Who needs a VR6 when youve got a TDI....

Heh, sorry if that offended VR6 drivers (it was why I went for a 16v instead of a VR6). I'd still rather have th extra 30kilos or so of a VR6 up front than the extra 150+ of a Massey Ferguson unit.


Hmmm andy he went from a lecturer to a mechanical engineer eh? I can draw a lot of conclusions from that, but in the interests of remaining friendly I will desist.

 

The energy is in the form of heat from burning the fuel/air mix, Which causes an increase in pressure within the cylinder, which produces a force on the top of the piston, which in turn creates a torque on the crankshaft by acting on a distance from the centre, whihc goes through the gearbox to the wheels and finally to the road via the tyre where the torque becomes a linear force by acting at a distance from the centre, which in turn gives rise to an equal and opposite force from the road (assuming no slippage) which accelerates the vehicle.


Think that covers it all, am nearly fallin asleep writin that.

 

He was a feckin engineering lecturer you 'tard

 

The point is here ------------------------------>.

















You are here -----------------> o-|-<

 

?

 

GEAR RATIOS you jockstrap, MK3 16v has much lower ratios for headline acceleration figures.

Audi is bought by company who pay for fuel.
Edited by: pictonroad

 

at Bodhi's 'Star Trek' physics...

Must be warp drive or something then!

Cheers,

Drew.

ps. Since we're past the end of the thread, this must be either the 'Directors Cut' or the Appendix.

Edited by: drew

 

where's that report button gone..........

 

Bodhi

I've got some books I can lend you if you like -

- Spot and the Car
- the First Ladybird book of Linear and Rotational Accelerations
- Harry Potter and the Mystery of the Internal Combustion Engine

they'll help you understand better than that fictional EVO work

tt

 

Just had a thought...

Power = (Torque/RPM) X 5252

At zero rpms, regardless of the torque value, BHP is infinite. So if power really does accelerate your car you'll have serious problems the next time you turn your engine off!

...and don't stall on the way to work!

Cheers,

Drew.


Edited by: drew

 

yeah, or you'll be there in no time........literally

 

Good point, apart form the facts that 1) obvously the engine would produce 0 torque at 0 rpm anyway, and 2) the equation is wrong!

Please, everyone just stop. You can't separate bhp and torque, they're directly related, so don't try to.

 

All I'm saying is, I like petrol. I wont argue with the likes of TT and Andy because I know they know their stuff.

Sod all this physics bollox, I know some diesels can be pretty rapid but I've yet to feel the need to buy one, because there are more things involved in the decision than economy and performance.

I still think comparing a diesel turbo with a vr6 is silly though - the fact remains a diesel needs a turbo to work, and also it seems the faster you get them to go, the less of an advantage they have in economy. Turbo the vr6 then compare them

If you bought a vr6 just because it was fast you're missing the point, a 2.0 16v can be equally quick with some minor mods, as can a G60. But even those arent as smooth as the vr6, never mind the diesel! feck, if all you want is something fast and economical, buy a bike!

 

just to add more confusion, did you know the VR6 was originally designed to be a diesel! that's why the bottom end is so strong.

 

So...

Diesels are stronger engines eh?

My contention is...

They are not.


Discuss.

 

they have to be don't they? they have to cope with a much higher compression ratio than petrols?
Edited by: Jettas

 

What car on the market has the most torque?
A PETROL Merc AMG 65 with not far off 800lb/ft...

 

and how would you define 'strong'?

Discuss.





tt

 

Headbutt a diesel then a petrol engine.