New Top Gear (2011) BBC 2 8PM!
- Thread starter Andr3w
- Start date
Soldato
I was talking about building a 200bhp car, not engine.... you are wrong. For a start you have to look at brakes and potential shifts in inertia classes for the car sales segment as you play with GVW.
VW sell cars incase you didnt know.
EDIT : dissappear back to SC and go procrastinate over there.
Last edited:
Actually the are people like that, I know many people who have opted away from a car because it was just "too fast" for their tastes, hence why my mother test drove a 2.0 Fabia then bought the 1.4 version.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
They have already done this by giving it 160bhp. You were saying it should be much more powerful.
Soldato
My course was Electrical and Electronic with a lot of microprocessor/microcontroller modules. I did all of the electronics on our car as well as a few mechanical things. Did sneak a lot of automotive stuff in to my learning experience though.
I have been working in development in storage in the IT industry since then, and had done so for 14 months mid way though my course.
Can't get you the orange bits, but there's plenty of stuff which is distinctly better then a n/a motor at both ends of the RPM range.
Rypt - Thats a mickey mouse graph?
I want one of these - and thats just for the compressor.
Those were the proposed/calculated power/torque numbers that the engine was likely to develop using two of these
I was trying to illustrate the fairly flat torque from 2k RPM ...
Last edited:
Soldato
1.8T was a perfect choice. With 8.1s to 60 and 36mpg combined in road tax band J the Yeti 1.8T 4x4 has nothing to improve on - it has no competitors within £5k range anywhere on the market at all.
Soldato
Good point, why is everyone so interested in a stupid Yeti engineCan we just talk about Top Gear please?
Caporegime
Because Rypt is trying to give us an engineering masterclass.
Err, not really.
All I said was that I agreed that making 160hp from 1.8L is just poor
Soldato
Good point, why is everyone so interested in a stupid Yeti engine
Im not. I take a good interest in pulling Rypt up on whatever he posts that I dont agree with. Today this is the topic.
Same as the tatooing in a Range Rover in off road articulation mode has nothing to do with ride quality.
The Beetle was a bit stupid with the salt traction issues preventing a 0-60, the length of rope not accounted for and the 4000 something feet which is not near a mile. i think we have already covered that?
I a more general note I guess its pertinant that Hamsters hair does look better!
And yet you have gone silent once I posted the calculated power curve and the compressor map that shows nice high power per L and a low boost starting point
Soldato
"I demand satisfaction!"
Dawn tomorrow morning guys, Oxford common, I'll bring the pistols.
Soldato
This thread has gone OT enough. Its pointless trying put salient points across that cover a broad spectrum as you always spear off on one particular point avoiding the 'ownage' you got on others.
I think its pretty obvious for the good spread of that the torque curve is not flat, aswell as dropping well below 70% on your graph (once I gave you a clue what type of isochart was required). My point was to Biggles anyway with his theoretical turbo which apparently is available in showrooms, when its not.
The problem with your example Rypt is that you didnt actually build a 8L W16 though did you? So thats just a theoretical graph you could have made up with no regard for emissions or transient load cases. Which is why I said what I said, that turbo with those specs does not exist and there for we are in the land of engineering compromise.
If you want to start a urinating up the wall competition its going to get boring very quicky.
Soldato
