lee201283
|
| posted on 27/1/03 at 11:46 PM |
|
|
wot kind of 0-60 times and top speed do u get out of the ford sierra 1.8 turbo diesel unit in the lo
wot kind of 0-60 times and top speed do u get out of the ford sierra 1.8 turbo diesel unit in the locost
|
|
|
|
|
Findlay234
|
| posted on 28/1/03 at 09:03 AM |
|
|
whats the weight? the power? the torque?
cheers
fin
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 28/1/03 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
Kerb weight in lbs times 0.55 divided by the torque in ft/lbs = 0-60 in seconds
|
|
|
mdc124
|
| posted on 31/1/03 at 08:51 PM |
|
|
so 450kg = 990 kg
990 *.55 = 544.5
544.5/(say) 70ftlb = 8.1 sec
hmmm
|
|
|
philgregson
|
| posted on 31/1/03 at 09:50 PM |
|
|
Faster than that I would have thought.
Phil
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 1/2/03 at 07:38 PM |
|
|
A 1.8 TD Locost is going to weigh a little more than 450Kg!, more like 600Kg if you are careful with the weight
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 2/2/03 at 10:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mdc124
so 450kg = 990 kg
990 *.55 = 544.5
544.5/(say) 70ftlb = 8.1 sec
hmmm
I agree with Mark, diesel engines are not particularly light. I'd have thought 650kg would be a reasonable figure. Also 70ft/lbs is pretty
pessimistic for a turbo diesel, even the 1.8. I'd expect something around 120-130ft/lbs.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 2/2/03 at 10:52 PM |
|
|
Try http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/id/?id=31966
It recons 112lbs/ft
So 650Kg = 1430Lbs
1430 x .55 = 786.5
divided by 112 = 7 seconds
Bugger me, why am I pissing around with a 2.0i Pinto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 2/2/03 at 10:59 PM |
|
|
Ah, yes I remembered,
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/id/?id=32230
600Kgs = 1320lbs
x 0.55 = 726
divided by 160 = 4.6 secs
Probably a bit optimistic, but WOW!!!
|
|
|
auzziejim
|
| posted on 3/2/03 at 09:00 AM |
|
|
Mark could you possibly do me an estimate for my 0-60 using a 1.6 Pinto please? or anybody else?
Cheers
james
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 3/2/03 at 01:47 PM |
|
|
Mark,
You want optimistic?
How's this:
Rover V8 - 198 ft/lb - weight 500 (or 600)kgs
1100 (1320) x .55 = 605/198
3.05 (3.66) secs
Will now have to turbo my bike!!
Wicked:-) (Uh)
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 3/2/03 at 02:11 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
Ah, yes I remembered,
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/id/?id=32230
600Kgs = 1320lbs
x 0.55 = 726
divided by 160 = 4.6 secs
Probably a bit optimistic, but WOW!!!
Don't mean to burst your bubble, but a 2.0 efi pinto does not have 160lb ft of torque That's as much as a 2.8 V6. More like 160Nm - they
seem to have made a cock-up on that particular page.
Anyway - how on earth can you predict a 0-60 time with engine torque and kerb weight?? What about gearing? I think mdc124's 450kg/70lb ft example
above says it all - that's a bike-engined Locost. 8.1 seconds? Hmmm indeed. That formula might work reasonably for a bunch of similarly
engined/geared/revving identikit production cars, but it has obvious limitations.
Liam
[Edited on 3/2/03 by Liam]
|
|
|
auzziejim
|
| posted on 3/2/03 at 03:04 PM |
|
|
its just a rough estimate though that people are after isnt it?
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 3/2/03 at 04:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by auzziejim
its just a rough estimate though that people are after isnt it?
Yeah, but plug in a bec to that formula and it's more than 100% out - very rough idea. But in that example it's the gearing and shift speed that's
the main source of error. Using that formula on cars with average engine speeds (say 6K) and associated gearing will give more trustworthy results -
OK for an old ford engined Locost probably. I was just saying beware of such simple models that make so many assumptions that could be invalid if you
use the model out of its original context. Using it on a bec highlights that - might give rubbish results for diesels too.
In your case, a 1.6 pinto has around 90lb ft (I think). Say 600kg...
8 seconds.
My mate had a 1.6 pinto before the bike engine - that don't seem too far off. I reckon it was quicker than 8 seconds though.
Liam
[Edited on 3/2/03 by Liam]
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 3/2/03 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
I think Andre Jute's formulae assume the perfect axle ratio and perfect gear ratio's. The formula works more accuratly in the mid range of powers
and weights, I have tried it against a few production cars and it overestimates the acceleration of the high end cars and vice versa.
Has anyone got anything more in line with locost weights and usual power ranges?
|
|
|
Mark H
|
| posted on 3/2/03 at 08:43 PM |
|
|
There's so many variables (aerodynamics and fat bastardness of the driver/passenger for instance?) that isn't it just worth finishing what you've
got, then testing it.
We are sitting 4 inches from the ground with no real wind protection, so even at 20 it probably feels like double! (Haven't driven mine yet, so only
guessing, but have driven a single seater round Brands Hatch. probably only got to 50 and hardly changed gear and felt like Shuey).
Mark Harrison and
Q986 KCP back from the dead...
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 3/2/03 at 10:00 PM |
|
|
I was a bit doubtfull about this formula, but having tried it on quite a few production cars it seems to be surprisingly accurate. It even predicted
almost exactly the right 0-60 for a freinds TVR Chimera. It does seem to fall down a bit when 0-60 times go below about 4.5 seconds, as it dosen't
take into account the traction problems that will be inevitable with that kind of power/weight.
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
 posted on 4/2/03 at 12:47 PM |
|
|
Check out this site for details on performance measuring.
http://www.autospeed.com/A_1073/page1.html
Terry
Spyderman
|
|
|
auzziejim
|
| posted on 9/2/03 at 10:01 PM |
|
|
Does anybody know the kind of 0-60 times and top speed a 1100cc GSXR powered locost would produce?
|
|
|
