|
|
|
today i drove a manual 4speed 3litre V8 stag. i reckon a new 1.2 16v 5speed manual corsa would out drag it (or at least beat it 0-60). am i right or just deluded? is this due to modern enging tecnology, light weight materials/car, or was the stag a bit s*agged? i only really got halfway into 2nd in the stag. ta. stagcorsa
|
|
|
|
|
suffolkpaul
Part of things
Retro Free - just a pug 406 with 230k miles on it...
Posts: 696
|
|
|
the stag only had abotu 140 hp to start with (rough guess bound to be wrong) and weight more. over time its prolly losrt a few hp but no weight. i know which one sounded better
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
longer post back on TA, but which looks and feels cooler to drive?
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
SteB
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,408
|
|
|
Its like the "Mid-engined Italian Supercars for less than the price of a mondeo" Topgear challenge - they all got shat on by an Astra round the track
Technology moves on, but its all good... engine transplants!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Stag's only good for a book 9.7s to 60, but it's no racer - it is a GT. However, once you got to 60, the Stag would still be piling on the speed much, much faster. That big ol' V8 will quite happily sing up to 7000RPM.
Get one of the HRS tuning jobs done, 200+ on SUs, 280 on Dellortos, rumoured 400 from the 4.8 ST division engines.....
I'd prefer the Stag though. Nicer everything, for a start ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ive seen 3 stags today and the corsa may well be faster but you wouldnt want to be seen dead in it and stags just sound so good
|
|
once again rocking with 1117cc and 4 gears!
|
|
|
|
|
Yep things seem to have moved quickly in the last few years. My 100E and Anglia used to be the quickest cars on the block by quite a margin but are now a lot slower than probably even the slowest of the hothatches and not a patch on any of the J cars. Dad's 34 has over 300hp and is an animal to drive but put it next to something like an Imprezza or an RX7 and it'll get dicked on. Depressing really.
|
|
|
|
|
old engines/new enginesBenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
|
I think some moderns have a lot of power, but not much mid-range torque. The smaller engined hatches seem to accelerate well from standing still, but if you need to get from 50-70mph a lot of them are gutless. I don't know if that's a combination of gearing and power / torque curves or what. I get out-dragged in my gf's Mk2 GTi sometimes, by some pretty ordinary stuff. But when it comes to a hill on a dual carriageway it pwns their asses.
Modern engines are definitely better, no doubt at all, but sometimes I think they're set up to do different things these days than they were 30 years ago.
|
|
Last Edit: Jun 7, 2006 8:55:28 GMT by BenzBoy
|
|
|
|
|
Mmmm, define "better". I'd prefer to just say "different".
I know exactly what you mean though. Our Celica will toast the tyres through the first two gears (as I accidentally found out with the wife in the car at the weekend, oops!) and if you catch it right you can really overtake with it, but that "just put your foot down" feeling of power isn't there...
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah! new small cars are nippy off the mark but when the going gets tough... and my V8 wont be as much as a street bruiser as it was meant to be in 1992, thanks to al these turbo'd monsters. two can play that game though! Certainly makes you think though.
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
|
|
old engines/new enginesBenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
|
Mmmm, define "better". I'd prefer to just say "different" Don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of good classic engines out there, but I just think that the technology found in more modern engines (from quite ordinary cars) was the stuff of either top-spec race engines or just never even thought up 30 years ago. Things like 16 valves, electronic fuel injection and very compact lightweight units make them a more attractive proposal for a transplant than (say) a Ford Pinto, in my opinion. It's horses for courses I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difference is in the powerbands. Most classic engines will deliver a good whack of torque across the whole rev range - nowadays, due to emissions, tuning and economy most power is delivered in a specific range, so you have to work the revs and gears well to keep on the roll. ... the 1.9 in my 1850 was a meagre 91BHP, but when you put your foot down at 3000RPM it'd really haul ass to 6000RPM, was great fun - it could supply good hauling power anywhere in the rev range - enough to embarress some modern cars
|
|
Last Edit: Jun 7, 2006 9:46:43 GMT by Lewis
|
|
|
old engines/new enginesBenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
|
True, my 2.0 Merc lump chucks out 125bhp (according to the dyno). Slow as fook from a standstill but if I put my foot down at 80 there's still plenty of welly there and it keeps pulling right the way off the clock*! (My speedo's probably well out at that speed, but regardless, there's always the torque there) *On private roads, officer....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toms Parisienne (305 V8 with 125bhp ) is a slow car..... It still seems to get to speed fairly quick though, and is a lot more relaxed. Torque is king, you don't get the low down "punch" with modern engines unless you work them , unless you're running something a bit special that is. I think modern engines are made to be quick when you rag the hell outta them, but less of a bite at "normal speeds", which kinda makes em boring. :-(. I think newer = faster, but older = more drivable..
|
|
The lurker formerly known as Cappuccinocruiser.. or wedgedout..
|
|
|
|
|
multivalves and loads of cams etc do not a good motor make...
My two favourite new engines are the Chevrolet LSx and the Mopar Hemi. Both use single cam in block with a single inlet and exhaust valve. These are both all-new engines designed from the ground up and they chose the "old school" layout because it performs better. backin the day when the LS1 was under development they built two - one with multi valves and DOHC and one as it came out with the single cam/valve setup. They put both prototype engines into a Corvette and compared them. The design which worked best was the single cam and thats why its in production now.
The current Dodge Charger is longer, wider and 400 lbs heavier than the "classic" Chargers of the late 60s. Its also runs a smaller engine (6.1 as the top option rather than the 7.2 in the 60s). The smallblock is more powerful. The '06 Charger is faster, quicker and more econmical than its forebear. Its also cleaner running and far better handling. But thats down to a lot of things which aren't about multivalve...
cylinder head technoloy is miles better now, engineers can model airflow properly and effects of quench and swirl are known. Cam profile designhas moved on miles too. Now fast ramping profiles can be designed which don't beat the rest of the valve train to death. use of alloys in bot fixed and reciprocating components due to bettter casting techniques... loads of stuff.
but the big one is managed EFI and ignition. This is what makes drivability so good.
The good news is that all of this can be applied to an older engine. I've seen peolpe building small and big blocks of older traditional designs making 100s more BHP than was considered streetable 15-20 years ago and they idle and drive right so they can be used in traffic.
Technology is neither good nor bad, its how its implemented.
Em used to have a Ford Ka and with its pushrod Endura motor I thought it was a far nicer drive than the Corsa 1.2 16V I have had the misfortune to drive... But the Corsa is "more powerful". Who cares.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Em used to have a Ford Ka and with its pushrod Endura motor I thought it was a far nicer drive than the Corsa 1.2 16V I have had the misfortune to drive... But the Corsa is "more powerful". Who cares. BHP wins arguments .... we know the rest
|
|
The lurker formerly known as Cappuccinocruiser.. or wedgedout..
|
|
|
old engines/new enginesBenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
|
Who was it that said "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" or summat like it?...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who was it that said "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" or summat like it?... Carrol Shelby...
|
|
The lurker formerly known as Cappuccinocruiser.. or wedgedout..
|
|
|
|
|
put new engine in old car. problem solved ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonny no likey all wires and brains and black boxes on engines. Points and coils and carbs for me ta, I know I can fix it then when it goes mad. UNLIKE MY SODDING VESPA!!!
|
|
|
|
|