Possible Revamped CR-Z
09-26-2013, 07:39 PM
#142
Registered User
I'm not going to bother jumping into the numbers argument, but torque can definitely make a slow car feel fast just because it throws you back in the seat right away. That initial thrust delivers the illusion of speed. My first car immediately comes to mind--a 1960s 327 V8 that would be lucky to turn a high-16s quarter mile, but it still felt sort of fast because of the immediate low-end torque. Another example would have been a friend's old '84 Monte Carlo with a 305--same story as the other car (although probably a second faster in the 1/4 but still abysmally slow) yet it felt fast because it tossed you back when you stomped the gas.
09-26-2013, 07:42 PM
#143
09-26-2013, 08:49 PM
#145
As an owner of a CR-Z 6mt and an S2K...
Say what you will about the CR-Z, but it feels and is faster than the 1.8 Civics and gets better mileage. The instant torque is quite nice in city driving.
Say what you will about the CR-Z, but it feels and is faster than the 1.8 Civics and gets better mileage. The instant torque is quite nice in city driving.
09-26-2013, 10:12 PM
#146
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to bother jumping into the numbers argument, but torque can definitely make a slow car feel fast just because it throws you back in the seat right away. That initial thrust delivers the illusion of speed. My first car immediately comes to mind--a 1960s 327 V8 that would be lucky to turn a high-16s quarter mile, but it still felt sort of fast because of the immediate low-end torque. Another example would have been a friend's old '84 Monte Carlo with a 305--same story as the other car (although probably a second faster in the 1/4 but still abysmally slow) yet it felt fast because it tossed you back when you stomped the gas.
Anyone who's driven a Honda with zero low end torque and also driven a larger displacement engine that generates significant torque just off idle knows how much difference it makes regardless of horsepower numbers or other metrics.
You have to be a willful idiot to not acknowledge the advantage a car like the TDI Jetta has over a base Civic when it comes to driving in an urban environment. Pointing at magazine articles just says you haven't driven the two cars or are lying your ass off hoping people believe you.
It's the height of stupidity and lack of understanding of physics to assert that of two cars making the same horsepower, the car making less than half the torque is somehow equivalent. There's two metrics - torque and horsepower. Horsepower is a derivative of torque in that it describes how much torque an engine makes at an ideal intersection of rpms and torque. Kind of like the dimensions that give you the largest acreage given a maximum circumference.
When two cars make very similar horsepower numbers but radically different torque, the car generating more torque is going cover the distance from A to B in less time. In this particular matchup, the car making less torque is quite a bit lighter. Yet it loses in every performance metric to a heavier car. Why? Because the heavier car has an engine that makes significantly more torque. It's a difference you can feel if you aren't a complete newbie. And lays down an argument that cannot be won by the Honda fan unless they invoke the law of "Honda always wins because I'm an idiot." Which is what you see here tonight.
09-27-2013, 04:52 AM
#147
Moderator
I love a good (or bad) argument as much as anyone, but we've moved pretty far off topic here. Either we start talking about Honda's CR-Z sport concept or we shutter the thread.
09-27-2013, 06:39 AM
#148
Anyone who's driven a Honda with zero low end torque and also driven a larger displacement engine that generates significant torque just off idle knows how much difference it makes regardless of horsepower numbers or other metrics.
You have to be a willful idiot to not acknowledge the advantage a car like the TDI Jetta has over a base Civic when it comes to driving in an urban environment. Pointing at magazine articles just says you haven't driven the two cars or are lying your ass off hoping people believe you.
It's the height of stupidity and lack of understanding of physics to assert that of two cars making the same horsepower, the car making less than half the torque is somehow equivalent. There's two metrics - torque and horsepower. Horsepower is a derivative of torque in that it describes how much torque an engine makes at an ideal intersection of rpms and torque. Kind of like the dimensions that give you the largest acreage given a maximum circumference.
When two cars make very similar horsepower numbers but radically different torque, the car generating more torque is going cover the distance from A to B in less time. In this particular matchup, the car making less torque is quite a bit lighter. Yet it loses in every performance metric to a heavier car. Why? Because the heavier car has an engine that makes significantly more torque. It's a difference you can feel if you aren't a complete newbie. And lays down an argument that cannot be won by the Honda fan unless they invoke the law of "Honda always wins because I'm an idiot." Which is what you see here tonight.
Civic 5MT vs Jetta TDI 6DCT
0-60 7.7s 7.8s (Civic is faster)
1/4 mile 16.1 @ 87 mph 16.1 @ 85.7 mph (Civic has the same time but higher trap speed)
45-65 (Passing test) 4.2s 4.3s (Civic is faster)
Yeah, you're right, the Jetta trounces the Civic in EVERY performance metric.
Except that it doesn't.With somewhat comparable transmissions, the cars are essentially a dead heat. We know the Jetta is faster up to 50 mph but the Civic is faster from there on, due to a better top end. These numbers ignore the DCT shift advantage, which is way better than a 5MT and much better than the 5AT, and allows the Jetta to take advantage of its powerband for a broader range of speed.
Honestly, the ignorance in this thread is astounding. Lots of people talking about "feel" but no one willing to put up actual numbers. Heck, I guarantee Nunco hasn't even driven a Civic and TDI back to back, yet somehow he knows all about them both.
09-27-2013, 07:19 AM
#149
Registered User
What an active thread this is. 140 posts (well, 141 if we include this one) in the thread. The only other threads to have even broken 100 posts in the last two weeks featured the Corvette and the GTR respectively. So the CRZ discussion (or the discussion about the article which has morphed into a discussion about... well, whatever the discussion is now) has garnered more interest than the Corvette or the GTR discussions.
09-27-2013, 08:13 AM
#150
Problem is, Tommy, you think torque is accelerating you. It ain't. You get to use the torque but you're missing the big picture (the power curve and gearing and way more important). The minute you "ride the torque curve" and upshift early, you lose significant forward thrust compared to a car that's revving much higher and longer. It's certainly less frenetic and feels way more relaxed, though, I'll give you that. Faster, though? Not enough that you'd ever notice.
http://www.motortren...ct/viewall.html
Jetta with 6-DCT - 45-65 mph in 4.3s
http://www.motortren...on/viewall.html
Civic HF with auto transmission - 45-65 mph in 4.2s
So it's actually SLOWER than a Civic in passing, but somehow you're convinced it's faster?
Not sure what male genitalia have to do with anything but you appear to be fixated on them. You keep mentioning them.
http://www.motortren...ct/viewall.html
Jetta with 6-DCT - 45-65 mph in 4.3s
http://www.motortren...on/viewall.html
Civic HF with auto transmission - 45-65 mph in 4.2s
So it's actually SLOWER than a Civic in passing, but somehow you're convinced it's faster?
Not sure what male genitalia have to do with anything but you appear to be fixated on them. You keep mentioning them.
From your own links genius.
Civic/TDi
0-30 3.0/2.6
0-40 4.3/3.9
0-50 6.3/5.6
0-60 8.4/7.8
0-70 10.9/10.4
0-80 14.3/13.7
Looks faster to me, and probably what nunco was talking about. and I don't want to hear transmission bs when the Honda has a slushbox.
Passing 45-65MPH 4.2/4.3
If that test was done in the lowest gear possible then that sounds like the TDi would be high in its' rev range and not where it makes its' power, wrong gear. But I will admit that sounds isn't a link for you post.
And i can't think of anywhere where I'd pass at those speeds.
And again from your link:
but VW's aptitude for compression ignition makes it a market leader in small-displacement, low-end torque. With 236 lb-ft unleashed at 1750 rpm, getting the Jetta TDI moving from a stop or from a roll was never a chore, especially when stacked up against a comparable gasser. Not having to flog the engine leads to more consistent steady-state driving.
With 236 lb-ft unleashed at 1750 rpm, getting the Jetta TDI moving from a stop or from a roll was never a chore, especially when stacked up against a comparable gasser. Not having to flog the engine leads to more consistent steady-state driving.