Fiat Punto's really that bad?

BrianD3 · 24-11-2003 11:08pm

I've driven VW 1.9 TDI's 150 and the Boxster S and your living in cuckoo land if you think the VW will even see which way the Boxster S went.

The Golf produces more torque than the Porsche and importantly produces it at much lower revs. This means that in certain situations the Golf will beat a Boxster S. In terms of 0-60 and top speed the Porsche will win - but from say 50-70 in top gear the Golf will almost certainly win. And this is the sort of performance which is important for overtaking.

BrianD3

RicardoSmith · 24-11-2003 11:59pm

Originally posted by BrianD3
The Golf produces more torque than the Porsche and importantly produces it at much lower revs. This means that in certain situations the Golf will beat a Boxster S. In terms of 0-60 and top speed the Porsche will win - but from say 50-70 in top gear the Golf will almost certainly win. And this is the sort of performance which is important for overtaking.

BrianD3

Have you driven a mid engined rear wheel driven car? If the golf was 100% faster in every statistic than the boxster its still wouldn't be 5% the experience the boxster is. Heres the Boxster stats. Can you give us some for the Golf TDI (150bhp) I've given up looking. I don't have any car mags at home. But I'm curious what the specs are.

UK Boxster S - http://content3.eu.porsche.com/prod/boxster/boxsters.nsf/gbrenglish/technical_specifications
US Boxster S - http://www.autoracing1.com/DaveC/Boxster_S.htm

trotter_inc · 25-11-2003 10:04am

Thanks Draffoxd!

Have been getting my driving lessons in a fiesta and they're fun to drive alright, havent really drove many other cars though so cant really say.

Was looking for a Colt alright - there's not many around though, but will keep trying.

Funny enough though my inurance is the same price no matter what size engine I get - as long as its under 1.5.

Thanks.

BrianD3 · 25-11-2003 10:56am

Have you driven a mid engined rear wheel driven car? If the golf was 100% faster in every statistic than the boxster its still wouldn't be 5% the experience the boxster is. Heres the Boxster stats. Can you give us some for the Golf TDI (150bhp) I've given up looking. I don't have any car mags at home. But I'm curious what the specs are.

Look, nobody's saying the Golf is a better drive than the Porsche. The Boxster S is a mid engined sportscar, the Golf TDi 150 is a small family car which is less than half the price of the Porsche.

Despite this, in certain situations, the Golf should beat or match the Porsche in terms of performance. Golf produces ~235 lbs/ft torque at ~2000 rpm.The Figures for the porsche are ~225 and ~4000 rpm. The Porsche is also heavier than the Golf. I haven't got any performance figures to hand but from these torque figures the Golf will almost certainly beat the Porsche from 50-70 mph in top gear.

BrianD3

Hagar · 25-11-2003 11:06am

I currently have a 2 litre Bulmers but its nearly empty. Back in a few mins...

RicardoSmith · 25-11-2003 11:12am

Originally posted by BrianD3
Look, nobody's saying the Golf is a better drive than the Porsche. The Boxster S is a mid engined sportscar, the Golf TDi 150 is a small family car which is less than half the price of the Porsche.

Despite this, in certain situations, the Golf should beat or match the Porsche in terms of performance. Golf produces ~235 lbs/ft torque at ~2000 rpm.The Figures for the porsche are ~225 and ~4000 rpm. The Porsche is also heavier than the Golf. I haven't got any performance figures to hand but from these torque figures the Golf will almost certainly beat the Porsche from 50-70 mph in top gear.

BrianD3

The Golf IV (150TDI is a fat bloated v.expensive hatchback with cr*p handling. Even the GT TDI isn't too handy on twisty road. Torgue isn't the whole story and if you can't give weight and in gear times to back up your claim, we'll agree to disagree. I mean theres lots of vehicles out there with more torque thats no big swing. Your only talking 10 lbs/ft torque anyway, hardly a huge advantage. Its all down to how quick does the boxster get to 4k and the TDI to 2K? On a windy road or on a motorway theres no way that TDI could stay with the boxster, even if the speed was constantly in the 50-70 band which isn't likely in itself.

That siad I love the TDI's I think they are brilliant. Especially the GT TDI with the 6 speed box. But lets call a spoon a spoon. Incidentally the handling & steeing on the stock astra TD is much better than the VW TDI's a by a long way. (Guess thats the lotus influence) The 1.7 TD is a nice nippy, but not quick. Dunno what the 2.2 TD is like, I'd say that fairly shifts like the VW TDI 150bhp.

They ran a TDI Golf in a few sports evens like 24hr racing and even rallying for a while. Don't know if they are still doing that.

Dunno what this has to do with Puntos though

JHMEG · 25-11-2003 2:08pm

The Golf produces more torque than the Porsche and importantly produces it at much lower revs. This means that in certain situations the Golf will beat a Boxster S.

The only thing a PD150 Golf (which btw is a rare version of the TDI) will beat a Boxter, or indeed any other similar car, is at pulling trailers!

Torque = Ability to do work.
Power (bhp) = Rate at which that work can be done.

e.g. 1,000 foot-pounds of torque is a helluva lot, and can do a lot or work. Like pulling trailers or pulling train wagons. However if the power figure is low, it means it can pull a heavy load, but not very fast.

e.g. 1,000bhp is also a helluva lot, and can do work very fast. But if the torque figure is low, it cannot do a lot of work.

Some examples:
Honda S2000: High power, but low torque. However as it has a light body, good gearing, and is RWD, it accelerates like bejaysus! But it would be no good at pulling trailers.

CIE GM 201 Class Diesel Locomotive: Huge torque. But as you know every time you get on one of these trains, their acceleration is very poor (0-60 in about 2 minutes!)
but they can pull one helluva load.

Large capacity American Muscle cars: Huge torque, huge power. These things weigh about 3 tonnes (versus 1-1.6 tonnes for a typical car). The engine could be an 8-litre V-12! So, even though they weigh a shed load they're still quite fast (and would be fast pulling a trailer too!). Pity they weight affects their handling so badly tho...

And btw, all Golfs seem to have jelly in the suspension...

BrianD3 · 25-11-2003 4:19pm

Listen, it's a helluva lot more complicated than what you're suggesting i.e torque is for pulling trailers, bhp is for going fast. Torque has got a lot to do with acceleration, both from a standing start and say overtaking a slow moving vehicle. Haven't time to explain it here anyone's who's interested just do a google search for bhp + torque + acceleration.

Large capacity American Muscle cars: Huge torque, huge power. These things weigh about 3 tonnes (versus 1-1.6 tonnes for a typical car). The engine could be an 8-litre V-12!

No that's wrong. American muscle cars do not weigh 3 tonnes, more like 1.5-2 tonnes. And they generally have V8 or sometimes V10 engines. Rarely (never?) a V12. Prime example of a US muscle car - 69 Dodge Charger 440 V8. Weight ~1700 kg bhp ~375 Torque ~480.

BrianD3

Atomic Pineapple · 25-11-2003 6:10pm

lol dont think you two rowing over which car is faster or better is helping trotter_inc much!

Anyway, yeh not much colts about but my cousin had one and it was a great little car for running about, would highly reccomend it and the fiesta as a starter car, they both have decent power for small cars, both have decent handling and both cheap on the insurance.

JHMEG · 25-11-2003 8:24pm

BrianD3, simply put, torque is for pulling, bhp is for speed. Hence tractors are high torque, and motorbikes aren't. Yes, it's a lot more complicated, and like you said, google is best for that. My explanation was an in-a-nutshell one, and covers the guts of it.

Ok, I may have exaggerated the specs of the muscle cars, but that was to emphasise they're fast and can pull big trailers!

And don't tell me a Diesel will ever be best at anything other than for agricultural use! (Yes, I'm a petrol biggot, and I admit it!)

Chaz · 30-11-2003 8:19pm

puntosporting - you have a private message.
Anyone else that can help - bought my wife a 97 Punto S - having overheating problems - I am mechanically minded - but am stuck trying to solve this one.
Anyone have experience with the Puntos - or mecanically minded so i can explain whats happnening - and waht ive tried.

BrianD3 · 30-11-2003 8:40pm

Anyone else that can help - bought my wife a 97 Punto S - having overheating problems

Why not post the problem here (maybe start a new thread) and see if anyone can help.

PS Ricardosmith: got some figures for you.
Golf TDi 130 - 50-70 mph in 5th gear - 5.8 seconds
Source: What Car magazine Nov 2002
Porsche Boxster 2.5 - 50-70 mph in 5th gear - 10.7 seconds
Source: Autocar magazine 8/1/97

Yes I know we were talking about the Boxster S which is more powerful and quicker but not massively so (about 50 bhp more and 1 second faster to 60 etc.) Plus the above figures are for the Golf TDi 130, couldn't find any 50-70 data for the TDi 150 but again it's going to be a little quicker given the extra bhp and torque compared to the 130.

JHMEG: what's that you were saying about diesels only being good for pulling trailers?

BrianD3

BigEejit · 30-11-2003 10:21pm

The 1.25 Zetec Fiesta is a great car ... nippy and comfortable to drive .. beware the 3 door versions, they will most likely have been owned at some stage by a young fella tearing the arse out of them .... 5 door versions were probably family cars and got no real abuse...Also the spare tyre is underneath the car, not in the boot.

My wife has a Jap Import 1L Micra and it'd beat anything 0 - 30 (including that Passat and Boxster:D).... but I would not recommend it for long drives, uncomfortable and a lot of road noise ... grand for nipping around, you'd park it anywhere, and being a Jap import it has Air Con and all electrics .... that got a lot of use this summer.... And the bottom line is it takes ~€22 to fill the tank and it lasts for ages, it a 94 and cost me about €3400 when it had 44k kilometers on the clock ... I had a problem with an oxygen sensor which cost ~€500 and no other problems (touch wood) in 3 years

Atomic Pineapple · 30-11-2003 10:46pm

yeh have a 1.3 zetec-s myself, is a very good little car, great accelaration, great handling, drinks petrol though, €35 to fill the tank and would only last 3 days, although i do alot of driving get about 300miles out of the tank.

Its a five door but i have drove the arse off it to be honest, its very therapuetic (sp?) when i get stressed out! :rolleyes:

would definatly reccomend them as an entry car but the colt is a nicer looking car.

RicardoSmith · 01-12-2003 2:37am

Originally posted by BrianD3
Why not post the problem here (maybe start a new thread) and see if anyone can help.

PS Ricardosmith: got some figures for you.
Golf TDi 130 - 50-70 mph in 5th gear - 5.8 seconds
Source: What Car magazine Nov 2002
Porsche Boxster 2.5 - 50-70 mph in 5th gear - 10.7 seconds
Source: Autocar magazine 8/1/97

Yes I know we were talking about the Boxster S which is more powerful and quicker but not massively so (about 50 bhp more and 1 second faster to 60 etc.) Plus the above figures are for the Golf TDi 130, couldn't find any 50-70 data for the TDi 150 but again it's going to be a little quicker given the extra bhp and torque compared to the 130.

JHMEG: what's that you were saying about diesels only being good for pulling trailers?

BrianD3

Why are the figures for 5th gear for pitys sake? The only reason I can think of doing it 5th gear is for giving an indication of torque not speed. The whole point of the 50-70 statistic is and indication of how short a time it can accelerate and overtake. The boxster s does 0-100mph in under 14sec and 0-60 in under 6sec. The offical time for the standard boxster is 7 sec for 50-70.

BrianD3 · 01-12-2003 11:27am

Why are the figures for 5th gear for pitys sake? The only reason I can think of doing it 5th gear is for giving an indication of torque not speed.

Doing it in 5th gives an indication of engine flexibility, low down/mid range grunt and ability to overtake without having to drop down a gear or two. You asked me to provide some figures, I have done so. You stated that the Golf wouldn't see what way the Porsche went - I have shown you that in certain situations the opposite is true.

BrianD3

tinofapples · 01-12-2003 1:21pm

I bought a brand new Punto 60SX in 99. It was my first car I put up 20k miles in two years and never had any problem whatsoever with it.

As has already been said it was a well spec car for the price and I thought was as nice (Nicer in most cases) if not nicer than its competitors.

I changed the car cause I wanted something with a bit more comfort and power , a Vectra and now an Accord .

Like i think most cars you can be un/lucky as to what kind (Quality) of car you get when buying used and sometimes new !!

RicardoSmith · 01-12-2003 11:12pm

Originally posted by BrianD3
Doing it in 5th gives an indication of engine flexibility, low down/mid range grunt and ability to overtake without having to drop down a gear or two. You asked me to provide some figures, I have done so. You stated that the Golf wouldn't see what way the Porsche went - I have shown you that in certain situations the opposite is true.

BrianD3

If you're in 5th gear...:D

BrianD3 · 01-12-2003 11:23pm

If you're in 5th gear...

Yep

Don't scoff at it though. Good mid-range acceleration in 5th may be unimportant on a racetrack but it is a useful thing to have on a public road. That's why one of the standard performance tests that the car magazines do is.....50-70 mph in 5th gear.

BrianD3

RicardoSmith · 02-12-2003 12:02am

Originally posted by BrianD3
Yep Don't scoff at it though. Good mid-range acceleration in 5th may be unimportant on a racetrack but it is a useful thing to have on a public road. That's why one of the standard performance tests that the car magazines do is.....50-70 mph in 5th gear.

BrianD3

Do you ever overtake in 5th gear? 5th gear is for cruising and economy, unless you've 6 gears. I'd say most people overtake in 3rd and 4th.

unkel · 02-12-2003 2:32am

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
The reason the Passat overtook the Alfa was because your mate a rubbish driver and the Alfa's wheels had fallen off. ....Again...:D

ROTFL - he insists on buying Italian though

Will stand by my point on torque though

Originally posted by BrianD3
Yep Don't scoff at it though. Good mid-range acceleration in 5th may be unimportant on a racetrack but it is a useful thing to have on a public road. That's why one of the standard performance tests that the car magazines do is.....50-70 mph in 5th gear. BrianD3

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Why are the figures for 5th gear for pitys sake? The only reason I can think of doing it 5th gear is for giving an indication of torque not speed. The whole point of the 50-70 statistic is and indication of how short a time it can accelerate and overtake. The boxster s does 0-100mph in under 14sec and 0-60 in under 6sec. The offical time for the standard boxster is 7 sec for 50-70.

Oh dear, hope I didn't cause this argument among my fellow car enthousiasts :cool:

Seriously, I am considering going diesel for my next car. My old 5 series V8 beamer has about 300NM of torque (goodbye toad Porsche Boxster). A 530D has about 500NM :eek:

Note to RicardoSmith: do you ever do 0-100mph on a public road? I don't. I do however want to have massive acceleration instantly when I feel I need it (typically on single carriageway country roads attempting to overtake). That is what torque is all about :cool:

RicardoSmith · 02-12-2003 3:09am

Generally I do my overtaking just coming on to a straight section of a road, generally before the idiot in front realises its a straight section and decides to accelerate from 30-35 to 80 on a the first bit of road that I have the opportunity to overtake. I'm driving a small engined car at the moment and you have to telegraph ahead a couple of days in advance before planning any overtaking manoevers.

When coming on to a road like the M50 or the M1 its not unusual to have to go to 0-70 ish fairly quickly. Personally I sit at 70 on the m50 and find I'm passed rather quickly by about 50% of the traffic in that lane. 0-100 no I don't since I have had my clean licence a long time and intend to keep it that way. But its rare to be able to sit at 50-70 for long periods of time too. even on the M50 in the morning the traffic rarely goes above 40mph for most it. I'd say on my daily 100 mile round trip I'm at sub 50 speeds 85% of the time.

My ideal car would be a 530D. Uncle has one. Lot quicker than it looks. I still think a boster s feels a lot quicker. Don't under estimate the diference rear wheel drive AND mid engined make to acceleration. Lot more weight over the rear for traction and grip. I say the Boxster S in 3rd has 50-70 time in the 7-6 secs. But I could only have one as a second car. Not that I could afford either unfortunately. But both 530D and Boxster S) are lovely to drive, something few VW's are. Used to have a Mrk2 Golf GTI nice but bit stodgy at the same time. Every VW since then that I have driven has been worse than that to drive. In fact the later ones can give you sea sickness they roll so much.

As for Fiat puntos being bad. Anyone I know with a bravo or punto has had only minor problems. The dealers seem a bit rubbish though, from what I hear. The older puntos were quite nice to drive. The 1.1 and the 1.4 turbo especially.The newer ones aren't as nice IMO. The sport is well equiped for the money.

Fiat Punto's really that bad?

Comments