UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

How do you work it out..trying to show some girl with a neon that his car aint all that.

metz wrote:How do you work it out..trying to show some girl with a neon that his car aint all that.

BHP divided by weight in tonnes

So example 150 BHP divided by 1.2 Tonne

= 125 BHP per tonne

OK

How many lbs in a tonne then smarty pants lol

website works it out in lbs

1kg = 2.205lb

1000kg = 2205lb

carmadaaron wrote:1kg = 2.205lb

1000kg = 2205lb

Good man.......

from http://media.chrysler.co.uk/press_packs ... h_Spec.htm

weight: 2.0 RT model = 1325kg, 150bhp = 113bhp per tonne
weight: 2.0 LX model = 1325kg, 131bhp = 99bhp per tonne

so a 6N2 GTI would be better than the 2.0 RT (I believe) and a 2.0 LX would be on a par with the 16v 6N Polo.

ROUGHLY

What if it was an Auto?

Karl.

if its using pounds then it might be using imperial tons which = 2240lbs=1016Kg, so it might make a difference. A polo GT weighs around 850Kg if you include the driver so that works out at 88bhp/tonne. My 1.4 GT has just off 105bhp/tonne.

My G40 has roughly 165bhp and it weighs in at 830kg

Thats 198bhp/ton

A civic type R is 165bhp/ton!!

LregG wrote:My G40 has roughly 165bhp and it weighs in at 830kg

Thats 198bhp/ton

A civic type R is 165bhp/ton!!

nice!

Karl_CLCoupe wrote:What if it was an Auto?

Karl.

Unless it had a gearbox made of lead it will still be the same

carmadaaron wrote:

LregG wrote:My G40 has roughly 165bhp and it weighs in at 830kg

Thats 198bhp/ton

A civic type R is 165bhp/ton!!

nice!

Cheers fella

An auto box will not make a difference to bhp/ton. They did use to make cars slower to 0-60 but the new semi-auto in the TT is actually quicker than a human changing gear (apparently!!)

That's only because its a funkatoasticious DSG.... which is basically two three-speed manuals wedged into one box with a pair of computer controlled clutches. I want one...

An ordinary automatic, however, is a thing of great evil in the performance and economy stakes unless it's been VERY well made. Some late 70s / early 80s Pontiacs allegedly had very responsive and perky 3 speed autos that had a somewhat rough shift as compromise... or it might have been something to do with the 4 litre engines, i dunno...

It's the torque converter that's at fault, and it by rights should affect the BHP per ton as it robs you of power by way of high transmission loss - if you were to work it out on the more accurate basis of Wheel BHP per ton rather than the usually quoted Engine BHP per ton, you'd see a difference.

Most small 80s cars will crap all over a modern equivalent with the same engine BHP because of weight issues - there was a lot less metal and plastic in them; crash safety legistlation has led to great strides in the cleverness of designs, but an inescapable weight increase as well.

BTW anyone know what the weight of an average Saxo is, and their spread of engine outputs? I finally found a worthy opponent on the Distressway last night, who managed to just out-rocket the Ashtray. Unfortunately he was a tailgating f*ckwit in a Saxo who nearly wiped out on the final corner.... oh well... but he had no badges or spoiler or anything, so I'm wondering if he's the one Paxologist who's gone down the subtle sleeper route and debadged a VTR/VTS... or if i had my ass handed to me by a standard granny carriage ... mind you i'm only running the same Pwr:Wt ratio as a mildly tuned 1.3 CL anyhow

i worked this out the other day, and it turns out my standard G40 has more BHP per tonne than my bro's leon 1.8t! had to get one up on him somewhere! about 10bhp difference!

that audi tt dsg box is also a dam site heavier than a normal gear box





and right now my 1.4 seems to have a power to weight ratio of horse raddish - its getting slower as it gets older
(hopefully impending 120k service and a clean of the k&n will help)