The 3.2 M3 and 2.0 Civic Type R are both around 100bhp ler litre.

.

How sad, I just worked out mine is currently 116bhp per litre.

How sad, I just worked out mine is currently 116bhp per litre.

my car's only about 64bhp per litre, and my brother's is about 144bhp per litre...i'm not jealous

.... AND THEN you tell me that the reason my wheel spins in first gear is because I have sh!!ty tires or a worn out suspension??? Where are you from? Mars?

Hmm. You only get 38% of the traction on Mars due to the lower gravity.

Whatever you say Welshy.

You know my car better than I do so I won't argue anymore.

:confused:

Whatever you say Welshy.

You know my car better than I do so I won't argue anymore.

Sorry for my ignorance but I'm not 100% sure what that means.:confused:

How sad, I just worked out mine is currently 116bhp per litre.

Heh...yeah, I imagine some highly tuned cars such as yours are up there with big power ratings.

It's far easier to get big power with a turbo'd car than N/A ones. N/A cars suffer from inherent volumetric efficiency problems as they can only suck in so much air and so can only inject so much fuel etc. Therefore you end up reaching for higher rpms in order to get more 'power'.

The 115bhp 2.0 Furby will have a fairly 'gentle' cam. It will result in a car that's good on emissions and fairly torquey low down (especially being 8v too.....the lower number of valves means faster air flow through the narrower intake port and thus more torque but restricted air flow at higher rpms.....Toyota used to fake this by using TVIS which improved low end torque at low rpms by closing some of the intake runners at low rpm and opening them at higher rpms).

.....the lower number of valves means faster air flow through the narrower intake port and thus more torque but restricted air flow at higher rpms.

I don't follow this. Is it not the volume of fuel mix that counts - not its speed? 16 valves are better at maximum revs because those maximum revs are increased due to low valve inertia and reduced spring rate.

No....the narrower port enduces faster air flow and turbulance at low rpm creating torque. more valves are only of benefit at higher rpm as that's when volume is required rather than air speed and turbulance. I'll see if I can find the article...

TVIS (Toyota Variable Intake System) got round this as per my previous post.

It restricted air flow at low rpm to give torque and open up air flow at 5,200rpm to give revs.

Here we go:

What is TVIS as fitted to a Toyota Celica GT4 ST165 and ST185

Sorry, it's 4,300 rpm not 5,200. My MR2 had this and you could feel it switch when it did.

No....the narrower port enduces faster air flow and turbulance at low rpm creating torque. more valves are only of benefit at higher rpm as that's when volume is required rather than air speed and turbulance. I'll see if I can find the article...

TVIS (Toyota Variable Intake System) got round this as per my previous post.

It restricted air flow at low rpm to give torque and open up air flow at 5,200rpm to give revs.

OK, thanks. It seems that it is the port shape and size rather than the number of valves per se. The main advantage of a higher number of valves is higher revs due to mechanical reasons (less surge and valve bounce).

Yeah, the timing case on the 16v engine would gradually get wider at the top for the twin cam head. Means the 8v timing case would not be right with the bigger head on. Could you do it if you exposed the belt, kind of Cosworth style?

no, the 16v head only has one pulley for the camshafts, they are linked by a chain at the oposite end, it's the position of the pulley/idlers plus the position of the engine mount that would give you the trouble.... remember the mk3/mk2 golf 16v engines had no engine mounting on the left hand end of the block!!!

No....the narrower port enduces faster air flow and turbulance at low rpm creating torque. more valves are only of benefit at higher rpm as that's when volume is required rather than air speed and turbulance. I'll see if I can find the article...

:iagree:

smaller ports and valves give you better airflow at lower revs, at the cost of high rpm flow.....

theoretically speaking a 16v engine can have a wider power band because there is more valve area, remember the air flows round the valve not through it, becuase the 16v has more valve area you can get the smae amount of flow using less camshaft duration and hence the wider power spread:)

I like my 2.0 even if it is slower than a Civic

:confused:

Sorry for my ignorance but I'm not 100% sure what that means.:confused:

If you're the wise-guy who seems to know-it-all in here, and how the 2 litre Furby which you've seemingly never driven yourself performs, you can figure out what that means on your own.

If you're the wise-guy who seems to know-it-all in here, and how the 2 litre Furby which you've seemingly never driven yourself performs, you can figure out what that means on your own.

No it was understanding the very poor spelling and trying to get your point. Not easy

no, the 16v head only has one pulley for the camshafts, they are linked by a chain at the oposite end, it's the position of the pulley/idlers plus the position of the engine mount that would give you the trouble.... remember the mk3/mk2 golf 16v engines had no engine mounting on the left hand end of the block!!!

:iagree:

smaller ports and valves give you better airflow at lower revs, at the cost of high rpm flow.....

theoretically speaking a 16v engine can have a wider power band because there is more valve area, remember the air flows round the valve not through it, becuase the 16v has more valve area you can get the smae amount of flow using less camshaft duration and hence the wider power spread:)

Ahh, I see. Yeah, my 6 cylinder was the same....single timing chain up to the exhaust cam and the 2 cams were linked with a separate smaller chain.

This is probably why they're all using variable valve timing now on multivalve engines. This can adjust the duration of the cam(s) at lower rpm to improve idle and low end torque and adjust it again at higher rpm to improve air flow and power.

Best of both worlds whilst having the same cam.

Has the 2.0 8v been dropped now on all VAG cars or are they still using it? Seems pretty old school.

Whatever you say Welshy.

You know my car better than I do so I won't argue anymore.

No it was understanding the very poor spelling and trying to get your point. Not easy

You are lame. If I could shoot you in the head, I would.

No it was understanding the very poor spelling and trying to get your point. Not easy

I understood him completely....must be just you Welshy.

just plain rude

I don't get the point of the 2.0 fabia....surely they had a 1.6 that could produce 110 bhp? and more economical. why didn't they use that?

was it becuase VW did not allow it?

I personally cannot see the point in buying one.

Cost wise its more than the 1.4TDi

Performance wise its not much different to the 1.4TDi

economy wise its min double the 1.4TDi.

Just my 2p but if I had £6k to buy a car I wouldnt choose a 2.0ltr Fabia it is not fast nor economical.

For those who have bought it I dont care in the slightest its your £ buy what you like.

You could have bought a Volvo V70 T5 for this money with lots of change and then the 0-60 would be in the 6's.

I spent 5000 pounds worth to buy my car brand new 4 years ago. And I don't regret it. It does what I want and I'm happy with it. Sure it doesn't do 6's, but then it was never designed to do sixes. It's got good torque, and like I said, don't judge when you've never driven it.

I personally cannot see the point in buying one.

Try one.

Cost wise its more than the 1.4TDi

Yes, you have read the price list.

Performance wise its not much different to the 1.4TDi

Try one.

economy wise its min double the 1.4TDi.

Try one. I averaged on both my 2.0i's over a combined 50,000 miles, a shade under 35mpg. Do people average 70mpg on a 1.4TDI?

Just my 2p

Yes - and worth every penny

Try one.

Yes, you have read the price list.

Try one.

Try one. I averaged on both my 2.0i's over a combined 50,000 miles, a shade under 35mpg. Do people average 70mpg on a 1.4TDI?

Yes - and worth every penny

Not price list - 2nd hand market value.

Try one! Are you mad Im not interested in the low output 2.0ltr unit.

35mpg out of your 8v 2.0ltr well I average 32mpg out of my Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo which is modified to 280bhp.

With regard to the 1.4tdi ave 70mpg - yes they do seem to. And as one of my previous cars was a Golf GT TDI 115 which only once did 48mpg when only a few miles on the clock to a best of an average tank of 68mpg usually it was hovering around the 56-58mpg. So If I can achieve that in a heavy golf then an engine weighing much less in a body weighing much less with similar specific unit output it should deliver much higher.

Also maybe your too young to remember this but the Golf Mk 4 which used the 125bhp 2.0ltr 16v engine was described by all in the press (for which most rely on for fairly unbaised views) was a dreadfull car which didnt deserve the GTi tag. The Fabia isnt much lighter than said golf and it has less power....

Maybe its because you have yet to drive a fast car frequently to realise what is and what is not fast. A Saxo VTS was "nippy" in its day totally gutless mind and anything over 80 was really out of its depth.

Anyway choice of a

Try one.

Yes, you have read the price list.

Try one.

Try one. I averaged on both my 2.0i's over a combined 50,000 miles, a shade under 35mpg. Do people average 70mpg on a 1.4TDI?

Yes - and worth every penny

Actually re reading your retorte - to may statement performance wise its similar to the 1.4tdi you imply that is not the case. Odd really as chipped 1.4TDi's give stock vRS's a run for their money.

Perhaps you should try the 1.4TDi

Maybe its because you have yet to drive a fast car frequently to realise what is and what is not fast.

Just how patronising are you? Someone comments that their car is "nippy", they're hardly saying that it's a tyre-shredding hot hatch that can has enough power to change the orbit of planets. To that point, the wonderful reams of statistics you've produced on this thread don't really disprove the claim that the car is "nippy", they just prove there are faster cars out there (newsflash, etc.).

Anyway choice of a

Try one! Are you mad

Quite possibly.

Also maybe your too young to remember ....

I am 55

Just how patronising are you? Someone comments that their car is "nippy", they're hardly saying that it's a tyre-shredding hot hatch that can has enough power to change the orbit of planets. To that point, the wonderful reams of statistics you've produced on this thread don't really disprove the claim that the car is "nippy", they just prove there are faster cars out there (newsflash, etc.).

Guess that rather depends on what you want from a car...? The Volvo will certainly be more expensive to run and not necessarily any more fun to drive.

Rob.

More expensive to run yes but as its bought at a much lower price it will lose less in depreciation and overall total car costs may be the same or less than the 2.0ltr Fabia.

Remember the V70 built on the great BTCC Success of the 850T5 R which had amazing chassis.