View Full Version : Arguement?
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 09:39
Im bored... someone present with me an arguement. Something to do with cars. Preferably technical.
Fords are rubbish, but technically, Vauxhalls (GM) are worse.
There you go. :D Try arguing with that.
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 09:55
Simple... they are both American and thus, heavy peices of crap. Next.
Wasn't a real issue really, was it?
OK, a Nissan sales manager last week described 200SXs as "Vauxhall Calibras with a Nissan badge". :mad: Comments
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 10:18
I dont know about vauxhauls... present something technical as requested.
thejames
05-03-2003, 10:30
Where do babies come from? I want an introduction, a persuasive argument and a conclusion to sum up. Go...
(It's not about cars but i've always wanted to know...)
Ok How about,
300bhp S13 with a 100bhp of Nos would beat a 400bhp S14a?? Why? Please explain your answer in no more than 200 words
Originally posted by thejames
Where do babies come from? I want an introduction, a persuasive argument and a conclusion to sum up. Go...
(It's not about cars but i've always wanted to know...)
babies come from a females tummy.... Well thats what my mum always used to say:p
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 10:35
Originally posted by Tim Simpson
Ok How about,
300bhp S13 with a 100bhp of Nos would beat a 400bhp S14a?? Why? Please explain your answer in no more than 200 words
Answer: S13 weighs less, has quicker gear ratios, and the nitrous builds torque as well as hp. Nitrous also acts as a secondary intercooling measure for the boosted air.
Next?
Ashworth
05-03-2003, 10:44
OK.
On a track could a 150 bhp TDI Golf beat a 150 bhp Gti (NA) golf?
Remember that the Tdi will have tons of torque, so gear selection is less critical.
(assume that weight, gearing, handling, etc is the same)
Ok, how about this...
The advantages and Disadvantages of a 4wd system
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 10:49
Originally posted by Tim Simpson
Ok, how about this...
The advantages and Disadvantages of a 4wd system
4WD or AWD... different systems.
Proper permanent 4WD and not one of those silly AWD or transfer box systems (like you get on those silly Vauxhall Calibra Turbos :) )
Are they... tell me more.......
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 10:53
Originally posted by Ashworth
OK.
On a track could a 150 bhp TDI Golf beat a 150 bhp Gti (NA) golf?
Remember that the Tdi will have tons of torque, so gear selection is less critical.
(assume that weight, gearing, handling, etc is the same)
Assuming the track was equally set up I would bet money on the n/a Golf. With less torque the motor can stay high strung and maintain a good line. Being FWD more torque can create torque steer which will lead to understeer. Of course other variables are entered like... track layout, driver, etc.
Ashworth
05-03-2003, 10:56
interesting...
i guess the changes in elevation of the track too. uphill, torque should help right? plus if you cant drive and select a too low gear, the diesel should perform better.
but balls-out on the guvnor the petrol will probably be better....
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 11:13
Originally posted by Pete C
Proper permanent 4WD and not one of those silly AWD or transfer box systems (like you get on those silly Vauxhall Calibra Turbos :) )
A proper 4WD system has the advantage of switching between 4WD and 2WD modes. Often in both high and low gearings. This aides in off road traction and slippery surface traction. The gearing allows the motor to provide ample torque to pull the vehicle through. Most 4WD trucks also have locking hubs, which saves wear and tear as well as fuel economy. 4WD is far superior at transversing rugged terrain than AWD.
AWD is a (often) full time system that utilizes a center differential to transfer power to the front and rear wheels. Subaru uses a 50/50 split in most their vehicles. Mitsu has designed a smart system that has an active center diff that controls output via computers. Nissan has the ATTESSA system. Either way they differ in that they dont use a transfer case for additional gearing. They also utilize limited slips more often than 4WD systems, which tend to use either open or locking diffs. AWD is more suited for low traction weather, like snow, or rain.
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 11:14
Originally posted by Ashworth
interesting...
i guess the changes in elevation of the track too. uphill, torque should help right? plus if you cant drive and select a too low gear, the diesel should perform better.
but balls-out on the guvnor the petrol will probably be better....
Ambient temperature will also effect the turbo vehicle more than the n/a vehicle....there are honestly too many factors.
Ashworth
05-03-2003, 11:21
Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
A proper 4WD system has the advantage of switching between 4WD and 2WD modes. Often in both high and low gearings. This aides in off road traction and slippery surface traction. The gearing allows the motor to provide ample torque to pull the vehicle through. Most 4WD trucks also have locking hubs, which saves wear and tear as well as fuel economy. 4WD is far superior at transversing rugged terrain than AWD.
AWD is a (often) full time system that utilizes a center differential to transfer power to the front and rear wheels. Subaru uses a 50/50 split in most their vehicles. Mitsu has designed a smart system that has an active center diff that controls output via computers. Nissan has the ATTESSA system. Either way they differ in that they dont use a transfer case for additional gearing. They also utilize limited slips more often than 4WD systems, which tend to use either open or locking diffs. AWD is more suited for low traction weather, like snow, or rain.
The imprezas utilise a centre lsd to endure traction is supplied to the wheels with more grip.
You didnt mention that AWD allows you to go rediculously fast round corners since you are using less of the tyres grip to propell the car forwards. i.e. this is the system you want for racing/rallying.
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 11:25
Originally posted by Ashworth
The imprezas utilise a centre lsd to endure traction is supplied to the wheels with more grip.
You didnt mention that AWD allows you to go rediculously fast round corners since you are using less of the tyres grip to propell the car forwards. i.e. this is the system you want for racing/rallying.
In Europe they use a center LSD. Carrying 200 more lbs. of AWD crap on the car doesnt allow it to corner any better than a RWD counterpart. It is not the best system for road racing, but it is the best system for rally.
AWD will transfer most power to the rear wheels when it is on throttle. Once it begins to slip it will send power to the front wheels. These front wheels are trying to grip, they suddenly push. This is why AWD cars such as the Porsche 900 series turbos have gross understeer followed by gross understeer.
AWD is overrated IMO.
Nismo_Freak
05-03-2003, 11:32
to be continued... im going to sleep... for once.
mambastu
05-03-2003, 11:47
Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
to be continued... im going to sleep... for once.
At 11.30 in the morning ?...................Lazy bastid :rolleyes: ;) :p
thejames
05-03-2003, 12:09
A Porsche Carrera 4 vs. a Yahama R1 round a racetrack..?
Ashworth
05-03-2003, 12:21
motorbikes are actually quite slow round a decent track. bear in mind they have half the number of tyres and a very small tyre contact patch meaning they cant go round corners very fast. obviously they may make up for it on the straights - it depends on the track.
A freind at work had a race round the Nurburgring with a 306 gti-6. he was on his yamaha R6 and couldnt shake the guy. i presumed he was holding back since one biker had already died that day, he just laughed and said he wished he was.....
thejames
05-03-2003, 12:23
Ive seen the race and it was close but....
the porsche nicked it. It was awesome to watch. :eek:
Imran Tunio
05-03-2003, 12:49
Originally posted by Ashworth
motorbikes are actually quite slow round a decent track. bear in mind they have half the number of tyres and a very small tyre contact patch meaning they cant go round corners very fast. obviously they may make up for it on the straights - it depends on the track.
A freind at work had a race round the Nurburgring with a 306 gti-6. he was on his yamaha R6 and couldnt shake the guy. i presumed he was holding back since one biker had already died that day, he just laughed and said he wished he was.....
I agree to an extent with this statement!! seen a lot of bikes get beat round a track;)
Still takes a decent car to give a bike a run for its money. Saw a BMW M5 beat a GSXR 600 from 70 onwards:p
Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
Im bored... someone present with me an arguement. Something to do with cars. Preferably technical.
.. and this choice of topic gets moved to non200sx related :)
Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I agree to an extent with this statement!! seen a lot of bikes get beat round a track;)
Still takes a decent car to give a bike a run for its money. Saw a BMW M5 beat a GSXR 600 from 70 onwards:p
Again have to agree partially with Imran with this...
However cars can get away with a bit of a mistake and recover, bikes can't so requires a lot more concentration and a more intimate knowledge of the track. Nurburgring being about 9 miles would take quite a bit of knowledge to get round that well quick on a bike and I know there are a couple of absolute stinker corners if your on a bike:( Bikes are slower round corners than cars but on a balanced track this should even it up:D
M5 vs 600 not really that fair from 70 up as car will have tonnes more torque than the bike try and 1000 and lets see where the car is at 170:D
What's the optimum engine size and aspiration for acceleration ?
Does a twin trubo create more boost than a really large single turbo ? Bear in mind 2 turbos will add a little more mass with all the gumph that goes with it.
also, a really large engine provides lots of power, but adds mass. Usually the mass is less of a down-side than the increased BHP (ignoring cornering/handling ability etc.)
2 factors which I think will limit engine size - if internals are too big, engine losses will be proportionately greater (most efficient engine is the smallest, but won't be most powerful) - and when an engine gets really big (along with car) mass increases in all components will become a big problem I reckon (I'm talking about when the engine gets to the size of a bus engine for eg. !!!
:eek:
So give me a technical reply o wise one - I gots to know ?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.