290 BHP seemed slower than it should - why?

drunkmonkey

unkel wrote: »

Haha, true enough. Is that an important criterion for you when it comes to buy a car? That you have to be able to pull in it?

Not any more unfortunately. The GTi gets a lot of complements in fairness to it.
Maybe he might give a few quid for my iD 1st reservation if he likes the auld torqueo's.

Mike9832

Zak Flaps wrote: »

Hi. Test drove a Seat Leon Cupra today.
2 litre Petrol /Automatic / 2016 / 290BHP

Yes it was fast but it just seemed empty, or like it didn't have weight behind it, all revs.
Hard to explain but it was like a song without any bass.

Got back into my borrowed car which was a BMW 1 Series
2 litre Diesel / Manual / 2015 / 180 BHP

The BMW seemed to be much faster, much better acceleration mainly. It just seemed to have so much power. It could push you back against your seat if you wanted it to. Much more fun.

Should it not be the other way round?
I'm not really a car person so maybe keep it simple!!!

Thanks.

If the BMW felt faster

You don't know how to drive

The Seat is way faster

0-180kmh

11secs in Seat vs 20 secs BMW

How in the hell could you not notice that?

My diesel Fabia is about as quick as that 180bhp diesel BMW and I sure as hell noticed the difference between that and a Golf GTi

Golf GTi is miles faster, not even close

hurikane

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yea but he'll never pull in an i3.

I'd say there's a mad lad out there who'd give the op a go and the i3

unkel

Mike9832 wrote: »

If the BMW felt faster

You don't know how to drive

Not everyone wants rev the bollocks out of their car all the time. Personally I like to, but mostly on very quiet roads in the mountains on a very early Saturday morning. 99% of the time I want fast acceleration without fuss.

kirving

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...no. That's just a misunderstanding of both terms.

I didn't think it was a bad analogy to be honest. The point it to get the idea across without quoting formulas.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Torque is rotational force at the crankshaft, it's absolutely irrelevant to how far you move an object in a collision, which is (basically) mass * velocity.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even when it comes to 'pulling power', more horse power clearly = more pulling power. It also tends to mean more load on drivetrain and engine to get there though.

That's because you've added "power" to the "pulling" part. In isolation, Torque basically says how heavy a load you can pull.

If we think of shovelling sand, Power would be the measure of how much sand you can shovel in an hour. Torque would explain how big a shovel you were taking each time.

Most people judge how fast a car is by its acceleration at lower revs. This is far more dependant on torque than it is on absolute power output at top speed.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I've one outside the door, you sure it wasn't in eco?

Most definitely.
You don't reckon it comes into it's own when you're actually going fast? Pootling about town etc as I said....its a nice golf. Which is essentially a focus, Astra etc rival.

Zak Flaps

Zak Flaps wrote: »

You see i want them to come into their own well before that.

As others have mentioned the 0 to 60 isn't startling compared to the diesel BMW.
It's a turbo charged 4 cyl thrown into a family (small car really) run about.

I reckon a fast petrol BMW would rock your boat more TBH. 335i etc or whatever the current incarnations are.

Augeo

Augeo wrote: »

Most definitely.
You don't reckon it comes into it's own when you're actually going fast? Pootling about town etc as I said....its a nice golf. Which is essentially a focus, Astra etc rival.

What do you expect it to be doing “pootling about town” from a performance perspective? The fact it’s an extremely well rounded car, possibly one of the best all round cars money can buy mean it’s easy to drive normally.

Plant your foot to the floor and go up through the gears, drop a few gears and overtake a truck or throw it around a back road and it ain’t just a “nice golf” though, it will have you planted to the seat and smiling from ear to ear. I’m only taking about a mk5 gti too never mind the newer and more powerful generations.

djan wrote: »

edit: looked up the 0-100kmh times on both and the Cupra is a second quicker at 6s compared to the BMW's 7s. Not a huge difference but what you're feeling is just the difference in torque.

0-60 of the cupra 290 is mid 5 seconds not 6s a standard Gti (with much less power is low 6s).

The golf R is faster again which leads me to believe the Cupra can’t put the power down for a very fast 0-60 being FWD as they have basically the sameness engine.

OP if the cupra 290 didn’t feel fast you just weren’t driving it imo as it is a very fast car. It would destroy the BMW in every metric.

bear1

Zak Flaps wrote: »

Hi all. Today I drove a BMW 1 Series M135i (326 BHP) Petrol Automatic.
Didn't give me as much of a thrill as the BMW I mentioned in my original post.

Mind you, on a test drive, I feel like I can't really floor the thing!
But I pushed it enough to know it wasn't what I'm after.

For an experiment, afterwards I drove a BMW 1 Series 1.5 litre Diesel automatic.
I enjoyed that more, in a way.
So maybe it's the diesel thing.
But I just don't do the miles to justify a diesel (DFP problems etc).
Any petrol cars out there that can give that big torque feeling ?

(i recently drove a hybrid Lexus NX300h and that gives a nice feeling on takeoff, but that's probably the EV....maybe hybrid is the way to go - not ready for full EV just yet)

It's odd that you seemed to prefer the 1.5 diesel to the 35i.
Unless you want to go American muscle then I'm unsure you'll find the right balance you are looking for.
Why not a 450h lexus. Get one after 08 and you'll have much cheaper tax.
Wouldnt go near an i3 tbh

MetzgerMeister

Zak Flaps wrote: »

Hi all. Today I drove a BMW 1 Series M135i (326 BHP) Petrol Automatic.
Didn't give me as much of a thrill as the BMW I mentioned in my original post.

Mind you, on a test drive, I feel like I can't really floor the thing!
But I pushed it enough to know it wasn't what I'm after.

Did you have the M135i in Comfort mode or Sport mode?

ShadowHearth

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Did you have the M135i in Comfort mode or Sport mode?

Even in wheelchair mode, that thing would be fast.

After that post my perception is: it's not the car/cars it's a driver. Or troll.

MetzgerMeister

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Even in wheelchair mode, that thing would be fast.

After that post my perception is: it's not the car/cars it's a driver. Or troll.

You'd be surprised. There's quite a difference between Comfort and Sport.

Midnight_EG

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Even in wheelchair mode, that thing would be fast.

After that post my perception is: it's not the car/cars it's a driver. Or troll.

I found an M2 wasn't 'fast' per-se in Comfort Mode, but turned into an animal in Sport+. Same engine as the M135i, so I'd says MM is bang on the money.

Mad_Mike

unkel wrote: »

Not everyone wants rev the bollocks out of their car all the time....

This quote sums up the difference between BHP and torque!

Torque - Put your foot down and the car pulls in low revs
BHP - Change down gears, get your revs up to 4 or 5,000 rpm MINIMUM and thats where the power is

DaveyDave

If you don't find a Cupra fast you're definitely doing something wrong. Especially the 2016 pre-facelift model, that's a bit more aggressive than the 300 model in my opinion.

If you're not in Cupra mode it can feel a bit sedated. Yeah it will move if you put the foot down but it's still a daily driver. In Cupra mode the acceleration is super responsive, almost twitchy. That's where it comes alive.

Same with my 1 litre Golf, it's quite dull in drive mode but sport mode makes the acceleration more responsive.

These cars are on boost at low revs, there's no turbo lag and you don't need to get peak power at 5,500rpm to go anywhere or even drop a gear. Paired with a DSG gearbox it will pickup at any moment. I didn't feel like it was slow at lower revs.

Augeo

Augeo wrote: »

Most definitely.
You don't reckon it comes into it's own when you're actually going fast? Pootling about town etc as I said....its a nice golf. Which is essentially a focus, Astra etc rival.

Merrick Tinkling Coat wrote: »

What do you expect it to be doing “pootling about town” from a performance perspective? The fact it’s an extremely well rounded car, possibly one of the best all round cars money can buy mean it’s easy to drive normally.

Plant your foot to the floor and go up through the gears, drop a few gears and overtake a truck or throw it around a back road and it ain’t just a “nice golf” though, it will have you planted to the seat and smiling from ear to ear. I’m only taking about a mk5 gti too never mind the newer and more powerful generations.



0-60 of the cupra 290 is mid 5 seconds not 6s a standard Gti (with much less power is low 6s).

The golf R is faster again which leads me to believe the Cupra can’t put the power down for a very fast 0-60 being FWD as they have basically the sameness engine.

OP if the cupra 290 didn’t feel fast you just weren’t driving it imo as it is a very fast car. It would destroy the BMW in every metric.

Read what I said in context.

I had a very decent few days in one, they come into their own when going fast.

LillySV

Mike9832 wrote: »

If the BMW felt faster

You don't know how to drive

The Seat is way faster

0-180kmh

11secs in Seat vs 20 secs BMW

How in the hell could you not notice that?

My diesel Fabia is about as quick as that 180bhp diesel BMW and I sure as hell noticed the difference between that and a Golf GTi


That’
Golf GTi is miles faster, not even close

That is the biggest load of ****e I have ever read, u should be banned from boards for life!!

I’ll just say this, anyone here who thinks that bhp isn’t the key to proper power should go back to school!! And once they have gone back they will learn that Bmw produce way more bhp in every liter vs all the equivalent rivals ... and their cars are serious handlers... Mercedes will give them a serious run for their money ... Audi equivalent .. no ... ****

Mooooo

What type of driving are you doing? Any longer trips in the week / month? If you seem to prefer diesel try a 330d or go back a few years and try a 640d even for a bit of luxury while you're at it. If you prefer vw group try an Audi in the same vein, or Merc

Phileas Frog

LillySV wrote: »

That is the biggest load of ****e I have ever read, u should be banned from boards for life!!

I’ll just say this, anyone here who thinks that bhp isn’t the key to proper power should go back to school!! And once they have gone back they will learn that Bmw produce way more bhp in every liter vs all the equivalent rivals ... and their cars are serious handlers... Mercedes will give them a serious run for their money ... Audi equivalent .. no ... ****

Reported for bollocksoloxy

LillySV

Phileas Frog wrote: »

Reported for bollocksoloxy

Your a pathetic Audi/vw driver so haha

Can’t afford a real car so bitter ....

beauf

The cupra is 0-62 of about 5.6 secs
The BMW is 0-62 of about 7.0 - 10.4sec (different models)

No idea which model you are talking about.

But that people think a car with 0-62 sub 6 secs is not fast makes me wonder have people become desensitized to speed, or just never drive them on a decent drivers road.

Miike

LillySV wrote: »

I’ll explain it better, bmw make better engines that the vw/Audi/seat/skoda ****e

and physics was invented by the Chinese to destabilize the west.

bear1

Thread has gone to ****.

ShadowHearth

bear1 wrote: »

Thread has gone to ****.

Wtf are you talking about, it started as ****. It now only getting better.

Kevin Irving

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I didn't think it was a bad analogy to be honest. The point it to get the idea across without quoting formulas.

It doesn't get the point across because it's plain wrong.

That's because you've added "power" to the "pulling" part. In isolation, Torque basically says how heavy a load you can pull.

You can't pull without power (since power is rate of work), and torque is force not power. Remember what I said about plain wrong?

If we think of shovelling sand, Power would be the measure of how much sand you can shovel in an hour. Torque would explain how big a shovel you were taking each time.

Using that analogy just demonstrates that you don't fundamentally understand what the terms torque/hp represent.


Torque is rotational force. Stop using analogies to try get around understanding what that actually means :rolleyes:

TheAnalyst_

Lot of these VAG cars have a lazy throttle response which can make a big difference to the feel of acceleration.

pippip

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Lot of these VAG cars have a lazy throttle response which can make a big difference to the feel of acceleration.

I thinks it's more the case of a lot of VAG cars having turbos. It's more turbo lag than lazy throttle.

pippip

pippip wrote: »

I thinks it's more the case of a lot of VAG cars having turbos. It's more turbo lag than lazy throttle.

There is virtually no turbo lag in vag turbos, don’t know how this misconception keeps getting repeated.

pippip

Merrick Tinkling Coat wrote: »

There is virtually no turbo lag in vag turbos, don’t know how this misconception keeps getting repeated.

Ah come off it. You always have a certain amount of lag, it's the nature of turbos.

Steve

I went from an 1100kg FTO 200 hp V6 which was like:
Cmon, cmon cmon - 8k revs - yaaaaaaaaa face melt.

To a 180 hp TDI which was Yaaa , yaaa , yahoo up to 2k revs and after that was ... wait, what?? Where'd it all go??