After a run in with a nissan nevaro that easily out accelerated my 20v n/a
It has 170bhp with 408nm of torque 2ton
20v n/a has 147 bhp and 186nm of torque 1.2ton

Is it better having large torque over larger bhp?

Cheers

TC

Well, quite simply - BHP is a function of torque and RPM. There is a formula I can provide if you wish... If you're not a lazy driver then its always beneficial to have more bhp - because you'll make sure your high revving and peaky car is in the correct gear to make the best of it. BHP is a way of expressing the amount of work being done by the engine at that time.

You probably left your car in too high a gear, ya? If you'd down shifted and made better use of your superior power/weight ratio you'd have seen him off. His torque to weight is vastly better however, so if you were to slug it out at low rpm in a high gear he'd trounce you.

Only real way to beat the 4x4 brigade is more power? I think Fiat did a turbo version of the Coupe..memory serves they were 220Hp as standard?

Cheers for that Matt

I was quite surprised at how well the nissan pulled away, I was in third
and quite low down the rev range saw what was coming and put the
foot to the floor expecting to see his nose start retreating.
(It normally does in my 16VT so I expected similar in my 20v N/A)
only for him to carry on past with ease!

Thanks for the explanation, is that why the golf gti diesels are quick
due to low reving engines and high torque outputs?

Cheers

TC

Humerous I was being. English confuses me: in most languages object pronouns come before the verb....

I liked my na lots. 2000 VIS with a bit more power, but I learned that it wasn't great for burning off 4x4's or much else. Overtake yes, but not that quickly with 154Hp and 1.3t. 118Hp/ton? and it was game on & pretty equal with most hot hatches.

NA is a great car but rocket assisted it ain't.

(Ducks the flying bricks from the n/a owners association).

Loved my n/a to bits so no bricks coming from my direction. Yes it would struggle getting rid of a modern TD but so what! It was still the same great looking car and still great fun to drive. Just didn't have one of those turbo thingies attached.

Remember - torque gives you acceleration, power gives you top speed.

I don't get it, my dad's diesel has the same torque as a standard coop and weighs the same, yet takes 9 secs to 60. So obviously it isn't torque that dictates the acceleration.

Nissan do a v6 version as well, could have been that.
Can't say i would want to admit being beat by a 4x4 diesel pick-up.

mmmm cake

Re: diesel cars and revving, I never realised how boring they were! you get all this torque but only till about 4.5K revs and then it just dissappears, the range is very limited and makes driving dull. Couple that with the sound the engine makes, and I don't think petrol is on it's last legs just yet!

What you want is a good amount of torque over a large range of revs.

Electric engines! Peak torque at stall

Neil

Doesn't seem to slow down a train

thinks... constant speed high efficiency gas turbine under the bonnet driving a generator, feeding, say, 40kW pancake motors in each wheel hub...

Neil

Seem to remember Rover tried that with the P9 back in the 60's but couldn't get it to work...Modern version would be best with a small, high power aviation turbine but the cost, heat & engineering problems would be high.