starionturbo said:
popuptoaster said:
I dunno where you get this idea a turbo car makes more torque for the same power? that depends far more on engine size/type than the induction method, you can see it looking at the graphs we both posted on page one, my bigger, lower powered engine makes proportionally more torque at much lower revs, and the 2.8 cologne isnt really known as a torquey engine compared to other V6/8 engines, it was one of the things that peple moaned about compared to the old 3 litre essex.But we're not talking proportionally are we?
the original post said:
"......Popuptoaster said along the lines that a standard Sierra RS Cosworth is slower than a Sierra with a 2.9 24v Cosworth (Granada enigne) transplant and that if you compare a turbocharged engine car with an N/A one producing the same power that the N/A engined car would be quicker. Is this expressly true and can it ever be proved or disproved? plus do supercharged engine have the same problem?"
I'd define quickness (in this relevance) as to how quick any given object accelerates, that is proportional to the weight of said object and the amount of force applied (torque) to it.
As for the Sierra example given I don't know, but I'd still say a FI car will produce more torque than a N/A car with the same BHP. Stick either engine in the same car hence same weight, the one that produces more torque (force) will accelerate quicker.
Top speed isn't really a definitive guide to quickness in this example at least as many cars with similar top speeds take very different times in getting there.
In order to "produce more torque for the same bhp", it would have to produce that torque lower in the rev range.
The dyno graphs in this thread have already proved otherwise.
*n