Oh really? I like that...flat out...'You're wrong'. Let the specs speak for themselves.

Manufacturer: Honda S-4

Type: DOHC, 16 valves total

Bore

Dude...

When I had the Cooper S Works in my possession for a weekend I managed to clock a 0-60 time of 6 seconds, and this is a 200bhp car we are talking about which factory claims a time of 6.8 seconds on that run.

Now, Honda claims Civic Type-R clocks 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds. If this be the case, a Civic Type-R is most DEFINITELY capable of a sub 6 second 0-60 time, methinks somewhere in the 5.8 second range. It is MUCH lighter than a vRS and it has a lot of power and a massive rev range.

Edit: Sorry, that acceleration time is incorrect, it's 6.4 seconds 0-60 claimed and 147mph claimed..now you can imagine what it's like in the real world.

Shifty...it may not have the torque of a vRS, Top Gear even claimed the vRS has twice the torque, but the Type-R has twice the rev range. First gear on a Type R hits 70+ kilometers an hour. 212bhp. Think about it reeeeal hard.

A Cooper S works will beat a remapped Fabia on a straight, and that has 'only' 240Nm (177lb ft) of torque. It is NOT always about the torque. If you bear this in mind there will never be so much confusion.

It is NOT always about the torque.

I'm not gonna get too involved, as I don't know who is right, but Mil, it's NOT always about the BHP either, nor is it always about the weight.

Torque DOES have an effect of the performance of a car. Surely you must agree that a huge bhp AND torque figure is better? and if so, then you must realise torque does play a part. So don't underestimate how much it affects a car just because some cars can go fast without much of it.

Mil, did you actually not bother reading what I posted at the top of this page? You will note that up to a silly speed I stayed with my mate's CTR, then he began to pull away. He could tell you that himself but you'd probably disagree with him, doubt his driving ability or question whether he's checked under the bonnet to see if his engine's been stolen. I would never do a 0-60 or quarter mile with one, I know what the result would be. I'm talking about real-world driving, where you may exit a corner/roundabout and boot it to the next or down a motorway slip-road etc...

You'd be surprised if you took a run in a remapped/tinkered PD130. Only last year at Santa Pod I was watching a tuned PD130 Golf up against a tuned Fiat Coupe Turbo and the difference was almost immeasurable...

Yes I read what you wrote and I'm not writing up against it in anyway, it turned into a 'vRS can beat a Type-R' topic when it clearly can't. I have driven a Turbo Diesel car, the Ibiza GT, and indeed it's great on corners simply because you don't have to drop a gear to go...it felt very fast too (though it wasn't)...

I've driven a TDi dude, I know what it feels like. I do not know what 230lb-ft feels like in a car the size of a Fabia though, but all I'm trying to tell most people in here hwo think their vRSs are Saturn V rockets when remapped is that on a straight it cannot beat a Type R.

Fair enough, but just to correct you - it's closer to 300lb/ft when remapped.

[i']it's 6.4 seconds 0-60 claimed and 147mph claimed..now you can imagine what it's like in the real world.[/i]

Like my Fabia, only with poor mpg and no torque

Like my Fabia, only with poor mpg and no torque

And better handling, better looks, better driving position and excellent reliability :P

Chris

Just to play devils advocate, lets throw a few real world variables into the mix like :

One Wife & her handbag, two kids in the back and the weekly 'Big shop at Tesco' in the boot..is the Type-Rs performance still as good with less torque?

Well, for a petrol at that power rating that torque figure is a good one. You see, you fail to realize the amount of torque the vRS is stupidly high.

I have 170 something Nm of torque and with a full car, that is 2 in the back plus a passenger, my car has no problem moving at all. You guys really have to stop making these assumptions that just because a Fabia vRS has soooo much torque it makes it the fastest car. You forget the rev range difference between petrol cars and diesel cars.

An Octavia vRS is bloody fast, yet it has quite a good amount of torque less than a Fabia. Would carrying a crowd drop it's performance drastically? Nope, probably by a couple of milliseconds.

I'm not gonna get too involved' date=' as I don't know who is right, but Mil, it's NOT always about the BHP either, nor is it always about the weight.

Torque DOES have an effect of the performance of a car. Surely you must agree that a huge bhp AND torque figure is better? and if so, then you must realise torque does play a part. So don't underestimate how much it affects a car just because some cars can go fast without much of it.[/quote']

I totally agree, less the weight issue. I've said before in one of the threads here, there is a BMW 645Ci here that has about 500bhp and 1,100 Nm of torque (950lb ft) or something. Now, just because it has so much more torque than a SLR McLaren, doesn't mean it'll beat it in a straight...it just means that it's much easier for it to do burnouts. An SLR is lighter than that 645Ci and it has more power than that 645Ci, just because it has much more torque won't make it to first place.

Again for example...heavy men have much more torque when accelerating than light men. For instance, my godmother's son had a problem with his leg, for which he was receiving physiotherapy. He's a pretty heavy guy, something like 120kgs...doctors measure the torque he had at his legs at 750Nm. Now, just because he has so much torque, won't make him the winner in a race with a lighter more athletic dude with more power now would it?

Shifty, how many horsepower is your car? You'd have to have more than 220bhp to beat a Type-R in a straight line 0-60. A Type-R only needs 2 gears to get to 60, and it's quite alot lighter.

I ain't saying you couldn't beat one, I'm not there to judge. You probably could, but in a straight...doubtful...in a corner and out straight from there, most definitely possible given that stupid amount of torque it has. Like said, it also depends on the driver.

An Octavia vRS is bloody fast, yet it has quite a good amount of torque less than a Fabia. Would carrying a crowd drop it's performance drastically? Nope, probably by a couple of milliseconds.

Now drive it up a steep hill. Does tha Fabia fall behind or get ahead up the hill?

Hourses for courses. Torque will help you more in one situation and less in another. 0-60 may not be very torque dependant, but cruise along at a constant speed and then burn it up to a faster one, and more torque will be beneficial. Start at the bottom of a steep hill and first one to the top will most likely be the one with more torque. Race down and the fastest one will be the lightest or the one with more BHP.

In the real world though, torque will play a higher part than in 0-60 times. And although not the best car by far, the Fabia does have a lot of torque that is useable for fun driving.

heavy men have much more torque when accelerating than light men. For instance' date=' my godmother's son had a problem with his leg, for which he was receiving physiotherapy. He's a pretty heavy guy, something like 120kgs...doctors measure the torque he had at his legs at 750Nm. Now, just because he has so much torque, won't make him the winner in a race with a lighter more athletic dude with more power now would it?

[/quote']

For acceleration from standing it's not how much turning power the engine has but how quickly you can get it to the tyres.

Thats where bhp comes in since its an indication of how fast the torque can be tranferred to the 'road' not the peak amount of torque being generated.

BHP = (torque x rpm) /5625 if I remember rightly

An engine thats easier to rev eg.. an F1 car only generates a small amount of torque because of its short stroke, but its chucking it out at 12,000rpm and gets it down quicker = high bhp

A slow revving engine eg a diesel ( in terms of the time it takes the engine to increase in its rpm speed) takes longer to 'rev-up' but puts out far larger amount of torque but at 4000 rpm only gives it only gives low bhp in comparison.

Therefore a free revveing petrol like a Type-R can get its lower amount of torque down to the wheels faster than the diesel and hence out accelerate a VRS diesel.

BUT in the real world its the torque that determines how the car drives and maintains its power in the 'face' of inertia/weight/drag etc under a given engine loading thats why a diesel will be far better for towing, and its torque that determines the midrange driving characteristics where a diesels torque is sat at a nice fat juicy plateau in this area of the curve and unless you are constantly running your type-R at 6000rpm to match it, then torque becomes very important once on the move.

If you like it's why 100m sprinter with windmills for legs can outsprint Paula Radcliffe over 100m but she'd obliterate him over 10000m even stopping off for a quick dump halfway round.

Hill ? what hill?

Shifty' date=' how many horsepower is your car? You'd have to have more than 220bhp to beat a Type-R in a straight line 0-60. A Type-R only needs 2 gears to get to 60, and it's quite alot lighter.

Around 190bhp, and around 400nm ish.

I only need two gears to get to 60 aswell. Having driven many cars over many years, it didn't take me too long to work out that you can set off in second gear in a diesel car - because of the torque.(a 1988 205 pug diesel van)

Setting off in second gear next to a type r honda stops him beating me to 60. He will then of course go on to pass me as he gets the vtech screaming and beat me to 100 by about a car length. He is usually crying and thinking something is wrong with his car by then though

Flame me if you like folks, but its a fact, on more than one occasion. The clutch complains a bit with a sort of burning smell, but who really cares about that when you have just upset mr invincible in your very own tractor engined shopping car?

Don't think its off thread .On saturday as designated driver transported myself and three other cricketers so four big lads plus four very large cricket bags in boot (octy vRS)

The boys were impressed,very impressed as was I.Pulled great.Obviously not as quick as if just I was in it but nothing too discernable.I love my car.They were still talking about it at our Sunday game and one of them has an XKR Jag (which would obliterate me!!)

Around 190bhp' date=' and around 400nm ish.

I only need two gears to get to 60 aswell.

You are of course talking 2nd to 3rd and not 1st to 2nd....quite unbelievable that you can do 0-60mph in 6.4 seconds starting from second gear...but if you say you can, then I most definitely take your word for it.

Understandable that you can start from 2nd just because of the huge amount of torque, but i really can't see how doing this would be faster than starting in first.

By the time your car gets to the point where the turbo (and all the torque) kicks in (1,800 rpm) a car starting in first would be well ahead, and probably on its second gear change. Oh, and if you tried to hold the car on the clutch at 1,800-2,000rpm before you took off to get the maximum thrust, then one of two things would happen:

1. The traction control and every other driver aid under the sun would kick in as soon as you release the clutch to cut the power and stop the car from spinning, or

2. The car would sit and spin with no traction control, and lose a **** load of time before any power got onto the road.

I have an Octy with only about 140bhp, and i know for a fact that with 205 Michelin Pilots (lots of grip) the car will spin if i try and even go above 1,500rpm on a quick take-off in the dry.

JD

Understandable that you can start from 2nd just because of the huge amount of torque' date=' but i really can't see how doing this would be faster than starting in first.

JD[/quote']

That's what I said...quite unbelievable...but then with 190bhp, it is possible.

That's what I said...quite unbelievable...but then with 190bhp, it is possible.

Nah,..... still can't see it.

Nah,..... still can't see it.

Plus your clutch is going to be shrinking each time you do it

Chris

On a serious note, i had a drive in my mate's dad's Nissan 300ZX 3.0 twin turbo, and i would say my Octy definitley felt faster, and would have put my house on it that he couldn't pull more than 2 car lengths on me up to 100mph.

It really didn't feel very fast, must just have been the weight of it, or maybe because my car is putting out 250lb torque.

JD

Must admit I was thinking of this very point the other day whilst trying to say goodbye at the lights to an annoying taxi.

I felt I right berk shooting off in Jane's fabia only to change gear about 1 second after I had set off.

How fast are you going in first in the fab vRS at 4000rpm?Felt like 6 mph to me before I had to change to second

On a serious note' date=' i had a drive in my mate's dad's Nissan 300ZX 3.0 twin turbo, and i would say my Octy definitley felt faster, and would have put my house on it that he couldn't pull more than 2 car lengths on me up to 100mph.

It really didn't feel very fast, must just have been the weight of it, or maybe because my car is putting out 250lb torque.

JD[/quote']

The 300ZX is a beautiful car, and it is very fast! Heavy though...that's prolly why you din't feel it as fast.

Putting a silver stripe up your bonnet is "quite unbelievable", setting off in second gear is really quite simple. Disengage asr, engage second gear, get clutch to biting point, wait for start/traffic lights to change, press the torque pedal whilst engaging the clutch and voila - the car is moving and in its power band quicker than you can say "silver stripe on my bonnet please stevie:cool: "

This then gets you to 4k on the rev counter, BANG it into third, dump the clutch for chirping noise from tyres effect and ride the next 400nm wave of type r crushing power. On the change from third to fourth is where the type r gets you. I need a sequential gearbox. that would sort it.

Can't see why some folks are struggling with this torque stuff. Used properly it moves things very quickly indeed. Top gear - 2 Bmws, one a BFO V8, one a BFO derv. Considering that The stig is a racing driver and was in the V8, and Clarkson is a badly dressed derv hating ham fisted tv presenter, relatively speaking, the lesser powered derv was right up the Stig's ar5e.

Was it an Aston Martin that the said Clarkson set off in 5th gear and pulled it up to its top speed? It wasn't bhp as that is a sum of torque and revs and some numbers explained earlier by somebody with some knowledge, no, it was torque.

Tractors have torque to plough fields.

Land rovers have no bhps and shedloads of torque for tackling big muddy hills.

You can even buy wrenches with ooodles of torque to tighten your nuts. They really have no bhp's at all.