Megane vs Auris Road test.

Henry Ford III

Shocking result :eek: Cup of tea for Colm please

Here

unkel

Nothing new or shocking, is there?

Although I don't understand why Toyota sell a 2.2 diesel Auris. There's no market for it. Anybody interested in a diesel Auris would go for the 1.4. Anybody interested in a hot hatch would not buy an Auris

JHMEG

Not sure how either can be called a hot-hatch, with times close to 10 sec for the 0-100km/h.

Don't think anyone looking for a hot-hatch would buy either Megane or Auris.

maidhc

unkel wrote:

Nothing new or shocking, is there?

Although I don't understand why Toyota sell a 2.2 diesel Auris. There's no market for it. Anybody interested in a diesel Auris would go for the 1.4. Anybody interested in a hot hatch would not buy an Auris

It isn't sold here! It is sold where there is a market..e.g. the rest of Europe and the UK.

I thought that the Auris 2.2 had a focus like rear suspension set up to make it go around corners. The standard one only has torsion bars!

unkel

Indeed, JHMEG. The original Golf GTI did it in what, 9s 30 years ago? Todays hot hatches like a Golf GTI, MINI Cooper S, Civic Type-R, etc. etc. are much quicker than that at about 7s

Henry Ford III

Hot hatch as in diesel hot hatch. They are a bit slow from a standstill for a 175bhp car ok, but in gear pickup is strong. Torque is all important in real life.

I agree the VRT situation here makes this type of car a rarity, but the emmissions based system in the UK (coming here soon btw) makes it relevant.

Once again the all new Toyota (even this high end version) is shown to be dull, with relatively poor handling.

maidhc

Henry Ford III wrote:

Hot hatch as in diesel hot hatch. They are a bit slow from a standstill for a 175bhp car ok, but in gear pickup is strong. Torque is all important in real life.

The miserable 0-60 has more to with have to do more gear changes due to the lack of revs.

Also diesels tend to have a low 1st gear (so they are drivable around town I assume).

I'd say for overtaking and coming out of bends the Golf GTI would be massacred though!

RobAMerc

unkel wrote:

Although I don't understand why Toyota sell a 2.2 diesel Auris. There's no market for it.

Not in Ireland where we cripple based on engine size but the rest of the world still likes reasonable sized engines.

JHMEG wrote:

Don't think anyone looking for a hot-hatch would buy either Megane or Auris.

The Magane 225 Sport is probably the best hot hatch around at the moment according to some.

Henery Ford III wrote:

Hot hatch as in diesel hot hatch. They are a bit slow from a standstill for a 175bhp car ok, but in gear pickup is strong. Torque is all important in real life.

0-60mph means nothing - these babies will blow most petrol cars away where it matters 50-70mph, the biggest disadvantage they'd have over their petrol counterparts is a nose heavy weight distribution because of the heavier diesel engines, this will effect balance and steering feel, but diesel is getting close!

JHMEG

unkel wrote:

Indeed, JHMEG. The original Golf GTI did it in what, 9s 30 years ago? Todays hot hatches like a Golf GTI, MINI Cooper S, Civic Type-R, etc. etc. are much quicker than that at about 7s

Most of them now would be under 7 seconds.

@maidhc, see the posts a while back about torque gets multiplied by the gearbox. A high revving petrol engine, where the engine is rotating at twice the speed of the wheels for example, will put down twice the torque, owing to the multiplier effect of the gearing. A low revving diesel, where the engine is rotating at the same speed as the wheels for example, does not.

The diesel might have more torque at the flywheel, but because it revs high the petrol puts more on the road. It means the petrol engine has to be stoked tho, but shur that's what a hot-hatch is all about?

RobAMerc wrote:

these babies will blow most petrol cars away where it matters 50-70mph

I don't think so. In 3rd gear 50-70 in my car would mean about 6000-7500rpm. Think of all that multiplication going on!

maidhc

JHMEG wrote:

@maidhc, see the posts a while back about torque gets multiplied by the gearbox. A high revving petrol engine, where the engine is rotating at twice the speed of the wheels for example, will put down twice the torque, owing to the multiplier effect of the gearing. A low revving diesel, where the engine is rotating at the same speed as the wheels for example, does not.

Don't wan't to get stuck in arguments about torque (again!), but no diesel engine rotates at the same speed as the wheels, they are all geared down, albeit not to the same extent as a petrol.

If I was buying a sports car it would be petrol. However if I wanted a fast everyday car that was affordable to run and effortless to drive, then a diesel hot hatch is a very sensible suggestion.

Henry Ford III

If/when the VRT and road tax system changes to an emissions based one, this type of car will become much more popular.

bazz26

There is one for sale in the country but at €42k you see why there is no market here for such a car:

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=716871

Not too far away from me either so might take it for a spin and form my own opinion rather than relying on someone else for one.

Henry Ford III

bazz26 wrote:

There is one for sale in the country but at €42k you see why there is no market here for such a car:

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=716871

Not too far away from me either so might take it for a spin and form my own opinion rather than relying on someone else for one.

Do just that mate

Whilst you are there remind them it's a 2.2 litre. Their ad. is wrong

Price is crazy. €42k for a 2nd hand one of those :eek:

p.s. You could buy a Focus ST brand new for €8500 less I reckon.

JHMEG

@maidhc: the maths behind this are very very simple:

Take a typical tyre 195/55-R15.

Total diameter is 15in + [(in mm) 2 x (55% of 195) = 8.4in] = 23.4in
Circumference is 23.4in x pi = 73.5in

Therefore every rotation covers 73.5 inches.

63360 inches in a mile. Therefore the tyre rotates 862 times every mile.

60mph equals 1 mile per minute. Therefore the tyre is doing 862rpm.

A diesel engine at 4000rpm at 60mph with those tyres will be putting down 4.64 (4000/862) times the available torque at that rpm.

A petrol engine at 8000rpm at 60mph will be putting down 9.28 times the available torque.

In real world terms:
@4000rpm a Ford Focus TDCi will be putting down 4.64 x 300Nm = 1392Nm.
@8000rpm a Honda Civic Type-R will be putting down 9.28 x 190Nm = 1763Nm.

I made a few assumptions here:
a) That both cars can do said speeds at said RPM (they can't do them exactly)
b) I discounted frictional losses through the transmission. I'm assuming the losses are the same in both cars.
c) It's likely the Civic would be wearing bigger tyres than the Focus, and therefore the torque multiplier wouldn't be as large.
d) Peak torque is not at 4000 or 8000 for either engine. It's hard to find out what exactly is at those rpms.

I agree with you that the diesel would be more relaxing to drive, but then it's really no more than a "warm" hatch?

[This was all explained on another post by another boards member and made perfect sense to me at the time. If I can find the post I'll credit the author for showing me the light]

bazz26

Henry Ford III wrote:

Do just that mate

Whilst you are there remind them it's a 2.2 litre. Their ad. is wrong

Price is crazy. €42k for a 2nd hand one of those :eek:

p.s. You could buy a Focus ST brand new for €8500 less I reckon.

Cheers I will indeed, I have an hour or two to kill on Saturday.

RobAMerc

JHMEG wrote:

I don't think so. In 3rd gear 50-70 in my car would mean about 6000-7500rpm. Think of all that multiplication going on!

What ??? Who mentioned 3rd gear or your car ? Its not about maths mate its about poke ! Maybe put your calculator down and read this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055078455&referrerid=&highlight=megane

JHMEG

RobAMerc wrote:

What ??? Who mentioned 3rd gear or your car ? Its not about maths mate its about poke ! Maybe put your calculator down and read this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055078455&referrerid=&highlight=megane

Read my explanation above. Now unless the Megane diesel runs to 8,000 rpm, my weedy 1.6 petrol probably is putting down more torque than the Megane is.

maidhc

JHMEG wrote:

Read my explanation above. Now unless the Megane diesel runs to 8,000 rpm, my weedy 1.6 petrol probably is putting down more torque than the Megane is.

... but the engine is what makes the power, and unless you have a CVT transmission than keeps the engine spinning at 8000 rpm, and assuming that the engine is able to keep spinning at a high rpm as the force from hills and wind resistance increases (and consequently as there is less mulitplication going on...) you weedy 1.6 will run out of grunt quite quickly.

You really should try driving a diesel!

JHMEG

maidhc wrote:

... but the engine is what makes the power, and unless you have a CVT transmission than keeps the engine spinning at 8000 rpm, and assuming that the engine is able to keep spinning at a high rpm as the force from hills and wind resistance increases (and consequently as there is less mulitplication going on...) you weedy 1.6 will run out of grunt quite quickly.

You really should try driving a diesel!

If you understand my explanation above you'd see (easily) that the faster an engine spins the more torque it will put down at a given speed and diesels can't spin very fast.

PS. I have driven diesels, many times.

RobAMerc

JHMEG wrote:

Read my explanation above. Now unless the Megane diesel runs to 8,000 rpm, my weedy 1.6 petrol probably is putting down more torque than the Megane is.

Lets get this straight, are you saying that despite the fact the dci Megane is faster than a 225bhp petrol Megane from 50 to 70, because your 1.6 car revs higher at 50mph when multiplied by your calculator it will be faster than the dci megane ? - I think not !

maidhc

JHMEG wrote:

If you understand my explanation above you'd see (easily) that the faster an engine spins the more torque it will put down at a given speed and diesels can't spin very fast.

PS. I have driven diesels, many times.

I see that, but you are assuming that power = speed, while in reality power = force x speed. Your 1.6 has no force!

JHMEG

maidhc wrote:

I see that, but you are assuming that power = speed, while in reality power = force x speed. Your 1.6 has no force!

No! Read and understand the maths! And a statement like "car X has 300Nm" of torque does not necessarily mean anything when it comes to real world performance.

@RobAmerc, yes you're right. It's diesel so it must be faster from 50-70mph. Do the maths and post your results.

maidhc

JHMEG wrote:

No! Read and understand the maths! And a statement like "car X has 300Nm" of torque does not necessarily mean anything when it comes to real world performance.

Yes it does. It means the engine is relying on speed rather than force to generate its maximum bhp!

colm_mcm

Jesus, I reckon I should be selling Renaults instead. The in depth report didn't touch on the fact that the Megane is a pile of junk though.

Re the Auris for 42k: A lexus IS220D is only a few k more!

Henry Ford III

colm_mcm wrote:

Jesus, I reckon I should be selling Renaults instead. The in depth report didn't touch on the fact that the Megane is a pile of junk though.

Re the Auris for 42k: A lexus IS220D is only a few k more!

Sounds like a real bargain

colm_mcm

Even the Auris 2.0 D-4D Luna is poor value when you consider the price of the Avensis 2.0 D-4D Luna.

Henry Ford III

colm_mcm wrote:

Even the Auris 2.0 D-4D Luna is poor value when you consider the price of the Avensis 2.0 D-4D Luna.

Possibly. What do you call someone who drives a Luna btw?

Loony or Lunatic?

colm_mcm

Depends on who they bought it off

JHMEG

maidhc wrote:

Yes it does. It means the engine is relying on speed rather than force to generate its maximum bhp!

Overly simplistic, and ignores the effects of the gearbox.

RoundyMooney

colm_mcm wrote:

Jesus, I reckon I should be selling Renaults instead.

Please don't. You'd be a quivering shadow of your former self within a month

maidhc

JHMEG wrote:

Overly simplistic, and ignores the effects of the gearbox.

Not really. Your formula ignores the whole Newtonian concept of force!