GTP's 4 wheel vehicle HP/Tonne Torque/Tonne thread
- Thread starter JCE
- 63 comments
- 3,499 views
- 27,205
- United Kingdom
Two different cars kid
Anyway.. My car is slower than most but it feels fastThe lowest weight so far I think? Isn't there dude with a Mini on here?
Roo has an old Mini (as well as a massive Volvo estate). I expect the Mini probably only weighs between 600-700kg.
I see that my Fiesta actually has a little more torque than the Charade, but your lighter weight is pretty advantageous in the figures being better!
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
Peak torque is a misleading figure. For one, it tells you very little about torque performance across the rev range.
And without gearing, you have no idea how much torque is actually transmitted to the wheels. Don't forget that gears primarily exists to multiply torque, so an engine's output can be useful across a variety of speeds.
Wheel torque, like wheel hp, is far more useful bit of information than a peak crank number.
A BMW 335d makes a pavement wrinkling 425 lb-ft. from just 1750 RPM (that is more torque than a C6 Corvette). But because it has a low power peak of 4200 RPM and redlines at just 4500 RPM and is geared quite tall, it is still slower than the gas powered 335i, which 'only' makes 300 lb-ft.
M
And without gearing, you have no idea how much torque is actually transmitted to the wheels. Don't forget that gears primarily exists to multiply torque, so an engine's output can be useful across a variety of speeds.
Wheel torque, like wheel hp, is far more useful bit of information than a peak crank number.
A BMW 335d makes a pavement wrinkling 425 lb-ft. from just 1750 RPM (that is more torque than a C6 Corvette). But because it has a low power peak of 4200 RPM and redlines at just 4500 RPM and is geared quite tall, it is still slower than the gas powered 335i, which 'only' makes 300 lb-ft.
M
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
335i vs 335d is a good choice as both are right at the top of their respective classes from a performance perspective and there's only a 60kg weight difference.
I can't find comprehensive data for the 335d, but Autocar have published full figures for the 335i and the latest 330d. The 335d has 282bhp and 427lb/ft (vs 241 & 384 for the 330d), so would be significantly quicker than the figures below.
335i on the left, 330d on the right...
0-30mph................. 2.2 sec...................... 2.2 sec
0-60mph................. 5.4 sec...................... 6 sec
0-100mph............... 12.8 sec..................... 15 sec
30-70mph............... 4.9 sec..................... n/a
0-400m.................. 14 / 104.1 sec/mph..... 14.5 / 98.3 sec/mph
0-1000m................. 25.3 / 133.6 sec/mph.. 26.3 / 129 sec/mph
30-50mph in 3rd/4th. 3.1 / 4....................... 2.8 / 4.4
40-60mph in 4th/5th. 4.1 / 4.8 sec.............. 3.9 / 5.4 sec
50-70mph in 5th....... 5 sec......................... 5.2 sec
Top speed............... 155mph...................... 155 mph
Noise at 70mph........ 69 db........................ 67 db
Test average........... 25.7 mpg................... 39.6 mpg
Test best/worst....... 32.1 / 11.3.................. 47.1 / 18.8
In gear numbers for the 330d are pretty much a match for the 335i (little give, little take) so I'd expect the 335d would be right on the 335i if not a little quicker across the board other than possibly the standing start numbers, where it might be a little behind as it requires more gear changes to each increment.
I can't find comprehensive data for the 335d, but Autocar have published full figures for the 335i and the latest 330d. The 335d has 282bhp and 427lb/ft (vs 241 & 384 for the 330d), so would be significantly quicker than the figures below.
335i on the left, 330d on the right...
0-30mph................. 2.2 sec...................... 2.2 sec
0-60mph................. 5.4 sec...................... 6 sec
0-100mph............... 12.8 sec..................... 15 sec
30-70mph............... 4.9 sec..................... n/a
0-400m.................. 14 / 104.1 sec/mph..... 14.5 / 98.3 sec/mph
0-1000m................. 25.3 / 133.6 sec/mph.. 26.3 / 129 sec/mph
30-50mph in 3rd/4th. 3.1 / 4....................... 2.8 / 4.4
40-60mph in 4th/5th. 4.1 / 4.8 sec.............. 3.9 / 5.4 sec
50-70mph in 5th....... 5 sec......................... 5.2 sec
Top speed............... 155mph...................... 155 mph
Noise at 70mph........ 69 db........................ 67 db
Test average........... 25.7 mpg................... 39.6 mpg
Test best/worst....... 32.1 / 11.3.................. 47.1 / 18.8
In gear numbers for the 330d are pretty much a match for the 335i (little give, little take) so I'd expect the 335d would be right on the 335i if not a little quicker across the board other than possibly the standing start numbers, where it might be a little behind as it requires more gear changes to each increment.
Last edited:
- 7,666
How about measuring torque over percentage of time on the road?
Hey, I haven't had to take it to the shop at all this week!
And apparently it stopped burning copious amounts of oil.Bah, your torques are all weedy... my boring Ford rep mobile easily crushes American V8's and Japanese Rally replicas with a mighty 310ft/lbs @ just 1,750rpm.
Bah, my car makes 2/3s the torque with probably 2/5s the displacement.
The thing with the GTI is that the torque is pretty much the same all throughout the rev range. I have at least 80% of that torque from 1800 rpm all the way through probably 5000 rpm. And then you redline at 6500 and it starts over again. And even when you take drivetrain losses and everything into account, you're still looking at 197 lb-ft, which is only a loss of 10 lb-ft or 5%.
The reason you can see diesel engines with huge torque being outperformed by gasoline engines with less torque is the way the engine performs over the rev range. Look at semi trucks. That new Volvo makes over 2000 lb-ft available at probably 1000 rpm, but only makes 700 hp and makes a terrible performance engine because the redline is at 1800 rpm. And that all comes from horsepower being only another way to write torque, but with engine speed taken into account. So in reality, all the performance you need to know is in the torque graph. Because every car will make the same power figure with a set torque figure at a set rpm.
Yeah, not all of us are happy with stock hp. My car was only 155hp stock...with a freakin V8! Actually, the engine in it now is a factory stock Mustang 5.0 with 225hp (~200whp)...but my 306 should be puttin ~250 to the ground...and I will have dyno sheets/video of it. It'd be very misleading to list my car as the stock ~135whp.
I'd also like to note that a lot of the numbers posted are *probably* just factory listed specs, which iirc, is normally flywheel hp, not the hp that actually makes it to the ground (about 15% drivetrain loss).
Last edited:
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
I actually have the 4/09 Car and Driver here where they review the 335d, which is brand new to the US. The link to the data panel is on the first page.
It shows the 335d very quick to 30, which takes only 2 seconds.
0-60 is 5.7 seconds, which is almost a full second slower than the 335is they've tested, which do it in 4.8. (Coupe link)
0-100 for the 335d is about 14.2; a 335i does it in about 12.1.
But the most telling data point is the trap speed in the quarter mile. This is the best overall indicator of a vehicle's acceleration. At the end of the 1320, a 335d is going 100 mph. A 335i is going at 106 mph. 6 mph may not seem like a whole lot at first, but that is difference between a decently quick car (a 335i) and a properly fast one (say, a 997 Carrera S, which is a 112 mph car)
As speeds increase, a 335d is really not any quicker than a 255hp 330i --which makes sense given they have similar power and the torque advantage of the diesel is negated by it's weight.
I would definitely agree though, that the diesel cars due to their flat broad torque curves, perform very well in the in-gear tests and that is their strength. In a typical low speed passing situation (like the 40-60), a 335d is not far behind the a 335i.
But in an all out speed contest, the 335i walks away from the diesel. If you performed, say, a 100-130 mph in gear test, the 335d would get smoked.
Horsepower is another way to write torque, but with time -ie how quickly work is being performed-- factored in. Torque by itself doesn't tell you anything about how fast something is happening. Only that it happens.
If you want to talk about performance, then time and how quickly something happens ---how fast that torque gets applied, has to enter the picture.
In reality, there is really no reason to chose one over the other, since one value has to be derived from the other. It's like choosing between getting blotto drunk or getting blotto drunk in 30 mins. I'm just trying to point out that relying on a peak torque figure in isolation, by itself, has limited value.
M
- 3,433
63.03... you just had to beat me still, didn't you
was a close one
man my old 93 rover 214 1.4 I4, 95@6250, 123@4000, 1050 came to 90.48 and 117.14 - it might have moved better than the astra but it sure didnt stop as well!
- 1,397
1994 Mercedes Benz E320
217HP
310 MN (229lb/ ft)
Curb weight 3550lbs (car gurus.com) seems low. Stated as 4000lbs by State inspection.
1969 BMW 2002
113HP (SAE.) commonly understood to be 100 with ancillaries.
116 lb/ ft
Curb weight 2200lbs
Back in the day dyno tests were often done without all the ancillaries the engine would drive, like the water pump, alternator etc, hence SAE hp as listed.
217HP
310 MN (229lb/ ft)
Curb weight 3550lbs (car gurus.com) seems low. Stated as 4000lbs by State inspection.
1969 BMW 2002
113HP (SAE.) commonly understood to be 100 with ancillaries.
116 lb/ ft
Curb weight 2200lbs
Back in the day dyno tests were often done without all the ancillaries the engine would drive, like the water pump, alternator etc, hence SAE hp as listed.
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
I wanna race JCEs Camaro.
1994 Chevrolet Blazer 4.3L V6 3340 lbs. / 1515 kg - 200 HP @ 4500 RPM, 260 lb.ft. @ 3400 RPM. 132.01 171.61
You'll lose because my car isn't stock. I'm putting 200~210bhp and 290~300tq. When I get my engine swapped (same engine) we can make it happen!
I can't wait to get my project finished by May 30th. I'll get some good videos and pics up when I get it done.
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
So for the modded cars just list RWHP unless the owner's been on an engine dyno?
Eric.
Premium
- 8,515
- GTP_Eric
- Ebiggs
How would they know RWHP without being on a dyno to begin with? I say stock numbers or dyno proof. If you've got a motor swap it should be legit to use the quoted figures for that, for example a 1990 Camaro that came with a 5.0 could have a LS2 swap, which would be listed at 400hp and whatever torque.
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
