humbling experience tonight
- Thread starter peanut
- Start date
Scorpio.72
New member
...this is getting worse and worse!!! lol
Seriously though, Porsche or Fiat Panda, i know which car i'd rather be driving any day. [
]
It is all relative. When I was a lad, sub 10 seconds 0-60 was considered sporty.Now, much more than 7 seconds is lethargic.
It is credit to the 944 that 20+ years on it can still hold its head up while an RS2000, TR7 or 2.8i Capri is going to look extremely silly.
The linear power delivery of the S2 is of considerable advantage but negated, in part, by a less than slick gear box. My Turbo is so bad from 1st to 2nd that it probably takes 4 seconds to get to 30. A mildly warm hatch will beat it to 40 every time.
Where the Turbo is so good is when you need grunt. On a dual carriageway, at almost any legal speed, (and on a private road at higher speeds []) there is very little that will stay with you as you accelerate from a steady speed. On long hills, you can pull along side people, blow them a kiss, and accelerate away while they have their right foot burred in the carpet up the their ankle. That is where the difference is.
Let the children whiz around in their pocket rockets while we enjoy the heady atmosphere of performance in speed ranges they can only read about - on a track obviously.
It is credit to the 944 that 20+ years on it can still hold its head up while an RS2000, TR7 or 2.8i Capri is going to look extremely silly.
The linear power delivery of the S2 is of considerable advantage but negated, in part, by a less than slick gear box. My Turbo is so bad from 1st to 2nd that it probably takes 4 seconds to get to 30. A mildly warm hatch will beat it to 40 every time.
Where the Turbo is so good is when you need grunt. On a dual carriageway, at almost any legal speed, (and on a private road at higher speeds [
]) there is very little that will stay with you as you accelerate from a steady speed. On long hills, you can pull along side people, blow them a kiss, and accelerate away while they have their right foot burred in the carpet up the their ankle. That is where the difference is.Let the children whiz around in their pocket rockets while we enjoy the heady atmosphere of performance in speed ranges they can only read about - on a track obviously.
As an aside, the only place I continue to read about Turbo vs S2 is in here. I frequent quite a few different forums gathering information as I go, but I have never read anywhere else about such rivalry as in here. Strange??
In the wet my car is toast and that's with a better than stock LSD. The S2 would probably be better, certainly off the mark. On the track we have a very good driver in our 'Stable' and he has a mildly modified S2 and the best thing about him and his car is the corner speed he continues to carry. Helped by the higher c/r engine braking, he manages to hardly touch the brakes and seems to keep the one speed everywhere he goes. Impressive. I think perhaps with a similarly modified 944t it may be a pretty close contest.
In the wet my car is toast and that's with a better than stock LSD. The S2 would probably be better, certainly off the mark. On the track we have a very good driver in our 'Stable' and he has a mildly modified S2 and the best thing about him and his car is the corner speed he continues to carry. Helped by the higher c/r engine braking, he manages to hardly touch the brakes and seems to keep the one speed everywhere he goes. Impressive. I think perhaps with a similarly modified 944t it may be a pretty close contest.
peanut
Active member
ORIGINAL: appletonn
I think that Panda thing was a 'Multijet' as opposed to Multifuel, hence its a very advanced little diesel engine which produces loads of low down torque in a car that weighs about as much as a shoe....
If that makes you feel better at all.....[
ha ha multijet yes it probably was . It was pitch black and raining and I could hardly see anything . So it was a diesel ! no I can't say that makes me feel a whole lot better .[
] boo hoo [X(] in fact thats worse []If you told me it was a turbo diesel It might be easier lol Some of these new diesel turbos are amazing arn't they .
vitesse
Active member
Get a BMW 530D auto,depress and hold down the DSC button for 16secs or until the yellow lamp goes out,stick it in Steptronic 1st & engage handbrake.As lights start to change,use left foot on brake ,release handbrake & give the throttle some welly!You will leave most things behind.[].(appleton.c)
].(appleton.c)
peanut
Active member
well said John .
I know people say they feel agricultural to drive but the technology is largely 30 years old . I love the GT grand tourer supercar feel of the car. I just enjoy cruising with a few spirited sprints but most of all I love the large spacious interior with cream trim and the classic external styling .
If I were 20 years younger I'd probably want to have a turbo as well and compete in some track events but I think your bottle reduces as your experience increases ....or is it just old age !
Scorpio.72
New member
True, i heard a rumour a while back from some friends that work for Honda that they had to restrict their diesel Type R as it proved quicker than there petrol Type R! [
]
sawood12
New member
Really? My turbo scares the willies out of me on the odd occasion I do a full-on standing start. I've found you really need to get the revs up over 4krpm and slip the clutch quite a lot such that they don't drop much below 4krpm or you loose your pressure and the engine will bog down out of the boost zone, but if you manage to keep it on boost it just takes off like a scalded cat. Given that for 220bhp turbo the official 0-60 time is a shade over 6 seconds I think that is way under calling it. By crudely timing on my wrist watch I reckon the 0-60 time is closer to 5.5 secs. If the gear change was better from 1st to 2nd you could easily shave another 0.3 - 0.5secs off that. Fair enough, mines been mildly modded, but I don't think a decent stock 220 turbo would be far behind. However i'm much too mechanically sympathetic to do standing starts often. I've probably only done about two or three in the whole time i've owned the car.
As the other Archillies heel, our CVs and axles are not built to stand up to that sort of driving Scott. I seldom do those type of starts even when doing hillclimbs. My new mantra should be 'Just be able to drive home'. It's actually quite pleasant avoiding the tow trucks.[]
]
jamirrorquai
New member
I had a very embarrising drag race a couple of years ago.
I was in my gorgeous M5 and got stuffed and I mean right royally stuffed by a Skoda.
It was only when I had to stop behind him for a junction that I noticed the cosworth badge.
The following day, I had a Skoda cosworth, a lot of fun and very low running costs.
I was in my gorgeous M5 and got stuffed and I mean right royally stuffed by a Skoda.
It was only when I had to stop behind him for a junction that I noticed the cosworth badge.
The following day, I had a Skoda cosworth, a lot of fun and very low running costs.
Suffolk944
Moderator
Whoops well I certainly didnt intend to dis the S2. I would certainly concur that a healthy S2 is quicker than a healthy standard 220 turbo in real world conditions and a nicer drive to boot. Obviously a 250 car and/or modifications to either Turbo model would slowly open up a gap depending on the extent of the mods.
I too find the first gear performance of a Turbo a rather underwhelming experience though get it into second and things very rapidly improve...As a rule I avoid Traffic Light grand prixs for all the reasons stated previously, but it is nice just occasionally just to indulge is such tomfoolery. Last time was with a Boxster S which I think was a bit put out with the result...
Mid range acceleration is fabulous in a Turbo modded or otherwise and is what they are all about really.
Modern Turbo diesels with all that torque have impressive off the line speed and low down grunt, at least until they reach their ridiculously low red line and their power curve falls off a cliff edge.
I too find the first gear performance of a Turbo a rather underwhelming experience though get it into second and things very rapidly improve...As a rule I avoid Traffic Light grand prixs for all the reasons stated previously, but it is nice just occasionally just to indulge is such tomfoolery. Last time was with a Boxster S which I think was a bit put out with the result...
Mid range acceleration is fabulous in a Turbo modded or otherwise and is what they are all about really.
Modern Turbo diesels with all that torque have impressive off the line speed and low down grunt, at least until they reach their ridiculously low red line and their power curve falls off a cliff edge.
Hilux
New member
The weight is an issue only with like for like cars however has anyone clocked the weight of new cars?? They are NOT light any more so the power they claim is all relative. 200bhp plus medium cars are generally no quicker than old Astra Gte`s etc - circa 8 secs 0-60. Example is the latest Golf GTI, its no quicker than the original Mk1!! The 951 is not a heavy car relative to its modern rivals hence its performance and contemporary abilities.
Small diesel engines are great for launching away from lights cos of the torque (power is, after all, only a function of torque) but if in a Porsche S2 or Turbo you`re not trying hard then its not a big deal at all.
appletonn
New member
ORIGINAL: peanut
ORIGINAL: appletonn
I think that Panda thing was a 'Multijet' as opposed to Multifuel, hence its a very advanced little diesel engine which produces loads of low down torque in a car that weighs about as much as a shoe....
If that makes you feel better at all.....[
ha ha multijet yes it probably was . It was pitch black and raining and I could hardly see anything . So it was a diesel ! no I can't say that makes me feel a whole lot better .[
If you told me it was a turbo diesel It might be easier lol Some of these new diesel turbos are amazing arn't they .
Oh yes it does have a turbo bolted to it too![
]
sawood12
New member
Well the thing with modern diesel engines and comparing with petrol engined cars is that you are rarely comparing like with like. You can't compare a 2 ltr turbo diesel to a 2 ltr N/A petrol engine. The reality is that a 2 ltr turbo'd petrol engine will see off a 2 ltr turbo'd diesel engine. And the modern generation of Audi 2 ltr turbocharged direct injection petrol engines will return MPG's well into the 40's (verified by a mate of mine who has just got a new petrol A5 2.0ltr turbo, and it's not even run in yet). The technology that has brought diesel engines into the 21st century is only just starting to trickle their way through to petrol engines i.e. direct injection, sequential and variable vane turbo's etc. It wont be long before petrol engine'd cars are achieving the torque levels and economy of diesel engine'd cars.
Porsche have said they will never develop their own diesel engine (they are just about to introduce VW diesel engines into the Ceyenne and Panamera but are not developing their own) because they think the petrol engine has far more development potential left to go and by contrast diesel engine's are pretty much as good as they can ever get - the low grade, low octane fuel being their ultimate achillies heal. Internal combustion engine's are ultimately heat engines and diesel fuel burns alot cooler than petrol, and you will never get around that - petrol simply contains more energy per ltr than diesel.
Once we realise that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not linked to global warming and the tide of political opinion swings away from the focus on CO2 emissions to the emissions which are really doing damage to our environment they'll soon see what filthy 'orrible things diesel engines are and stamp down hard on them.
Porsche have said they will never develop their own diesel engine (they are just about to introduce VW diesel engines into the Ceyenne and Panamera but are not developing their own) because they think the petrol engine has far more development potential left to go and by contrast diesel engine's are pretty much as good as they can ever get - the low grade, low octane fuel being their ultimate achillies heal. Internal combustion engine's are ultimately heat engines and diesel fuel burns alot cooler than petrol, and you will never get around that - petrol simply contains more energy per ltr than diesel.
Once we realise that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not linked to global warming and the tide of political opinion swings away from the focus on CO2 emissions to the emissions which are really doing damage to our environment they'll soon see what filthy 'orrible things diesel engines are and stamp down hard on them.
I think there is some sense above and some not so sound comment.
Paul is absolutely right about the weight of a 944T - only tens of kgs heavier than my Mini Cooper S for example.
John is also right about where the 944Ts difference kicks in. Small hatches feel nippy even with puny engines because they are totally designed for city driving so their torque delivery and gearing are all about the 0-50mph range. Their bigger engined sporty versions are no quicker at low speeds because they aren't optimised for that and are heavier and longer geared, but they aren't slower either, they just hold on a bit longer.
I had the opportunity to play with a few cars while I had my RS6 - which was not standard. Literally nothing I came up against was quicker at speed, including a 430 Spyder, Noble M12 GTO, reasonable size (though not cutting edge crotch-rocket) "naked" bike etc., but on one occasion a Clio 172 was able to stay with me on the acceleration between some of the roundabouts on the A43 around Silverstone, it wasn't until we'd hit 85+ that I had significant legs on him. In other words at legal speeds it's very difficult to generate a significant accelerative advantage over fairly mundane modern road cars.
I don't believe that anyone here has experienced even a 6.x second 0-60, myself included. Neil has mentioned how surprisingly long a 0-60 takes measured with a G-Tech and I concur. Very disappointing every time I have tried it, but it's all down to mechanical sympathy. Road testers regularly make mention of how brutal extracting a quick 0-60 time is, and I genuinely think that there is nothing to be gained on a road car over what a shopping hatch has been able to do for some years now in the crucial 0-30mph component simply because nobody will ever drive harder than that in their own car.
My RS6 sewed the seed in me that the fun way to go is the little nippy car. Even my Mini is a bit too much; not significanly quicker than many, many other cars at legal speeds and encourages me to drive at illegal speeds because that's where it becomes fun. In fact looking back I should have realised before the RS6 as at one point I had a pair of MX5s, one a standard 1.8 and the other a turbocharged 1.6 making about twice the power. The turbo one was able to go sideways on demand pretty much anywhere (even on a straight almost), but with hindsight the 1.8 was the more fun to drive overall. I don't think I am alone in this theory as Evo for example raved about the Panda 100hp.
Never mind S2 vs. Turbo, pehaps the question should be 2.0 924 vs. 944 Turbo.
Paul is absolutely right about the weight of a 944T - only tens of kgs heavier than my Mini Cooper S for example.
John is also right about where the 944Ts difference kicks in. Small hatches feel nippy even with puny engines because they are totally designed for city driving so their torque delivery and gearing are all about the 0-50mph range. Their bigger engined sporty versions are no quicker at low speeds because they aren't optimised for that and are heavier and longer geared, but they aren't slower either, they just hold on a bit longer.
I had the opportunity to play with a few cars while I had my RS6 - which was not standard. Literally nothing I came up against was quicker at speed, including a 430 Spyder, Noble M12 GTO, reasonable size (though not cutting edge crotch-rocket) "naked" bike etc., but on one occasion a Clio 172 was able to stay with me on the acceleration between some of the roundabouts on the A43 around Silverstone, it wasn't until we'd hit 85+ that I had significant legs on him. In other words at legal speeds it's very difficult to generate a significant accelerative advantage over fairly mundane modern road cars.
I don't believe that anyone here has experienced even a 6.x second 0-60, myself included. Neil has mentioned how surprisingly long a 0-60 takes measured with a G-Tech and I concur. Very disappointing every time I have tried it, but it's all down to mechanical sympathy. Road testers regularly make mention of how brutal extracting a quick 0-60 time is, and I genuinely think that there is nothing to be gained on a road car over what a shopping hatch has been able to do for some years now in the crucial 0-30mph component simply because nobody will ever drive harder than that in their own car.
My RS6 sewed the seed in me that the fun way to go is the little nippy car. Even my Mini is a bit too much; not significanly quicker than many, many other cars at legal speeds and encourages me to drive at illegal speeds because that's where it becomes fun. In fact looking back I should have realised before the RS6 as at one point I had a pair of MX5s, one a standard 1.8 and the other a turbocharged 1.6 making about twice the power. The turbo one was able to go sideways on demand pretty much anywhere (even on a straight almost), but with hindsight the 1.8 was the more fun to drive overall. I don't think I am alone in this theory as Evo for example raved about the Panda 100hp.
Never mind S2 vs. Turbo, pehaps the question should be 2.0 924 vs. 944 Turbo.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
