Author | Topic |

I supported Toymods
Location: Berowra-Sydney
Registered: July 2002
|
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Sun, 15 September 2002 08:36

|
 |
5KinKP60 wrote on Sun, 15 September 2002 10:45 |
Engine suited for track work would make it not so good choise in rally driving. Despite higher hp output over the rally engine, one of the problems would be engine falling outside 'sweet operating range' when shifting to higher gear. (Rally cars have a touch wider spacing in close ratio gearing than a track car does). To what I've heard, such engine is difficult to drive. As the engine is 'stumbling' after a gear change, there is no power rush what driver is demanding. Only after waiting a moment as the engine climes up the rpm band, it will liven up suddenly, delivering all the grunt it can muster. On a gravel surface that is undesireable feature.
|
Here is something out of the Wheels magazine when this guy got to test drive the 206WRC car.
"The Peugeot 206 WRC certainly isn't the most brutal rally car in history.
That belonged to the up-to-450Kw Group B Audi Quattro S1's, Peugeot 205 T16's and Lancia Delta S4's that roamed the earth in 1986, before disappearing almost overnight.
But this might well be the quickest rally car of any era, particularly over the tighter events of the modern championship. Though power output from the current 2.0-litre, inlet restricted turbo engine is only around 225Kw (for a kerb weight of 1230Kg), what makes it so quick is the torque, traction, and the sheer ease of driving it.
Torque summits with 535Nm at 3,500rpm- roughly, E55 Benz numbers- with peak power at 5250rpm giving some clue to this engine's effortless, gushing grunt. Electronic anti-lag keeps it primed even on a lifted throttle by injecting fuel when the exhaust valve is open, the resultant exhaust gas charge keeping the turbo spinning."
"The acceleration hits like water from a fire-hose; not a big clumsy torrent, but a sharp jet that scoops you up and whisks you along, slurring and yawing and striding mightly over the roads surface.
You're in this white-water stream of torque, riding with it, needing only to remember to keep paddling with your hands and feet.
With all your heel-and-toe worries removed, the Pug wants to be set up into corners like a sprint Car: stabbed in the brakes with the left foot, sawed into the apex way too fast, then stomped with the right foot so everythings bucking and spinning. To make a parachute work, first you have to jump out of an aeroplane.
Changing gears is the easiest thing to do, but with everything lit up nose-in to the apex, sheer grunt hanging against centrifugal force, in those frozen moments one can forget to flip the upshift ring. Torque drives this car; grabbing the next gear regains traction and spits you back into blur-world, greedy for another cog before the road's even straightened."
[Updated on: Sun, 15 September 2002 08:39]
|
|
|
| Subject | Poster | Date |
 |
More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Les | Thu, 12 September 2002 23:15 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
TurboRG | Thu, 12 September 2002 23:49 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
E30-323ti | Fri, 13 September 2002 00:16 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Norbie | Fri, 13 September 2002 00:31 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
GIN51E | Fri, 13 September 2002 01:13 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Corvid | Fri, 13 September 2002 01:26 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
kassma | Fri, 13 September 2002 02:33 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Les | Fri, 13 September 2002 04:15 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Stefan | Fri, 13 September 2002 05:12 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Norbie | Fri, 13 September 2002 06:03 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Stefan | Sat, 14 September 2002 13:49 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Stefan | Fri, 13 September 2002 05:09 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Norbie | Fri, 13 September 2002 06:01 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Seadog | Fri, 13 September 2002 06:10 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
justcallmefrank | Fri, 13 September 2002 06:52 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Blown86 | Fri, 13 September 2002 18:37 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
mrshin | Sat, 14 September 2002 12:09 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
mrshin | Sat, 14 September 2002 12:11 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
mrshin | Sat, 14 September 2002 12:14 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Norbie | Sat, 14 September 2002 23:40 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
5KinKP60 | Sun, 15 September 2002 00:45 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
GIN51E | Sun, 15 September 2002 08:36 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Fattony | Sun, 15 September 2002 02:28 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
Jonny2TG | Sun, 15 September 2002 07:41 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
celicamad85 | Sun, 15 September 2002 12:03 |
 |
Re: More Torque or more Horses ?
|
mattc | Tue, 17 September 2002 01:56 |
Current Time:
Sun Jul 27 16:37:48 UTC 2025 |
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.0055718421936035 seconds |