Your stats are in correct.

Blobeye has 163 bhp/ton clio has 168 bhp/ton. As mentioned by John you take no account of torque which is the biggest factor in acceleration. You are right it wont take a brain surgeon to work it out but it will take someone with more brains than you appharently.

Actually, the torque is irrelevant without knowing the gearing. If you know the gearing and the revs then you know the BHP. BHP is a calculated figure from torque, revs & gearing.

Clio Cup has 171bhp per ton. 375 KG lighter :eek:

I wonder how fast a standard WRX would get around the ring (BTG), not sure if any one has any times?

I know of a few standard 172 cups that have got in the 8.40s.

VTEC.

Next....


:brickwall

I did point out that the Clio peaks a little higher so gearing would help, but it is interesting though that a WRX PPP has more power at 3500 RPM than a 172 has at its peak of 6250 RPM. I know I cheated with a PPP and the weaker 172 ;) but it does illustrate the power band and flexibility. I'm not a diesel torque fanboy by any means, but I do sometimes regret having a torqueless rev machine.

8:20 to 8:50 off one list, not sure types of laps (8:37 for the old GT Turbo - ie Classic UK/Euro car):

8:20 --- Audi RS6 (2002)
8:22 --- BMW E46 M3 (12/2000)
8:22 --- BMW M Coupe, 321 PS (10/1998)
8:22 --- Mercedes-Benz C55 (07/2004)
8:23 --- Aston Martin DB7 GT (2003)
8:23 --- Porsche 996 Carrera 4
8:24 --- Subaru Impreza WRX STi (2004)
8:25 --- Audi RS4 375 HP
8:25 --- Callaway C12
8:25 --- Mitsubishi Carisma GT Evo VI (11/1999)
8:25 --- Mitsubishi Carisma GT Evo VII (11/2002)
8:26 --- Mercedes Benz SLK 32 AMG (05/2001)
8:26 --- Nissan 350Z (2003)
8:28 --- BMW M5, 400 PS(also confirmed by Motor Commodore magazine, 2000)
8:28 --- Nissan Skyline GTR, 277 PS
8:28 --- Porsche 993 Carrera 2
8:29 --- Mercedes Benz CLK 55 AMG (05/2000)
8:29 --- Audi S4 4.2 Avant (11/2003)
8:30 --- Maserati Coupé Cambiocorsa (10/2002)
8:31 --- Ferrari F355 GTS, 380 PS
8:32 --- BMW M Roadster, 321 PS (09/1997)
8:32 --- BMW Z4 3.0 SMG (05/2003)
8:32 --- Porsche Boxster S
8:32 --- Volkswagen Golf R32
8:34 --- Acura NSX, 276 PS
8:34 --- BMW Z3 Coupé 3.0i, 231 PS (04/2001)
8:35 --- BMW M3 Coupe, 321 PS
8:35 --- Brabus-Mercedes Benz C V8 Sportcoupé (02/2002)
8:36 --- BMW E36 M3 EVO, 321 PS
8:36 --- Alpina-BMW B3 3.3 Coupé (07/1999)
8:37 --- Maserati 3200GT (2002)
8:37 --- Mercedes Benz C32 AMG (09/2001)
8:37 --- Nissan Skyline GTR V-Spec, 350 PS
8:37 --- Subaru Impreza GT Turbo
8:37 --- Honda NSX 3.0 (07/1991)
8:38 --- Honda NSX 3.2 (08/1997)
8:38 --- Mercedes Benz SL500 (12/2001)
8:38 --- Porsche 996 Carrera, 296 PS
8:38 --- Brabus-Mercedes Benz CLK 5.8 (12/1998)
8:39 --- Honda S2000 (01/2000)
8:39 --- Morgan Aero 8 (04/2003)
8:40 --- Holden GTS, on an in and out lap (2000)
8:40 --- Chevrolet Corvette C5 Targa Automatic (07/1997)
8:41 --- Aston Martin DB7 (1999)
8:41 --- Audi S3, 210 PS (06/1999)
8:42 --- Audi S4, 265 PS (08/1998)
8:42 --- Lotus Exige (11/2000)
8:43 --- Honda Integra Type R (12/2000)
8:44 --- Chevrolet Corvette C5
8:45 --- Chevrolet Corvette, 339 PS, automatic
8:46 --- Porsche 993 Carrera S, 285 PS
8:47 --- Honda Civic Type-R, 200 PS (11/2001)
:49 --- Jaguar XKR Coupe (07/1998)
8:49 --- Renault Clio Sport V6
8:49 --- Audi TT 1.8T quattro Coupé, 225 PS (11/1998)
8:50* -- Mercedes Benz E55 AMG (2000)

Im sorry but it is common knowledge that torque is a huge factor in acceleration despite what you think. Wasnt asking for your opinion on this, its fact. As John said you have to factor in the weight of the fuel and driver as well which evens things up. The new golf gti is an example of this as it can accelerate as fast or faster than the likes of the new ST, VXR, meganne etc because its torque comes in lower down. You discount drag as well but this also must be taken into consideration. As mentioned before but totally ignored by you, add the weight of a driver and fuel and both cars then have the same power to weight ratios, obviously depending on driver, so this makes your arguments pointless as all you harp on about is power to weight. Adding the same weight to a lighter car with less power will have a bigger effect than on a car that is heavier with more power. Its all about percentage increases. Its quite simple maths, even fot you.

Give it time ;)

You said, "biggest factor".

What does a clio weigh, about 1100kg

Add 95kg say for drives and some fuel therefore = 1195 = 144bhp/ton for 172 and 152bhp/ton for 182.

The scoob is 1385 kg therefore add 95=1480 =149bhp/ton.

TBH a full tank of fuel and a person would be more than this which favour the scoob. So Senior AP what is your point ?????????????????????????????????????? There is only a couple of bhp in it. Which to be honest wouldnt make any noticeable difference.

Acceleration is determinied by BHP & the weight (including drivers of course) and the ability to apply the power (traction). At higher speeds, drag comes into effect.

BHP = (TORQUE x RPM) / 5252

Torque in isolation (well, ANYTHING in isolation) is meaningless. After all, many diesels driven by people on here have more torque than a F1 car!

Of course, less weight means better braking, better cornering, less wear on components, improved tyre performance etc.

We have a winner!

YES EXACTLY MY POINT!!!

This reply is not argumentative or me having a sly dig at you. It's not. I promise.

My point is exactly that, what you have said is my very point. Everyone thinks I (for some reason) I'm trying to knock the WRX. I'm not it's bigest fan for sure but I don't own either car.

There's little in it - that is my point exactly. The Clio just edges it. That really is all I'm saying, the personal abuse just comes from pedantic owners that still live in 1995 when Impreza's were quicker than anything else in the "real world".

Things change.

I don't care which is quicker TBH!! That's how I don't take any of this too much to heart.

That formula doesnt work for everything. Unless im doing it wrong. Please explain clearer. It kinda works for my sccob but dosent work for some of my old cars, not even close. When you say RPM what do you mean. The RPM at which point max torque is reached???

I assume you own a WRX

[QUOTE=davyboy]WHY?

Well if you do, you'll never accept it ;)

There's a mental barrier that needs to be overcome to allow us all to move on.

"Of course, less weight means better braking, better cornering, less wear on components, improved tyre performance etc."

... and probably a shorter wheelbase, narrower track, less high speed stability? Crash safety on NCAP tests is not comparable between different classes of car. For a road car I prefer something a bit more substantial than a supermini, also even at only 6ft and 80kg I don't fit in them well! I feel like a gorilla riding a children's toy. Although the light weight does give a fun drive in many respects.

Don't think anyone is seriously taking torque in isolation, and the snapshots of peak torque and peak power don't always give you the full story, just like "less weight", "no lag", "no AWD losses" don't :p It can tell you that a humble WRX PPP makes more power at 3500 RPM than a 172 ever does though PMSL.

Back to the original post, I wonder if the Saab's torque helped just a tiny bit against the Clio?

Yes it does. It'll work for EVERY car you ever owned. :)

Max power is produced at 'x' revs (see a dyno for where this is produced), not the max torque, but the max revs that the torque can still be produced at. At some point the engine can't keep producing the power over a certain amount of revs (depends on the design of the engine, the strength of the components, the size of the bores, the fuelling design, exhaust 'disposal' etc.

So basically, you need to know where the max power is to give the 'revs' figure. you'll need the car on a dyno to find out, either that or see the engine stats supplied by the manufacturer.

What other cars are you checking?

Was thinking that myself John.

Why do most people completely ignore torque (not to mention the curve, and, more importantly the shape & area under the curve) when comparing cars?

I assume a lot of things about you but i couldnt post them on here.

PM them to me then ;)

I would not take thinks to heart mate - lighten up a bit, breathe..........

Most people that don't have much mathematical/engineering/physics knowledge don't naturally understand torque. The more impressionable blindly believe "power sells cars, torque wins races" and then overstate its effect. Maybe those that understand realise that in cars that are otherwise similar, the car with the fattest torque curve will be quicker even when changing gear optimally, and considerably quicker when not changing gear optimally?

A big hit of torque is also very exciting. I thought that turbocharged engines were just a cheap way of making power and torque, and an immature power delivery. I've changed my mind for this week ;) as I think the mature and expensive high revving engines that don't feel fast make boring cars. Same with RWD IMHO. If you are a swish driver or always on track then NA RWD is probably the way to go. Turbo AWD I find more fun though.

Big turbo torque with little lag and a quiet exhaust makes a beast of an overtaking car :D Say 400 lbft developed at half of redline RPM in a 2.5 Scooby with a 20G, nothing that is affordable is anything like it IMHO.

BHP is simply a derived figure, nothing more, nothing less. Its more meaningful than BHP.

What IS meaningless is basing any form of discussion on peak power and peak BHP. Which, it appears, is what all the arguments are based on in this thread where BHP per tonne is being used to justify arguments.

.

I was just checking out of curiosity but i obviously wasnt putting the correct figures into the formula. I tried it for a golf gttdi i used to have but as you say was kinda guessing the figures a wee bit as i didnt know at what rpm the max power or torque was generated.

Cant recall getting excited or taking things too seriously. But hey ho. Whatever you say.

"Don't you knock my scoob!!!!!!!"

http://www.apeculture.com/images/angryhf.jpg