| obsrules | 08-10-2003 11:25 PM |
Fastest WRC car ?
�
�
Hi! My girlfriend and I just got done watching Rally Finland. It was alot better I thought than Germany. Anyways, I was curious, drivers aside, which manufacturer has the "fastest" car? From listening to the commentary, I got the impression that the Ford Focus and Peugeot 206 are faster than the rest. They seem to be smaller so they might weigh less than everybody else and that might be why. Does anyone know any stats on the WRC cars like 0-60, 0-100, top speed, etc or where I could look this up? Also, I'm really curious which cars have the best AWD systems? We're really hooked on WRC now and would just like to learn a little more!
Thanks
Al
Thanks
Al
| cvalle-sd | 08-11-2003 12:24 AM |
WRC spec mandates a minimum weight (~2700lbs), and minumum dimensions for all cars, and there's a theoretical horsepower limit base on engine spec of a 2.0l, 4-cyl, turbocharged w/32mm (iirc) inlet restrictor. From there you have get into aerodynamics, torque (usually massive amounts of), and gearing. I doubt there is one car that can, on any competitive stage, hit a speed that the others cannot on paper at least (see kenya), but more practically, each car has it's strengths, and there is more of a haves (Citroen,Pug, Sube, Ford) v. have-nots (Mitsu, Hyundai, Skoda, Privateer) that either have the resources to make it competitive one way or another...or not.
Long answer short, unless you can establish standard gearing against minimum weight against differential settings, and, of course power, which is most certainly a well guarded secret, - you'll just have to let the special stages decide. These guys live their lives approximately 10-35k at a time, and there are plenty of factors as important as raw power or straight line speed that make the best car the best. Absolute terminal speed only really counts when dynamics and driver ability are minimized...like in drag racing:p
Long answer short, unless you can establish standard gearing against minimum weight against differential settings, and, of course power, which is most certainly a well guarded secret, - you'll just have to let the special stages decide. These guys live their lives approximately 10-35k at a time, and there are plenty of factors as important as raw power or straight line speed that make the best car the best. Absolute terminal speed only really counts when dynamics and driver ability are minimized...like in drag racing:p
| fenix | 08-11-2003 07:11 AM |
yea ok but does any1 know the 0-60 or quarter times?
| Rebellion | 08-11-2003 08:25 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by fenix [/i]
[B]yea ok but does any1 know the 0-60 or quarter times? [/B][/QUOTE]
the 0-60's for all the cars are going to be at most in the 4's...
C&D or one of those magz had the Subaru Rally Car for some shootout and it ran a 12 something quarter. These cars aren't geared for quarter so you're not going to find timeslips for em.
[B]yea ok but does any1 know the 0-60 or quarter times? [/B][/QUOTE]
the 0-60's for all the cars are going to be at most in the 4's...
C&D or one of those magz had the Subaru Rally Car for some shootout and it ran a 12 something quarter. These cars aren't geared for quarter so you're not going to find timeslips for em.
| WORWRX | 08-11-2003 10:33 AM |
I don't know how fast they are, but this weekend on Speedvision I saw what I yhink was a citroen on a road course/track and it was passing everything from Porsche to vipers and even motorcycles as if they were on reverse. They are fast; and those drivers are fearless.
| obsrules | 08-11-2003 11:03 AM |
Thanks for all the answers so far. I didn't know about the minimum weight restrictions. I figured all the cars are probably somewhat close in capability but from the brief interviews of the drivers, it seems that they feel certain cars have the advantage. Also, does anyone know which manufacturer's AWD system supposedly provides the best traction?
Thanks
Al
Thanks
Al
| DonA | 08-11-2003 11:12 AM |
Here are the specs I have for current WRC cars I add US STi for fun..:D
Subaru Impreza WRC 2003
Overall Length 173.8 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 54.7 in.
Wheelbase 99.8 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine Flat 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1994cc
Bore 92mm
Stroke 75mm
HP 300 @ 5500
Torque 434 lb/ft @ 4000
Peugeot 206 WRC 2003
Overall Length 157.7 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 51.2 in.
Wheelbase 97.2 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 199cc
Bore 85mm
Stroke 88mm
HP 300 @ 5250
Torque 395 lb ft @ 3500
Ford Focus WRC 2003
Overall Length 174.9 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 55.9 in.
Wheelbase 103 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1998cc
Bore 84.8mm
Stroke 88mm
HP 300 @ 6500
Torque 406 lb ft @ 4000
Hyundai Accent WRC 2003
Overall Length 165.4 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 52.4
Wheelbase 96.1
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1998cc
Bore 84mm
Stroke 90mm
HP 300 @ 6500
Torque 384 lb ft @ 4000
Citroen Xsara WRC 2003
Overall Length 164.1 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 55.9 in.
Wheelbase 100.6 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1998cc
Bore ?mm
Stroke ?mm
HP 315 @ 5500
Torque 420 lb ft @ 2750
Skoda Fabia WRC 2003
Overall Length 157.6 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height N/A
Wheelbase 96.9 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 20 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1999cc
Bore 82.5mm
Stroke 93.5mm
HP 295 @ 5500
Torque 443 lb ft @ 3500
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo WRC 2
Overall Length 171.7 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 55.9 in.
Wheelbase 102.4 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1996cc
Bore 85.5mm
Stroke 86.9mm
HP 295 @ 5500
Torque 393 lb ft @ 3500
Subaru WRX STi North American Street Version 2004
Overall Length 173.8 in.
Overall Width 68.5 in.
Overall Height 56.3 in.
Wheelbase 99.8 in.
Car weight 3263 lbs.
Engine Flat 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 2458cc
Bore 99.5mm
Stroke 79mm
HP 300 @ 6000
Torque 300 lb/ft @ 4000
Subaru Impreza WRC 2003
Overall Length 173.8 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 54.7 in.
Wheelbase 99.8 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine Flat 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1994cc
Bore 92mm
Stroke 75mm
HP 300 @ 5500
Torque 434 lb/ft @ 4000
Peugeot 206 WRC 2003
Overall Length 157.7 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 51.2 in.
Wheelbase 97.2 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 199cc
Bore 85mm
Stroke 88mm
HP 300 @ 5250
Torque 395 lb ft @ 3500
Ford Focus WRC 2003
Overall Length 174.9 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 55.9 in.
Wheelbase 103 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1998cc
Bore 84.8mm
Stroke 88mm
HP 300 @ 6500
Torque 406 lb ft @ 4000
Hyundai Accent WRC 2003
Overall Length 165.4 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 52.4
Wheelbase 96.1
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1998cc
Bore 84mm
Stroke 90mm
HP 300 @ 6500
Torque 384 lb ft @ 4000
Citroen Xsara WRC 2003
Overall Length 164.1 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 55.9 in.
Wheelbase 100.6 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1998cc
Bore ?mm
Stroke ?mm
HP 315 @ 5500
Torque 420 lb ft @ 2750
Skoda Fabia WRC 2003
Overall Length 157.6 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height N/A
Wheelbase 96.9 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 20 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1999cc
Bore 82.5mm
Stroke 93.5mm
HP 295 @ 5500
Torque 443 lb ft @ 3500
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo WRC 2
Overall Length 171.7 in.
Overall Width 69.7 in.
Overall Height 55.9 in.
Wheelbase 102.4 in.
Car weight 2711.7 lbs. (1230kgs WRC Min.)
Engine inline 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 1996cc
Bore 85.5mm
Stroke 86.9mm
HP 295 @ 5500
Torque 393 lb ft @ 3500
Subaru WRX STi North American Street Version 2004
Overall Length 173.8 in.
Overall Width 68.5 in.
Overall Height 56.3 in.
Wheelbase 99.8 in.
Car weight 3263 lbs.
Engine Flat 4-Clinder 16 Valve turbocharged
Displacement 2458cc
Bore 99.5mm
Stroke 79mm
HP 300 @ 6000
Torque 300 lb/ft @ 4000
| weric | 08-11-2003 11:12 AM |
I've seen a video of a comparision between a F1, Collin McRae ford Focus and Jeremy Clarksons from BBC "Top Gear" in a mercury gougar.... on Silverstone Circuit. Guess who won?
If you want to see it the DL is a big 698MB
If you want to see it the DL is a big 698MB
| 10th Warrior | 08-11-2003 11:14 AM |
[QUOTE]C&D or one of those magz had the Subaru Rally Car for some shootout and it ran a 12 something quarter.[/QUOTE]
it was Road & Track, back in 2000 i think. it had the second highest g loads on the launch, behind only the top fuel car. it could hang with a F1/CART car to about 50mph :eek:
it was Road & Track, back in 2000 i think. it had the second highest g loads on the launch, behind only the top fuel car. it could hang with a F1/CART car to about 50mph :eek:
| iemonslice | 08-11-2003 11:31 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by weric [/i]
[B]I've seen a video of a comparision between a F1, Collin McRae ford Focus and Jeremy Clarksons from BBC "Top Gear" in a mercury gougar.... on Silverstone Circuit. Guess who won?
If you want to see it the DL is a big 698MB [/B][/QUOTE]
:eek:
Know where I might find this vid?
[B]I've seen a video of a comparision between a F1, Collin McRae ford Focus and Jeremy Clarksons from BBC "Top Gear" in a mercury gougar.... on Silverstone Circuit. Guess who won?
If you want to see it the DL is a big 698MB [/B][/QUOTE]
:eek:
Know where I might find this vid?
| weric | 08-11-2003 11:40 AM |
[url=http://carfreaks.b0nk.net/jeremy_clarksons/Jeremy.Clarkson.Head.To.Head.1999.DVDRip.DivX-SMB.avi]:) RIGHT CLICK (SAVE AS) [/url]
EDIT: it's at 24:00 min. of 56:09
__________
WRX '02 WR
**Gumball 3000 -- I'd love to be there.......... Any rich people would like to donate me the entry fee ???email me**
EDIT: it's at 24:00 min. of 56:09
__________
WRX '02 WR
**Gumball 3000 -- I'd love to be there.......... Any rich people would like to donate me the entry fee ???email me**
| iemonslice | 08-11-2003 12:38 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by weric [/i]
[B][url=http://carfreaks.b0nk.net/jeremy_clarksons/Jeremy.Clarkson.Head.To.Head.1999.DVDRip.DivX-SMB.avi]:) RIGHT CLICK (SAVE AS) [/url]
EDIT: it's at 24:00 min. of 56:09
__________
WRX '02 WR
**Gumball 3000 -- I'd love to be there.......... Any rich people would like to donate me the entry fee ???email me** [/B][/QUOTE]
I wub you.:banana:
[B][url=http://carfreaks.b0nk.net/jeremy_clarksons/Jeremy.Clarkson.Head.To.Head.1999.DVDRip.DivX-SMB.avi]:) RIGHT CLICK (SAVE AS) [/url]
EDIT: it's at 24:00 min. of 56:09
__________
WRX '02 WR
**Gumball 3000 -- I'd love to be there.......... Any rich people would like to donate me the entry fee ???email me** [/B][/QUOTE]
I wub you.:banana:
| D00m3d | 08-11-2003 01:34 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rebellion [/i]
[B]
the 0-60's for all the cars are going to be at most in the 4's...
C&D or one of those magz had the Subaru Rally Car for some shootout and it ran a 12 something quarter. These cars aren't geared for quarter so you're not going to find timeslips for em. [/B][/QUOTE]
If we're thinking of the same article, it was also raining that day.
[B]
the 0-60's for all the cars are going to be at most in the 4's...
C&D or one of those magz had the Subaru Rally Car for some shootout and it ran a 12 something quarter. These cars aren't geared for quarter so you're not going to find timeslips for em. [/B][/QUOTE]
If we're thinking of the same article, it was also raining that day.
| afpdl | 08-11-2003 01:50 PM |
I believe they also tested the car in the dirt/mud that day and still ran 12s through the 1/4 using all 6 gears I believe.
| cvalle-sd | 08-11-2003 02:59 PM |
I think Prodrive buys Xtrac gearboxes and mates them into their own proprietary AWD system - I know at least TTE (Toyota) used to buy the Prodrive system, so maybe some other teams still do. Compared to engine development, there are relatively few firms producing competition drivetrains, especially active AWD, and Prodrive's engineering resources are second to none.
| FaastLegacy | 08-11-2003 03:14 PM |
Things will be damn interesting next year when they lose the forced induction.
-faast
-faast
| nKoan | 08-11-2003 04:25 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FaastLegacy [/i]
[B]Things will be damn interesting next year when they lose the forced induction.
-faast [/B][/QUOTE]
If that happens.
[B]Things will be damn interesting next year when they lose the forced induction.
-faast [/B][/QUOTE]
If that happens.
| recce02 | 08-11-2003 04:43 PM |
It is not for sure if they are going to go to n/a engines. But there are some rule changes being made and it is mostly has to do with the teams that have more than three driver's. Personally I don't think that they will go to n/a eingines because for a manufacturer to race rally cars they have to have a certain number of production cars they produceand sell to the public each year. I don't think it is feasible for the manufacture to totally redesign and sell cars that are n/a. I don't think the cars are getting any faster do to their engines I think theyare getting faster because of the technology that they ae putting into the cars. Just my 2 cents.
Peace out
Marvin Gravel Crew Rally Team USA
Peace out
Marvin Gravel Crew Rally Team USA
| 10th Warrior | 08-11-2003 04:48 PM |
under WRC class homologation rules, the engine and drivetrain of the production version are inconsequential. how many awd foci are out there, or 2.0L turbocharged 206s? the main drawback to changing the engine formula is that the teams would have to start from scratch developing a new engine, which would defeat it as a cost cutting measure as it was proposed (not a safety 'they're going to fast' change).
| Rattler | 08-11-2003 11:51 PM |
[QUOTE]I don't know how fast they are, but this weekend on Speedvision I saw what I yhink was a citroen on a road course/track and it was passing everything from Porsche to vipers and even motorcycles as if they were on reverse. They are fast; and those drivers are fearless.[/QUOTE]
IT was Gilles Panizzi on Rally XS Sat. night. I saw that. He was grinning ear-to-ear when he got done.
IT was Gilles Panizzi on Rally XS Sat. night. I saw that. He was grinning ear-to-ear when he got done.
| cvalle-sd | 08-12-2003 10:58 AM |
I wish they'd told what his lap time was - I bet a tarmac-spec 206 could do a hell of lap @ The 'Ring. Apparently this was his first time around, but it would have been cool to see it done with pacenotes. Where's Herve when you need him?
/cuttosnackbar
/cuttosnackbar
| grimlock | 08-12-2003 11:15 AM |
395 lb-ft max for the 206 sounds completely bogus for me. On one of last year's rallies Nicky explained that Peugeot was still using a 5-speed gearbox because they had so much torque they didn't need 6. We're talking upwards of 500 lb-ft.
| Jaxx | 08-12-2003 11:32 AM |
yeah i think grinlock is dead on ... the other numbers make sense though .. low for the mitsu and hundai
from watching the last two races i thin the ford may very well be the current "fastest" car it was cool to see in the VS where teh focus had more "grip" and out accelerated the pug adn if you look at germany ..soem of the stage times were so much faster it was unreal
from watching the last two races i thin the ford may very well be the current "fastest" car it was cool to see in the VS where teh focus had more "grip" and out accelerated the pug adn if you look at germany ..soem of the stage times were so much faster it was unreal
| mvb | 08-12-2003 03:19 PM |
Nicky Grist spoke over one of the Virtual Spectator's and showed how much more quickly the Focus accelerated off the lined compared to the 206. At ~something~ like 1/2 mile Martin was 20 - 30 Km/H faster than the 206.
They also showed the same stage where the Focus was getting out of corner much quicker than the 206.
I can't remember the exact details but it went something like that.
They also showed the same stage where the Focus was getting out of corner much quicker than the 206.
I can't remember the exact details but it went something like that.
| RallyDriver | 08-12-2003 08:38 PM |
... i'm sorry but i think its a Focus.:rolleyes:
hmm ... i'm sure it's Focus.:D
hmm ... i'm sure it's Focus.:D
| cvalle-sd | 08-13-2003 10:49 AM |
Now that you mention it, those torque figures make more sense as Newton-Meters. Convert to lb/ft, and blow your mind.
~500 is about right:devil:
~500 is about right:devil:
| NeoGeo | 08-13-2003 03:59 PM |
Anyone care to guess (or know) the hp/torque figures without the 32mm restrictor? :devil:
| 10th Warrior | 08-13-2003 04:22 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NeoGeo [/i]
[B]Anyone care to guess (or know) the hp/torque figures without the 32mm restrictor? :devil: [/B][/QUOTE]
hmm, back in the mid '80s Formula 1 was getting 1400+bhp out of 1.5L turboed fours...
[B]Anyone care to guess (or know) the hp/torque figures without the 32mm restrictor? :devil: [/B][/QUOTE]
hmm, back in the mid '80s Formula 1 was getting 1400+bhp out of 1.5L turboed fours...
| johnfelstead | 08-13-2003 05:17 PM |
WRC engines run a 34mm restrictor, GroupN run a 32mm restrictor.
The new spec C groupN impreza is designed around masive mid range torque, hence the twin scroll turbo and equal length headers, its a big step forward over the earlier spec C single entry turbo engine.
You can expect well over 500BHP from an unrestricted 2 litre turbo engine, but to get those numbers you need much bigger turbo's that are more laggy and produce less mid range torque, they are completely diferent engine design concepts and engine maps to restricted inlet turbo engines.
The new spec C groupN impreza is designed around masive mid range torque, hence the twin scroll turbo and equal length headers, its a big step forward over the earlier spec C single entry turbo engine.
You can expect well over 500BHP from an unrestricted 2 litre turbo engine, but to get those numbers you need much bigger turbo's that are more laggy and produce less mid range torque, they are completely diferent engine design concepts and engine maps to restricted inlet turbo engines.
| cvalle-sd | 08-13-2003 10:29 PM |
I saw the 2001 Impreza WRC run a 40mm restrictor at the RIM01 rally. 400hp+ was being bandied about. Maybe not. They did only win by about 8 minutes.
| aov | 08-15-2003 02:46 PM |
I would think tire choice would have something to do with the out-acceleration of the Peugeot by the Focus?! ... not that Marco isn't driving great, and the Ford definitely has good power these days!!!
-anders
-anders
| ShockWave | 08-15-2003 04:28 PM |
Given the nature of rallying, it's inconsequential which car is the fastest. What matters is which car is the fastest that day on that stage. How fast you go depends more on how much grip you can get. The Focus was the fastest in Finland because it had the most grip, so it could use the most of it's available power. Set up and tire choice will determine how fast you go.
As for the unrestricted cars, check out the old Group B cars. I've read they produced around 600 HP. Faster than the driver's brains could process. That's scary fast!
Also, the 1200HP 1.5L Renault was with the qualifying engine. It only lasted a few laps. Not sure what the race engine produced, probably closer to a mere 900.
As for the unrestricted cars, check out the old Group B cars. I've read they produced around 600 HP. Faster than the driver's brains could process. That's scary fast!
Also, the 1200HP 1.5L Renault was with the qualifying engine. It only lasted a few laps. Not sure what the race engine produced, probably closer to a mere 900.
| 8Complex | 08-15-2003 06:18 PM |
Looking at the numbers posted... what's with Skoda? Do their drivers just suck? The numbers are good, and actually very impressive. Wierd.
My favorite car is still the Peugot 206 in the WRC. :)
My favorite car is still the Peugot 206 in the WRC. :)
| mykrrrr | 08-15-2003 08:12 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 8Complex [/i]
[B]Looking at the numbers posted... what's with Skoda? Do their drivers just suck? The numbers are good, and actually very impressive. Wierd.
My favorite car is still the Peugot 206 in the WRC. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Skoda drivers are good but not like the Gronholm's or Solbergs of the WRC world. If they had a bigger budget to attract a tier 1 driver they'd probably be setting faster stage times. It's rumoured that Colin was talking to Skoda but that's unconfirmed.
My favourite WRC car is the Fabia right now. :D
-mykr.
[B]Looking at the numbers posted... what's with Skoda? Do their drivers just suck? The numbers are good, and actually very impressive. Wierd.
My favorite car is still the Peugot 206 in the WRC. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Skoda drivers are good but not like the Gronholm's or Solbergs of the WRC world. If they had a bigger budget to attract a tier 1 driver they'd probably be setting faster stage times. It's rumoured that Colin was talking to Skoda but that's unconfirmed.
My favourite WRC car is the Fabia right now. :D
-mykr.
| cvalle-sd | 08-15-2003 11:35 PM |
I think Sainz and/or McRae could wedge their way into a Fabia for next season. Carlos really looks more competive, and I'd think he has a chance at a Subaru ride, but I'm sure Skoda would love to have any big name or two pushing their new whip through the stages. I'd like to see Makinen go back to Mitsubishi, anyway:rolleyes: Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Tommi, and he's one of the five best ever, but I think that's more a matter for the history books than next week's Autosport.
- totally off-topic (duh)
- totally off-topic (duh)
| WRX-ECE | 08-16-2003 12:43 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by weric [/i]
[B][url=http://carfreaks.b0nk.net/jeremy_clarksons/Jeremy.Clarkson.Head.To.Head.1999.DVDRip.DivX-SMB.avi]:) RIGHT CLICK (SAVE AS) [/url]
EDIT: it's at 24:00 min. of 56:09
__________
WRX '02 WR
**Gumball 3000 -- I'd love to be there.......... Any rich people would like to donate me the entry fee ???email me** [/B][/QUOTE]
So, not to sound dumb, but what do I use to play it? WMP and Real won't play it, neither will my Divx player.
[edit] I'm a dumbass, forgot I deleted the REAL Divx player...
BTW - WAY cool video, watched the whole thing!!!
[/edit]
Jeremy
[B][url=http://carfreaks.b0nk.net/jeremy_clarksons/Jeremy.Clarkson.Head.To.Head.1999.DVDRip.DivX-SMB.avi]:) RIGHT CLICK (SAVE AS) [/url]
EDIT: it's at 24:00 min. of 56:09
__________
WRX '02 WR
**Gumball 3000 -- I'd love to be there.......... Any rich people would like to donate me the entry fee ???email me** [/B][/QUOTE]
So, not to sound dumb, but what do I use to play it? WMP and Real won't play it, neither will my Divx player.
[edit] I'm a dumbass, forgot I deleted the REAL Divx player...
BTW - WAY cool video, watched the whole thing!!!
[/edit]
Jeremy
| Penguinking | 08-19-2003 11:06 PM |
looking at the wrc car specs, the Citroen produces an ungodly 420 ft-lbs at 2750 rpms - waaayyyy sooner than any of the other wrc cars, which spec their tq peaks at somewhere around 3-4k rpms. what sets the Citroen apart from the rest?
| big_adventure | 08-19-2003 11:23 PM |
Just earlier boost, probably. I don't have any inside information, but engine torque is a very simple equation: cylinder pressure x piston area.
So, if you're getting 434lb/ft of torque, with a 92mm bore, you have (I think):
92mm bore = ~11.13in^2 piston area (92/25.4*3.1416)
11.13/12 = ~.926
434/.926/4 = ~117 psi in the cylinder.
To build that, you need to burn lots of fuel with copious amounts of air. The earlier you can get that air, the earlier you can pump that fuel.
My actual equation might be flawed, I may be forgetting a scalar or a constant here, but the concept is accurate.
-Sean
So, if you're getting 434lb/ft of torque, with a 92mm bore, you have (I think):
92mm bore = ~11.13in^2 piston area (92/25.4*3.1416)
11.13/12 = ~.926
434/.926/4 = ~117 psi in the cylinder.
To build that, you need to burn lots of fuel with copious amounts of air. The earlier you can get that air, the earlier you can pump that fuel.
My actual equation might be flawed, I may be forgetting a scalar or a constant here, but the concept is accurate.
-Sean
| Penguinking | 08-19-2003 11:29 PM |
right - earlier boost is definetly a reason for taht, but since these teams tweak the engines to produce boost as soon as possible, then why does the citroen still end up making boost sooner, in that case?
are you saying it has something to do with the cylinder dimensions, and the way bore/stroke diameters can affect how quickly air enters the cylinder? i'm abit confused
are you saying it has something to do with the cylinder dimensions, and the way bore/stroke diameters can affect how quickly air enters the cylinder? i'm abit confused
| jprowland | 08-19-2003 11:47 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShockWave [/i]
[B]As for the unrestricted cars, check out the old Group B cars. I've read they produced around 600 HP. Faster than the driver's brains could process. That's scary fast![/B][/QUOTE]
There's a Ford RS200 for sale in Autoweek right now:
"1986 Ford RS-200 Evolution
Brand New. Chassis #161, Owned & Built for Stig Blomquist, Documentation Avail. One of Approx. Ten Left - Possibly The Only Never Driven. Group B Rally Car Constructed to Win World Championship, Cosworth BDT/E, 0-60 Mph in 2.0 Seconds. Paid Ford (England) $135K US in 1986, That Is Firm Price Today. "
(contact info deleted)
--
JP Rowland jeremyrowland -at- mac.com
Co-driver, #896 Audi 4000 Quattro turbo, Open
Visit my boring web page: [url]http://homepage.mac.com/jeremyrowland[/url]
[B]As for the unrestricted cars, check out the old Group B cars. I've read they produced around 600 HP. Faster than the driver's brains could process. That's scary fast![/B][/QUOTE]
There's a Ford RS200 for sale in Autoweek right now:
"1986 Ford RS-200 Evolution
Brand New. Chassis #161, Owned & Built for Stig Blomquist, Documentation Avail. One of Approx. Ten Left - Possibly The Only Never Driven. Group B Rally Car Constructed to Win World Championship, Cosworth BDT/E, 0-60 Mph in 2.0 Seconds. Paid Ford (England) $135K US in 1986, That Is Firm Price Today. "
(contact info deleted)
--
JP Rowland jeremyrowland -at- mac.com
Co-driver, #896 Audi 4000 Quattro turbo, Open
Visit my boring web page: [url]http://homepage.mac.com/jeremyrowland[/url]
| Rattler | 08-20-2003 12:03 AM |
And thats not even the same one as this:
[url]http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&category=6057&item=2427572146[/url]
If you like the old Group B cars check out Duke Video's "World's Greatest Rally Cars". Its got all the Group Bs; Stratos, RS200, Audi Quattro, etc.
I read an article somewhere. They asked one of the old timer rallyists thats still racing. I think it was Carlos as to which cars were faster. They said the old Group B cars were faster but the newer ones handle way better.
[url]http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&category=6057&item=2427572146[/url]
If you like the old Group B cars check out Duke Video's "World's Greatest Rally Cars". Its got all the Group Bs; Stratos, RS200, Audi Quattro, etc.
I read an article somewhere. They asked one of the old timer rallyists thats still racing. I think it was Carlos as to which cars were faster. They said the old Group B cars were faster but the newer ones handle way better.
| cvalle-sd | 08-20-2003 01:54 AM |
Other than in a straight line, the WRC cars are faster through the same stages, than Grp.Bs because of the advances in active differentials and suspension.
| big_adventure | 08-20-2003 03:49 AM |
Penguinking,
I'd assume that's just how Citroen has built it and tuned it. They might be using a smaller-housing turbo that spools faster, but fades faster up top. Perhaps they've designed a tremendously over-square design? A combination? It would be nice to see the missing bore and stroke on that Citroen engine. That might answer some questions. Dyno plots would help, too. They mention that they see their tq peak much earlier. But we don't know if Subie and Pug aren't reaching 2% less than their max at the same point, and just pull the actual PEAK 1000 higher.
One thing is usually true in all turbo cars, all FI cars in fact: they typically have a very broad, very flat tq curve. Check out the dyno plots on the TXS site, for one place. Look at the stage 2 kit dyno plot. It makes within 20 lb/ft of peak to the wheels for 2100+ rpm.
Look at the factory stats for many, many turbo or supercharged cars. They often claim a tq peak that is constant over 2 or 3 thousand RPMs. For some reason the MB SLK230K springs to mind. It's supercharged rather then turbocharged, but I recall that it's tq peak of right around 200 was reached at ~2300 and lasted past 5K. I think either the last model or current model 911 turbo had a similar "curve".
What I'm saying, in my typically long-winded way, is that Focus could be making over 395 lb/ft from 1100 to 6000, but if the peak of 406 hits at 4K, there's the spec sheet answer. Would I notice the difference driving? Almost certainly not. Would it show up on the dyno? Definitely.
Flame retardant:
I am NOT actually suggesting that the Ford WRC car makes anywhere NEAR 395 lb/ft at either 1100 or 6K, it's just an extrapolation for effect. But what if it did? How much can I get one of those for? A group buy to bring the cost down, maybe?:D
-Sean
I'd assume that's just how Citroen has built it and tuned it. They might be using a smaller-housing turbo that spools faster, but fades faster up top. Perhaps they've designed a tremendously over-square design? A combination? It would be nice to see the missing bore and stroke on that Citroen engine. That might answer some questions. Dyno plots would help, too. They mention that they see their tq peak much earlier. But we don't know if Subie and Pug aren't reaching 2% less than their max at the same point, and just pull the actual PEAK 1000 higher.
One thing is usually true in all turbo cars, all FI cars in fact: they typically have a very broad, very flat tq curve. Check out the dyno plots on the TXS site, for one place. Look at the stage 2 kit dyno plot. It makes within 20 lb/ft of peak to the wheels for 2100+ rpm.
Look at the factory stats for many, many turbo or supercharged cars. They often claim a tq peak that is constant over 2 or 3 thousand RPMs. For some reason the MB SLK230K springs to mind. It's supercharged rather then turbocharged, but I recall that it's tq peak of right around 200 was reached at ~2300 and lasted past 5K. I think either the last model or current model 911 turbo had a similar "curve".
What I'm saying, in my typically long-winded way, is that Focus could be making over 395 lb/ft from 1100 to 6000, but if the peak of 406 hits at 4K, there's the spec sheet answer. Would I notice the difference driving? Almost certainly not. Would it show up on the dyno? Definitely.
Flame retardant:
I am NOT actually suggesting that the Ford WRC car makes anywhere NEAR 395 lb/ft at either 1100 or 6K, it's just an extrapolation for effect. But what if it did? How much can I get one of those for? A group buy to bring the cost down, maybe?:D
-Sean
| Penguinking | 08-20-2003 09:51 AM |
put me on the list for said group buy :banana:
thanks sean!
thanks sean!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét