Horsepower or Torque?

the crv has a really great engine and there is no way I'd go back to diesel.

While the crv is thirsty its way nicer to drive than a lot of boring diesels.

How will I describe it ? I've got power almost through all the 6.5 k revs v power between 2.5 k -3.5 ish k revs in a diesel.

The crv pulls like a train when I need it, granted its at 4.5 k revs when she really starts to come alive, that's when most diesels start to run out of puff.

It still pulls well at lower rpm, for the size and weight of the crv that 2.0 l 150 hp petrol really moves it well.

If I did any decent mileage I. It I'd convert it to LPG for diesel economy, even the Prius eliminates the need for diesel, to me anyway. No going back to old smokers for me !

All I can say is that from my experience torque at high revs makes a big difference, petrols really feel lively, that's where, IMO, torque and hp come together to make an engine feel and sound like it should !!

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

I guess it depends on what you are used to.
Coming from a Prius or an EV I can see how a CRV could seem like it would pull like a train.

However compared to a faster diesel like a 530d/535d it would not pull like a train.

My 535d pulls like a train right up to 5250 rpm. The new 550d pulls well up to and beyond 5500 rpm, and delivers almost all its torque from <1500 right up.

It's all dependant upon perspective

I sad compared to most boring diesels.

And a model s sport would give the 535d a run for its money.

It's not fair to compare a 535d to a 2.0l petrol when it's got more than twice the power.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, to the petrol heads, it's nice that you like 'em, but that doesn't mean everyone has to have them.
To drive something petrol that was as nice as the Cmax with the same size and not with a comedy sized engine, it would cost too much.
If you can afford to throw hundreds in the tank, great, you're bailing out the Irish state and, god knows they need it! You're a true patriot.

To re-iterate:
Rev range, power band, engine note, 0 - 60, power to weight, none of it matters a sh*te when all I got to do at the moment is to have a reasonably sized car with the best economy available.
Sometimes its not about lateral g, acceleration, power and downforce, finding the apex of the corner and another few 10ths per lap, some people have long commutes , don't earn a fortune and have to get the most bang for their buck.
So, right now its the oilburner for me. Once I earn 60k, I'll buy something loud , expensive and pointless, I promise!

The crv cost us 1700, a god bit cheaper than the diesel version, I pay more for petrol, but I'm not paying interest on a loan nor will I suffer depreciation.

Granted it's an old car but it's worth it, it glides over rough country road and it's got good power and it sounds good.

Economy isn't just about fuel consumption. Depreciation alone can add up to much more than fuel consumption, then interest on a loan.

Again, if I want diesel economy I'll convert to LPG !

I guarantee the crv will lash most average boring ford, and VW diesels out of it and it will be much more fun.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

If your definition of "sounds good" is a CRV, it kind of muffles the rest of your posts to be fair.


And as for that guarantee, I am sure that it would not "lash" some "boring" diesels out of it, even bog standard 2.0 models.

Just because it's a crv and not a sports car doesn't mean the engine can't sound good, I not really into loud exhaust though that depends on the tuning, certainly not boy racer ?

Why would you think it wouldn't lash some boring 2.0l diesel out of it ? Sure you may have a wallope of torque but it's over pretty soon.

Comparing petrols and diesels is like trying to compare electrics to the internal combustion engine.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

You've come out with some rubbish in your time mad lad but that takes the biscuit.

It wouldn't lash a modern diesel out of it, why would it? It is a CRV, so not exactly aerodynamically designed for speed and acceleration. It is a soccermom car, not a fast car. Yes it might feel or sound fast compared to a prius. When I stepped into a golf tdi it felt fast compared to my previous car too (a kent engined fiesta), but compared to even my truck now the golf is slow.

The torque ends but when it does you are at peak power then you change gear and the torque carries on.

The crv isn't engineered for speed and acceleration, neither are most boring soot box diesels.

The crv isn't slow neither is the Prius. They're not race cars and you can't compare them to a 530d as a 530d has over twice the power of the crv. And it's most likely lighter.

Oh yeah the truck, isn't that. 5.0 L or something ? Yeah good comparison! :rolleyes:

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Then what's the point? My CMax any day.
And since this is a pure petrol head forum, we are both disqualified for driving soccer-mom cars. :P

Well the point is the crv has all the torque I need for relaxed driving and the power for a good quick over take if I need or just to drive it on when I'm in the mood and it sounds a lot better than a diesel which sound like they're going to die when you drive them hard. And it really soaks up the crap back roads which I like.

The diesel version would have cost a lot more which there would be no pay back all for the sake of maybe 10-12 mpg in the difference.

If we do 7k miles a year in the crv that would be a lot, the difference would be 540 euro's, (based on a 12 mpg difference) we have it over 1.5 years. So we'd have to keep it at least 4 years in total to break even, and that's before we'd start to save in fuel. (such is the joy of so many cheap petrols available ) And it's probably unlikely we'll keep it for that long.

The cmax is not a bad car by any means but if it's got the PSA diesel I really hate them, especially if it's geared anything like the 308. Which 4th is too tall meaning it's uncomfortable in town where you have to change to 3rd when you should be in 4th etc. and 5th isn't tall enough for the motorway at all.

I've not driven a newer PSA generation of the last 2 years or so maybe they're a lot smoother I don't know. But even the 1.8 TDCI was a bit rough for my liking but a lot smoother than the old VAG PD's of the same era.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

It is 5.7 but designed very differently. I was using it as an example to illustrate the difference perception has on what makes a car seem "fast", not a comparison to a crv.


Fine. Take a bmw 520d so. Same displacement. Boring diesel repmobile. The CRV would not out accelarate a 520d, not a hope. Or even better still, a bmw x1 or x3 2.0d, the CRV's direct competitor from the BMW stable. The CRV would not outperform that.

Oh and to this:

I think you should post this in the you laugh you lose thread :pac:

The 520 still has 20 more hp, and is lighter than a crv so no it's not going to out accelerate it.

The x1 is around the same weight and the crv has 10 more ho compared to the 140 hp diesel, so it would give it a challenge.

So to compare like with like, the 520 d is lighter and has 30 more hp.

I'm not so sure the crv would be slower than the x1 or 3 though.

thecomedian wrote: »

You still need Hp.

Madlad you'll probably know this. What's the NGO and torque of a leaf?

What's NGO ?

Torque on the MK 1.5 is about 210 lbs or 280 nm and about 240 lbs ,325 Nm on the MK I .