I have seen some excellent newage builds on here making 450hp to 500hp.

From what i can gather a type R / RA classic weighs about 1200kg. And a 03+ newage about 1450kg. About 20% heavier. So does a newage need 20% more power to have the same power to weight.

Would a 400hp classic R/RA have about the same power to weight as a 480hp newage ?

 

Erm !

YES !

But it's torque that actually accelerates the car, so a 400 lb.ft 2.5 may only have 370 bhp, but will out drag my 410 bhp 380 lb.ft STI 2 litre.

HTH

dunx

 

Also i think that power to weight is not relative and the amount of power required by a heavier car to accelerate at the same rate as a lighter car is exponential.

I.e the heavier you get, the more and more power you need so 20% heavier would not be quite as simple a matter as 20% more power.

Not sure if it is quite that simple as other matters affect it such as traction etc...

 

Dunx not quite true, take a look at this clip

YouTube - ZR1 Drag Race King - Spanks GTR, 599, and GT2

The GTR and 599 have a similar amount of torque (430lbft GTR vs 448lbft 599) however the ferrari has 620bhp compared to 480bhp for the gtr, weight wise they are also very similar but the result of the race speaks for itself.

Banny

 

basically it is complicated lol
martin

 

I've never stopped to ask the classic drivers i've out run what power they're running. Rumour had it, it was about +50 needed for a newage, but as Martin said, it's complimicated.

 

All bhp, no torque figures !

Sorry can't be RS-d to look them up....

dunx

P.S. Force = Mass x Acceleration q.e.d. no exponential in here !

 

Torque gets you going but bhp keeps your there

Banny

 

For a simple power to weight comparison, yes! But the lightest of the normal STi Newages would be around 1470kgs, with the Spec C weighing in at 1350kgs.

So equal power to weight....

1200kgs (RA) 400bhp
1270kgs (22b) 423bhp
1295kgs (P1) 432bhp
1350kgs (Spec C) 450bhp
1470kgs (MY03 Sti) 490bhp
1490kgs (MY06 Sti) 497bhp
1505kgs (MY08 Sti) 502bhp

But, as has already been stated it is more involved than just this specific, as regards to which car is actually quicker or better.

 

[QUOTE=no exponential in here ![/QUOTE]

I said this relating to the acceleration performance of heavier cars against lighter ones with an exact relative amount of horsepower against weight as an extreme example a 1 ton 100bhp against a 2 ton 200bhp car and for arguements sake the torque increased to suit which do you think would be quicker off the line?

Exponential
adjective
"of or increasing by extraordinary proportions"

"Relating to a mathematical expression containing one or more exponents. Something is said to increase or decrease exponentially if its rate of change must be expressed using exponents. A graph of such a rate would appear not as a straight line, but as a curve that continually becomes steeper or shallower."

Anyway enough about semantics but you get what i mean

 

Nice post that Shaun, look at the bloody difference compared to the 08 STI.

 

Pete,
Based purely on power to weight it gives an insight that a later Classic is not that much better placed against a Newage Spec C. People harp on about the lightness of a Classic, which is true if it is an RA etc, but I feel that what the Spec C gains in a bit more weight, easily makes up for it in other areas.

Of course, looking between a Newage STi and a later classic, then the differences in weight really start to show that specifics Newage's disadvantage.

But.... as has already been stated, it is more than just plain power to weight. When I went out in Litchfields MY08 Type20, it certainly felt very quick to me with 400bhp and had amazing grip and composure.

 

Yep, agree totally, a well setup Spec C with a good driver is a VERY tough car to beat, even with a Classic producing 50odd more bhp.

Driver not power imo...

 

I refer to post 2

LOL

And this is purely a matter of drag racing, the handling doesn't enter into it !

dunx

P.S. The work done by the engine is related to the area under the torque curve, so a 2.5 with a fatter torque curve will out-drag a 2.0 with a narrower torque band. IMHO

Bye now !

 

Interesting point about the 2.5's torque. The downside is it can't rev as high so the torque curve might be fatter but there's less of it...And of course not all newages have 2.5.

I'd have tht with a 400hp turbo the 2.0 would run more boost anyways. More boost generally means more torque. If we are talking a like for like comparision.

Of course you can always put a 2.5 into classic just like a spec c

 

Stevie210 has a type-R with a 2.5 and it's destroyed his gearbox, 300 bhp and 380 lb.ft of torque.

If you compare graphs, it's still the area under the curve that counts, but I like the way the 2.0 revs to 8000 rpm....

LOL

dunx

P.S. The 2.5 makes a nice engine for fast road use !

 

Standard 2ltrs are peakier than standard 2.5's.

Built 2.5's can be a totally different story. My 2.5 is capable of reving well past 8k and is mapped to limit revs at 8200rpm, but with the turbo I have, it is pointless (in most scenarios) as the power drops off before then. Again, 2.5's do not have to be lazy either.