Car Advice! |
Post Reply | Page <1 23456> |
Author | ||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I'm giving up petrol and diesel, this is my next engine...
|
||||
Rich
Just Flight Staff Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Planet Earth Points: 8543 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Excellent. I don't think I've ever heard the ignition like that before
|
||||
twright
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: London UK Points: 3303 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Would it be possible to have a car engine that ran on Jet A (kerosene)? I love the smell of Jet A fuel!!
|
||||
Kind regards,
Tom |
||||
767nutter
Chief Pilot Joined: 09 Jul 2008 Location: Norfolk, UK Points: 1330 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I assure you that you can! Yes, engine wear will be greater 'if you drive it to the max' but you can of course drive sensibly and have the extra performance in reserve.
Ok martin lets get something straight, unless you are willing to spend a hefty amount or are rich and tuning is a hobby then yes you can tune engines under 1.4 the right way. Plus what would be the point of tuning an engine if you are just going to have the extra power in reserve? My engine isn't tuned in anyway, my maximum rpm on the tachometer is 9K, red line starts at 6.5K, so i can take it upto 6K as much as i want as they are designed to rev that high, no problem, this is enough power for me, because as soon as my car goes past 4K my valves open for that extra boost. Lets look at me. If i want to get a bit of power out of mine ( say just 50-100bhp extra ) here is a basic list of what i'll need: Pipercross Viper Induction Kit £189.99 Manifold, sport cat, and cat back system. £800+ Suspension Kit to lower my suspension by 15-20mm. £298.99 Brakes, for me the most common (and from what I can tell easiest) up grade for the spongy brakes that come on all smaller engines is the 262mm upgrade from larger engined Rovers/MGs, For more powerful brakes, the 282mm upgrade from ZR160s and ZS180s is an easy one to do. But not cheap Insurance: Oh dear, insurance companies hate tuned cars, add about 30-60% extra on what you would normally pay. And heres some brilliant quotes from the MG-Rover.org Forums, ( bear in mind this isn't just for MG or Rover owners this is for all sorts of car owners. ) ''If youve got a 1.8 or a 1.6 tuning a is viable. If you have a 1.4... Dont''
''TB's, manifolds, exhausts, induction kits are expensive when added up and don't even return much power considering the cost.''
and perhaps the engine management system 'chipped' in addition Chips generally do not work for engines under 1.4, Most you will get is 20+bhp.They trick the ECU into thinking its cold all the time, and the ECU pumps more fuel in to warm the engine. This is bad. Your engine will sieze.
MartinW, Magic Man, In Kontrol heres a nice little note about torque from the MG-Rover forums, this is based on all vehicle types. http://google.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=188462 |
||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
350nM compared to 400nM...?
No turbo? What does the T in TFSI stand for...?
|
||||
Dambuster
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 3428 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
It's a 2.0 TSI, very nice stuff indeed... But it sucks in more fuel than a 2.0 (CR not PD) TDI... Also look at the bhp/NM ratio, it's entirely different from a same size diesel...
|
||||
In Kontrol
P1 Joined: 27 Aug 2008 Location: Cumbria, UK Points: 711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Thanks for that pointless thread about torque that I already know and wouldn't have spent 2 years at college learning about...
|
||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Ok martin lets get something straight, unless you are willing to spend a hefty amount or are rich and tuning is a hobby then yes you can tune engines under 1.4 the right way. Exactly, you can then, who said anything about money? I didn’t. Plus what would be the point of tuning an engine if you are just going to have the extra power in reserve? My point, is that if you utilise it's maximum capability all the timelike a boy racer maniac, then wear will be quicker, but power is most useful in emergency situations, or when overtaking on long stretches of country roads. I'm 51 you see, not a boy racer that leaves tyre marks on the road. By the way, I'm not advocating small engine tuning, just made a point that it is possible to tune small engine cars. The reason I made that comment was because you said... You can never tune an engine below a 1.4 in the ''right'' way. it will wear the engine out much quicker You can ‘tune the engine the right way’ and rate of engine wear is down to the way the owner drives it. It’s a bit like overclocking CPU’s, yes your CPU will theoretically wear quicker but it depends on the degree of overclock and whether the reduction in lifespan is beyond the time you would replace it or not. When I was a lad, I had a friend with a very highly tuned mark one Escort; it lasted for years, no premature engine wear for him at all. Rust killed it not engine wear. I must say you young lads are get very assertive about this stuff. |
||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Probably not the car I'm thinking of then smarty pants.
Hear you go, and as this ridiculous debate concerning something I care very little about, concerned performance...
Now shut up before I nip down to Wales and crush your Freelander with a Challenger tank.
|
||||
Martyn
Just Flight Staff Development Manager Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Huntingdon, UK Points: 7615 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I've had the pleasure of riding in a new diesel Freelander and its so smooth and quiet that you'd think it was a petrol!
The noise/smooth ride argument was valid several years ago but the modern diesel engines are far more refined |
||||
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd |
||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
It said diesel engines are louder though, rather than the car itself.
The Freelander probably has good sound proofing, although I'm sure the engines themselves are quieter than they used to be. My old bosses Diesel sounded like a double decker bus, quiet inside though.
|
||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Define "optimal performance"? under which circumstances? As for "smooth ride", depends on the car. Modern diesels give as "smooth [a] ride" as their petrol counterpart and with longer time between gear changes and better torque in the low end when pulling away, could quite argue the opposite in fact...
|
||||
767nutter
Chief Pilot Joined: 09 Jul 2008 Location: Norfolk, UK Points: 1330 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Oh your welcome, nice to see manners about. I only put that down because you three were talking about torque and thought it would be useful. And sorry but Cars or Mechanics were not on your interest list so had no idea you studied tech at college.
|
||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I think you've lost it I really do. I thought I had a problem with being argumentative but you take it to a whole new level.
Torque at low revs isn't relevant when you can change down in a petrol engine and access all of the petrol engines torque you like. Have you ever driven a manual transmission [petrol]? I'm sure you have, then you know that when you accelerate you can change down and increase revs to whatever you like 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000 revs, take your pick, therefore accessing all the torque from your petrol engine you like.
Why do you think Ferrari's, Lamborghini's Bugatti Veyrons, and all top super cars have petrol engines?
There’s a big difference in driving on the road where 'nobody' has a speed limiter and roads utilised by vehicles that 'all' have speed limiters. Currently, there are no speed limiters, therefore overtaking manoeuvres are frequent, and often way above the speed limit during the passing manoeuvre. It was in that context, in today’s ‘no speed limiter’ environment, with a considerable variability in relative speeds, that I made that comment. In a world where we all had speed limiters in our cars we would be hardly likely to attempt to overtake an old granny [Or Magic man] driving at 30, if we know we couldn’t go any faster. Power would be less relevant. More importantly, You know as well as I do that the comment was made, not in regard to road safety, but in regard to the suggestion that a tuned car must be driven that way or the tuning was a waste of time, and that my comment was merely an example of why those that favor car tuning don’t subscribe to that point of view. And to illustrate that a tuned car does not have to be driven to the max all the time. I don’t know whether extreme argumentativeness is an OCD thing Magic Man but it’s quite frankly bizarre. And I thought I was argumentative. |
||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Ummm, ditto
Except if you are pulling off from a stand still or are already going slow, can't change down from 1st - then you're only option is to rev real high...
Which is not doing the engine any good at such high revs - and you still won't get the same torque as a comparable diesel, two different types of engine. If you need high torque then you want it available at low speeds/revs and a diesel is better for that.
Why do you think all vehicles that need huge amounts or torque, e.g. trains, tanks, trucks, ships etc. have diesel engines and not petrol engines? (forgetting those that have gas turbines)
There we are, all over...
If you post again it proves you are... and a big girl as well.
|
||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
If you post again it proves you are... and a big girl as well. And you post that after the nonsense that preceded it knowing it would incite me to respond. Sorry magic man but I think you are a bit of a... I've lost all respect for you. Except if you are pulling off from a stand still or are already going slow, can't change down from 1st - then you're only option is to rev real high... Huh! Exactly, rev higher and access all the torque you like. Try sticking your foot on the accelerator from a standstill to perhaps 6000 RPM! There's that much torque your tyre rubber will be left on the ground and the neighborhood will be in a shroud of acrid smoke. Requiring high torque from a standstill is an infrequent requirement anyway in terms of engine wear. Unless you are a maniac.
Why do you think all vehicles that need huge amounts or torque, e.g. trains, tanks, trucks, ships etc. have diesel engines and not petrol engines? (forgetting those that have gas turbines) Because they pull a heavy load, they don’t accelerate rapidly. Your objective is to obviously win points, argue for competitive reasons, to win an argument, dragging up past comments regrading speed limiters, rather than to determine the truth. Childish! I thought better of you. |
||||
Martyn
Just Flight Staff Development Manager Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Huntingdon, UK Points: 7615 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
|
||||
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd |
||||
767nutter
Chief Pilot Joined: 09 Jul 2008 Location: Norfolk, UK Points: 1330 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Which is not doing the engine any good at such high revs - and you still won't get the same torque as a comparable diesel, two different types of engine. If you need high torque then you want it available at low speeds/revs and a diesel is better for that.
Petrol engines can be revved upto 6k as much as they like ( as long as the engine is big enough and upto temp as the thermal shocks sent through can damage the engine ) mine can be revved upto 6k easily enough as the cut off point do not come in until about 7.2k while red line is 6.8k.
Diesels are not always better, the torque on my dads 1.9tdi drops after about 4.8k considerably.
The post about torque in the mg-rover forums say that if you had a diesel and petrol, same engine size, gearbox, etc the diesel will win a drag race but only by a split second. so really not much difference.
|
||||
Hot_Charlie
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 1839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Because they're driven by petrolheads. Dieselheads doesn't have the same ring. PS. Tell Audi that... R10TDi, Le Mans winner? R15TDi, possible Le Mans winner? They've also made a R8 TDi Le Mans, which may go into production (although would upset aforementioned petrolheads!) . |
||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I could comment on that Hotty, but Vin Diesel would be back.
We should all drive Toyota Aygo's. Plenty of power for normal driving from it's super economical [61mpg] 998cc engine with variable valve timing, plus low insurance and dirt cheap tax. [£35 per year]
Not far off the same 0-60 time as my old [now crushed] 1.6 16v Escort. And the same as the 1.3 Fiesta I drive now, which is perfectly adequate.
I'd consider one if I were buying new.
|
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 23456> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |