|
Not sure about the mk2 Escort, but I remember a 1972 Ford Cortina 2.0 (not sure which 'mark' that is - but latest at the time) a friend & I drove down to Cornwall in, which had a posted 0-60 time of 10.6 secs. - which we throughly explored & enjoyed to the extent that we fried the clutch & seized the engine - happy days.
|
|
|
The boyracer car for the early 80s:
1981 Fiesta Mk1 XR2
Body 3 door, 800kg
Engine 1599cc, 83bhp, 92lb/ft
Performance Max Speed: 105mph, 0-60: 10.1s
|
Vauxhall were the performance kings of the 80's. A humble Cavalier mk2 1.8 GLi from 1984 could do 0-60 in 9.3 seconds, and 8.8 in SRi trim (mechanically identical save for a close ratio gearbox). All this with a 115 bhp, 8 valve single cam engine with first generation, non-sequential Bosch EFI. Then there was the awesome GTE 16v Astra in 1987 which was tested by What Car at 0-60 in 6.9 secs and 136 mph. The fact it couldn't deal with anything like full throttle in first due to rampant wheelspin and torque steer, yet still posted this time gives a very good indicator as to how quick it really was.
Both of these cars figures are more than respectable in their class by todays standards in my opinion, yet were available relatively cheaply more than 20 years ago.
Back then, I don't think anyone could have predicted what would happen to diesels though, or contemplate the idea that in 20 years time, people would buy a diesel to enjoy rather than to just save a few quid at the pumps.
Cheers
DP
|
Once upon a time, around 150 bhp would give you serious performance. A Cavalier GSI 2000 could hit 60 sub 8secs, Renault 19 16v in the 7's, My 405 Mi16 was good for 8secs and remember the Sunbeam Lotus? 6.6s to 60. The weight that all the electrics and safety features that people demand now has added a huge amount of weight to cars.
I also believe that engines are now designed for flexibility and driveabilty rather that for an impressive 0 to 60 time which tells you little about in gear performance.
|
Renault 19 16v in the 7's
Had one of those- great!
I also believe that engines are now designed for flexibility and driveabilty rather that for an impressive 0 to 60 time which tells you little about in gear performance.
I thought they tended to be designed for low fuel consumption/emissions, so that as far as petrol engines are concerned, they tend to lack driveability and you have to rev the nuts off them to get anywhere? I'm talking about smallish engines, 2.0 and below.
|
" Vauxhall were the performance kings of the 80's."
Astra vans were kings of lane 3 on the motorways. They always seemed to be filling up the mirror and I always wondered how come.
|
|
|
The Astra did 50-70 in 4th in 6.5 seconds, which I always remember beat a V12 XJS of the time. :-)
The C20XE was an interesting engine. Modern technology (DOHC, 16v, forged pistons, sodium cooled exhaust valves, sequential multipoint injection etc etc) but for a few glorious years was completely unencumbered by emissions legislation.
These early Astras still feel unbelievably gutsy even by today's standards. Proper grunt from 2000-7000 RPM. As with all Vauxhalls of the era, the chassis was a complete joke, and the Golf GTI 16v and 205 GTI were far more capable all round cars, but in a drag race they didn't stand a chance.
Cheers
DP
|
This is a spooky thread, I was only musing about this to myself yesterday!
I had a MK2 Cavalier 2.0i 8v and no rose coloured glasses, that car would shift with only 115 bhp. Third gear was unbelieveable - you could see 90 mph in third and it pulled like a train. 2200 rpm in 5th!
These were quite popular machines at the time and in certain ways, better than the quivalent pinto Sierra of the day. There were stories in the office about 130 mph on the M62 in 115 bhp Cavaliers. I wound mine up fairly easily to certain quite high speeds lets say.
It was economical too.
Simple, 8V torque, un fussy to drive.
Stodgy steering and wooden chassis tho! :-)
|
|
And the clutches on those Vauxhall engines were a doddle to change as well.
|
|
|
>>Simple, 8V torque
Not sure that I buy into this idea of 8v engines having more torque.
C20NE, 8 valve, SOHC, 85kW@5400 rpm, 170Nm
C20XE, 16 valve, DOHC, 110kW@6000 rpm, 196Nm
The 16 valve engine has more power AND more torque.
|
>>Simple 8V torque Not sure that I buy into this idea of 8v engines having more torque. C20NE 8 valve SOHC 85kW@5400 rpm 170Nm; C20XE 16 valve DOHC 110kW@6000 rpm 196Nm The 16 valve engine has more power AND more torque.
But did the 8v engines have more torque at low revs than the 16v (or did it just subjectively feel like they did)? I dont have any torque curves to look at, and have only got fading memories to go by!.
My first car was a 1.8 115bhp Cavalier and I remember one of the best things about it was the "grunt" at low revs. The flipside was that it waned a bit as it reached the redline. The first 16v car I drove was my Dads 140bhp Rover 820Si (he had that when I had the Cav), but it was difficult to compare the two cars because the Rover was more powerful overall.
Later I had an Audi 80 with a 2.1 5-cylinder, with 2 valves per cylinder. That felt very torquey at low revs, I used to live at the top of a steep hill and could drive up it in 4th gear at 30mph without labouring the engine, some cars would only have managed it in 3rd.
After the Audi I got a 405 Mi16, and the two had very different power delivery. The Audi had low down torque but in the Mi16 it was comparatively lacking, and you had to cane it to go quickly. Clear in my mind is the fact that at moderate speeds I would have to change down to 2nd gear in the Mi16 to do an overtake that would have been comfortable in 3rd in the Audi. At first I remember thinking, "I should not have to change down as low as 2nd to do this".
;o)
Edited by Rich 9-3 on 13/05/2008 at 13:12
|
There were two 1.8 engines in the Cavalier mk2's life, mostly distinguishable by which end of the rocker cover the oil filler cap sat at.
My mk2 SRi (on a B-plater) had the early type 1.8 engine which was very revvy, and with little low down torque - much more like we traditionally think of a multivalve engine. In fact, this must have been noted by the maker, as the reason the revised engine was fitted was to bolster the midrange.
It red-lined at 6700 RPM but would bury the needle past 7000 if you let it and just kept pulling. It also had a lovely deep chested growl as it did so. I drove a later model which was quicker at sensible revs, but came over a bit breathless where the early unit just tried to rev itself to oblivion. It lacked the old engine's lovely shrill growl at high revs too.
The early 1.8 was one of those engines that you never felt like you were damaging by thrashing. Just so sweet and responsive. Felt quite ordinary sub 3.5k though, and always had a slightly lumpy tickover from day one which I was told by several garages "that's how they are".
And 35 mpg was no problem at all if driven with any degree of restraint. Which it rarely was ;-)
Cheers
DP
|
>>(or did it just subjectively feel like they did)?
Here's the problem - it's very difficult to obtain the data to make the case one way or the other. The rpm where the C20XE engine produces maximum torque will be higher in the rev range than the C20NE - although I don't know if the torque curves cross at lower speeds - or at all.
However, I don't see why a multi-valve engine HAS to produce poorer torque figures than a convential engine at low engine speeds. Of course, the cam timing on a multi-valve engine will be optimised for high speed power, and this is probably the biggest reason why there may be a reduction in low speed torque, but, it's a reduction from a higher peak value, because there's so much more airflow than with 2 valves per cylinder to begin with.
Like so many views which are commonly held and repeated about motor cars, I suspect the one about poor low speed torque for multi-valve engines is at least part myth.
|
Like so many views which are commonly held and repeated about motor cars I suspect the one about poor low speed torque for multi-valve engines is at least part myth.
Is it possible that because a multi-valve can produce more power/torque higher up the rev range, the manufacturer deliberately reduces then at lower revs to improve fuel consumption figures? (I'm no mechanic BTW in case you hadn't guessed.)
|
Here's the problem - it's very difficult to obtain the data to make the case one way or the other. The rpm where the C20XE engine produces maximum torque >> will be higher in the rev range than the C20NE
I wondered if you might have access to that sort of info NC - a tatty photocopy of some old dyno results lying around somewhere?
Talking of 'torquey 8v engines' from experience of only a handful of cars they have 'seemed' to have more torque at lower revs than with 16v (but I would not expect higher peak torque).
I could not find any data for the Vauxhall engines but I found some for the Pug 1.9 XU, which claims to show manufacturers data for standard 8v and 16v. It shows the 8v does have a little more power and torque up to 4750rpm, but theres not much in it. But I've never driven and 8v 405 SRi to be able to compare.
snipurl.com/28nlj [track-monkey_co_uk]
snipurl.com/28nld [track-monkey_co_uk]
Obviously must depend on the engine, AFAIR that Rover 820Si had a linear delivery? I think the Mi16 had a relatively peaky delivery (well mine did anyway!).
;o)
Edited by Rich 9-3 on 13/05/2008 at 17:09
|
>>I found some for the Pug 1.9 XU
They're interesting data - thanks for posting them.
Which engines on the graph are most directly comparable? Sorry, Pug engine codes are completely opaque to me!
|
Which engines on the graph are most directly comparable? Sorry Pug engine codes are completely opaque to me!
As I understand it the XU9J2 is 1905cc 8v, 9.3:1 C.R., with max. 125bhp, as used in the 405 SRi of 1988 vintage with no cat.
The XU9J4 is 1905cc DOHC 16v, 10.4:1 C.R., with max. 160bhp, as used in the 405 Mi16, also introduced 1988 with no cat.
It also shows the XU9JA which I think will be the 205 GTi 1905cc 8v 130bhp unit?
Edited by Rich 9-3 on 13/05/2008 at 18:26
|
So, is the XU9J4 more directly comparable with the J2, or the JA?
|
So is the XU9J4 more directly comparable with the J2 or the JA?
This is where my limited knowledge ends, I would guess the J2 and J4 are more directly comparable as they were both used in the bigger, heavier 405?
AFAIK the 205 got the JA, but not the J2 or J4, and I dont know what the internal differences are between the JA and J2?.
Edited by Rich 9-3 on 13/05/2008 at 19:29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
