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=893780#post893780

And these are the stats for the 2008 Scirroco:
http://www.carfolio.com/specif ... ns/models/car/?car=184613

The FXO will have serious trouble

FXO will destroy Scirocco easily, its 150kg lighter while ~15 more powerful

i think powerfull FWD's are pointless, meant to drive only straight but not 1/4 mile race. they just burning tires on lower gears. lets take a look at my VW Golf mk II 1.3 . its engine generates mighty 55 bhp but on wet tarmac when i want to take off quick its just spinning the wheels or i can choose another option which is burning the clutch

XFT imitation of an Escort RS Turbo?

Quote from flymike91 :

Now 400 HP to the rear wheels would be something else. Is there a reason hot hatches are usually FWD?

RWD cars are more expensive to build becaus when a car is FWD there doesnt have to be a crankshaft beccaus the engine and gears are directly contedted to the front wheels

Quote from [RF]-art555 :

FXO will destroy Scirocco easily, its 150kg lighter while ~15 more powerful

Unless we get the DSG version. 7 speed manual clutchless. Sounds weird, but will have insane acceleration

Hot hatches are also usually FWD because they're not that powerful. GTI puts out 150-200BHP, depending on the type of engine (Only double that of a 1.0L Yaris really). If it was to be made RWD, the whole chassis would need to be re-designed from the standard Golf, and it would in effect be a whole new car, and not just a quick Golf.

@ Chris: I should hope it has a crank shaft, otherwise your engine's pistons would fall to the bottom of the chamber and stay there I think you mean drive shaft?

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

Unless we get the DSG version. 7 speed manual clutchless. Sounds weird, but will have insane acceleration

I doubt we'll get a new type of transmition for it, even though if we do, the tiny time advantage of faster shifts(about the same as Flatshifting as we can now) will not cancel out 150kg of extra weight, neither will make it 5 sec faster on the track

As already mentioned, in a real life situation, RWD cars lose power through the drivetrain because the gearbox has to spin a prop shaft the length of the car. This loss will then be magnified by turning the differential and driveshafts. Due to the distance that the power has to travel, some is lost along the way. This is less of a problem with FWD because gearbox,diff,and shafts are all closer to eachother, For example, someone with a quick RWD road car may say, "my car has 300bhp!" If this reading was taken from the flywheel (engine) end of the drivetrain then they probably only have something like 275bhp or so by the time it gets to the wheels.

Quote from danthebangerboy :

If this is the case then i would love to see how the pistons go up and down!

It could have a wankel.

wankel still has a shaft with eccentric lobes on it

oh. guess it would be a broken car then.

We could get a XFG with a turbo in it for S1/S2 players, but what we REALLY need, is a more modern looking hatch with 200bhp, a little race tuned to rival the turbo class....

I am describing the Iroc, ain't I?

Quote from Furiously-Fast :

We could get a XFG with a turbo in it for S1/S2 players, but what we REALLY need, is a more modern looking hatch with 200bhp, a little race tuned to rival the turbo class....

I am describing the Iroc, ain't I?

When he made this thread the news wast here yet so that coment is utterly useless

Turbocharged FWD pocket-rocket, eh?

Did someone say Dodge SRT4?

Honestly though, I wouldn't mind one.

Quote from S k i p p y :

A 1970 Chevelle with a 6.6L Duramax transplant making over 1000hp and 2000ft/lbs.

But that's not what the engine makes stock, and that's not naturally aspired. Here is a 7.4L V8 that makes 2500HP and 2000lb/ft, turbocharged just like the diesel: http://www.nelsonracingengines ... cegas/tt/ws_454sbc_tt.pdf. I don't see how peak torque matters. Because, the diesel might make 2000ft/lbs of torque, but it doesn't rev as high. That engine I linked to revs to almost 7000RPM. Does the diesel rev that high?

They even have a video: http://www.nelsonracingengines ... deos/NRETV2KHP454HIGH.wmv

This would be a good Idea, Something like the Fiesta ST, VW Golf,
(I own a Fiesta ST so )
UFT Would be good if it resembled a Mini Cooper-S
XFT Would be good if it resembled a Ford Fiesta ST
Them two are a good Rivalry,
Ford Fiesta ST, Good around the track.
Mini Cooper-S, Good in a straight line.
Alot of previous posts on this thread have gone Way off topic,
Try keep it on topic slightly at least :P

Thanks,
Tisy0