Megane vs Auris Road test.

E92

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!

Power is Work done per unit time. Work is Force by distance(well displacement actually(distance in a straight line), but lets not go there, we're not in the Physics forum:D )

Torque is actually force by distance. So basically Power is Torque per second. And Force is weight by acceleration(technically mass, but again we're not in the Physics class:D )

Using SI units, a torque is 1 N m. Which is actually 1 J. A power is 1 Watt. Which is 1 J per second. Which is 1 N m per second. Which is one torque per second in simple English. Power is basically torque per second, using the metric system. I'm sure someone else has either explained it better, or can explain it better, and I know that Physisists will kill me for using the 'wrong' terminology from time to time, and I also know I simplified some of it, but being honest what I have said is complicated enough for most normal people .

bazz26

Am I in the motors or science forum?

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!

Then diesel is defintely from the Dark Side.

maidhc

bazz26 wrote:

Am I in the motors or science forum?

Just remember that E=mc2, and everything else will fall into place.

Balfa

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!

lol... my work here is done JHMEG, all you need to do is refer them to the previous thread.

maidhc

Balfa wrote:

lol... my work here is done JHMEG, all you need to do is refer them to the previous thread.

It made no sense there either. The maths are bang on, but it is an affront to common sense and the real world!

Balfa

maidhc wrote:

It made no sense there either. The maths are bang on, but it is an affront to common sense and the real world!

Sorry, but saying the maths are bang on but don't apply is an affront to common sense. If the maths didn't apply to the situation, then they wouldn't be bang on, would they?

There's no simplification involved, it's all real world stuff.
Taking the engine and gearbox as a single, torque-outputting entity (which is what matters, assuming the chief technical designer is someone who's able to gear an engine correctly, and assuming that the driver has the understanding and intention to go fast and keep the car in the right gear for the speed) JHMEG's 200hp Civic "has" more torque than any 175hp car, diesel or otherwise.

I prefer diesels. They're more sensible and relaxed. But if the mood took me to give it some welly, I'd be getting where I was going faster in a higher horsepower petrol.

maidhc

Balfa wrote:

Taking the engine and gearbox as a single, torque-outputting entity (which is what matters, assuming the chief technical designer is someone who's able to gear an engine correctly, and assuming that the driver has the understanding and intention to go fast and keep the car in the right gear for the speed) J.

I agree. But my point is an engine with a higher torque will pull though the gears much more strongly than an engine with lower torque. Sure if you can keep the power plant spinning at 8000rpm you will go faster, but in non race track driving that is as impossible as it is impractical.

So you can plant the throttle in a 175bhp diesel in 5th and it will overtake anything, while the 200bhp petrol will sit on its hands unless it is in 3rd gear. For most people that makes the diesel more "powerful", and certainly easier and quicker to drive for non professional drivers.

colm_mcm

with torque and power curves being what they are, it's a lot more complex than saying, my diesel has x torque and x bhp.