"Beaten" by a Saxo and Fiesta Flame

V

voteforpedro

Registered User
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
630
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Birmingham
Yesterday some Saxo pulled away at lightning speed, faster than I could. It wasn't even a VTR, I don't think. Then, today, a poxy Fiesta Flame did the same.

Both times I had the missus in the car which automatically puts a bhp cap on the car lol. :)

Anyway, not impressed. My VAGCOM cable is coming tomorrow so I'll sort this ******** out. My chav-beater will beat chavs once again!
 
I know what you mean i got done by a sh*t box claped out rover 25 two days ago and i wernt happy but when i got him on the motorway i left him standing hitting 135mph, that wiped the smug look off his face ( PR**K )
 
my brother borrowed our 1.8T and we had a little play with a new style Fiesta Zetec-S and there was nothing in it, although we were two up with tools and he was alone.

I think a standard 1.8T against a saxo VTR would be close, but the 1.8T would have the edge. The VTR has about 110bhp/ton, the A4 around 120 and a saxo VTS around 130.

The fiesta flame is going to be some poverty spec motor, maybe a 1.4 at best, as is the saxo, so either your really slow at actually launching the car off the lights, or theres something a bit wrong with your engine ;)
 
Lol...I never bother with traffic light Grand Prix.

Not worth losing you license over, just to claim your B5 beat a Fiesta.
 
Sometimes certain people are just asking for a roastin' though! lol (not really Mr Plod).
 
OUCH. !! I usualy aim for bigger more powerful cars. I like t take the smug look off their faces.
The chavvy little scrotes dont bother me as i knw i could stick it to them. Sometimes i have been known to rev mine up to taunt them and them do nothing when the light changes,lol Its sooooooooooo much fun
 
I hate the traffic light grand prix, I don't like doing smelly-clutch dump at 3500rpm starts anyway.

What I like doing is accelerating away from tailpipe-dwelling tailgaiting barstewards from 80, at which point m'little 1.8t is in the middle of...

"The Turbo Zone".

I love "The Turbo Zone". Much more entertaining than 0-30.

In 4th, my car as quick from 80 - 100 as Dads 540i.
 
I remember getting left at the traffic lights by a lovely street ka! I was shocked to be fair considering i had gunned the crap out of it. Out came the excuses to my friend in the passenger seat "oh i have 19's, and my car probably weighs more than his house" Which knocked the edge off having my **** handed to me. Luckily the ka went the same way, towards a lovely long dual carriage way. Overtaking him was then a breeze lol!

I wouldnt say there is anything wrong with your car, saxos are extremely quick especially off the lights. Anywhere within the 0-30 range. I believe it's due to their tin foil wings and cloth thinner than my underpants for sound deadening.
 
i loved it when i had my gti-r.people would think look at that ****** sunny with a stupid bonnet and spoiler,they didnt think it was so funny when it would kill m3's etc in a straight line.
 
audi upgrades
******. Just tried my car versus my dads... It would appear my memory is playing tricks on me. He is still faster than me, even if he locks it into 5th (his 540 is an auto). 150bhp /220nm versus 286hp /440nm, I don't really stand a chance come to think of it...

But he's not, like, miles faster.

Just some.
 
I have to say, I actually think that my old Rover 214i 16v was quicker 0-30 than my b5 2.4 V6! Quite disappointing.... until I get to a fast stretch of road, where it seems to leave alot of stuff for dead :D

Admittadely though, the little rover was a pretty nippy lil car! Quite deceptive! V6 sounds so much better too!:D

I'm sure that it pulls better when accelerating from a higher speed 'cruise' i.e 50+ in 4th than accelerating hard from a lower speed, i.e. 20 ish. Maybe this is just the power band!:scared2:
 
Performance wise, the 2.4 isn't that bad as it keeps up with most cars, you just have to be on the correct rev range. The main disadvantage is the weight. Newer cars especially the diesels have caught up.

There was a time where I've been followed by a Seat Leon FR. We joined the motorway from 30-70mph, the Sear switched to the outside lane but there wasn't much in it. The Seat seemed to be going flat out but it couldn't close the gap.
 
Despite all the **** I'm having with my BM, it still manages to haul its fat *** to 60 in 6 seconds.
 
audinary said:
The brochure says 8.3, but according to GPS it's actually more like 8.

Very little reason have bought a 2.4 new, unless you're addicted to cylinders
Click to expand...

Not sure about Sam's reasons for getting a V6, but I got mine for 2 main reasons:

Torque
Sound of a V6.

Yes, the 1,8T is more tuneable with less money, but a larger capacity engine has more tuning potential, just need to spend more to extract extra.

Extracting the extra and paying the price isn't an issue with me, if I couldn't afford it, then yes, I'd have gritted my teeth, and bought the smaller I4 turbo.
 
The turbo has similar torque and power to the V6, but does better gas mileage.

The V6 can be tuned, but with any NA tuning getting much past 100bhp/litre is hard work, so you'd end up having to turbocharge the V6, which would cost silly money and require a rebuild with lower compression etc unless you only wanted a little boost.

Going down the NA tuning route with a V6 is going to end up with it on independent throttle bodies, mad cams and aftermarket management, at which point you've lost all the nice tractability of your V6 and have a screamer of a race engine.

The 1.8T can see 240hp without too much work (new turbo and a remap effectively) and still be perfectly tractable on the road, and still retaining the original ECU with all the associated comfort features.

Yes if moneys no object theres more potential in a V6, but you'd be silly not to start out with a 2.7BT motor if you were planning that route.
 
I like the noise of V6s, Dad had a Mondeo 24v and even that sounded da nutz but for myself the most I'm ever likely to do in tuning terms is to remap it, and that instantly leapfrogs what you can get out of the V6.

Plus, I have to admit..... I do rather like turbos. This is the first car I've owned so equipped, and I'm a bit of a convert.

If an A8 4.2q came in to us as p/x, like, cheap, I might end up changing my loyalties. But at 62k on the clock and with a long life ahead of it, I reckon I'll be a B5 lad for a while longer.
 
I did own a Citreon Saxo VTS (0-60 = 7.2 secs) before i bought my Audi A4 2.8 V6, i must admit the saxo was very nippy but now that i have an audi i will never go back.

Sold the Saxo for £2500 and got the audi for £2000, Same mileage and age lol. But the insurance on the saxo was double the Audi. You cant beat the V6 sound and the 4wd for that matter. Shame you have to pay a bomb to tune it, wish it was just a case of bolting a turbo on.
 
Wayner87 said:
wish it was just a case of bolting a turbo on.
Click to expand...

Well in a way it is. Its no different to turbocharging any NA engine, be it your 1.6 16v saxo motor, or a 2.8L V6.

You bolt a pair of small blowers on and keep the boost pressure down and the engine internals will be fine. However its likely going to need either some VERY good mapping, or a standalone ECU which is where it gets pricey. It'd be interesting to see what people do for mapping on the supercharged V6's.

Probably cheaper to look at a complete S4 engine, or a V8 though ;)

We did a similar thing when we baught our A4 to you. Missus had a 2001 fiesta 1.3, sold that for 1300quid and baught the A4 for £1200. Ok its a bit older, and probably has cost a little more in maintenance, but its a far better car, and since we baught it pretty much at the bottom of its depreciation curve, we'll be unlikely to lose too much when selling it, unlike the fiesta, which she lost over a grand on inside 18months.
 
aragorn said:
It'd be interesting to see what people do for mapping on the supercharged V6's.

Probably cheaper to look at a complete S4 engine, or a V8 though ;).
Click to expand...

Apparently with the PES supercharger can get the V6 to around 300bhp, which is more or less the same as a S4?

Trouble with taking the A4 V6 out and putting in a S4 engine is insurance, it would be a complete modified car and especially my age the insurance would go from £500 (what i am paying now) to something stupid.
 
i wonder how that difference would compare to having supercharged or turbocharged the original V6 though?

Also, you might be able to hax a bit by using the 2.7T from the A6, as its running less power as standard and is probably a lower insurance group as its not a flashy "S" model. Then sneak a chip inside the ECU and your all good :)
 
aragorn said:
i wonder how that difference would compare to having supercharged or turbocharged the original V6 though?
Click to expand...

Would be nice if someone on here actually attempted to turbocharge a V6, to be honest i wouldnt be that guy as i dont really have a clue about engines/turbos etc, Wouldnt even know what turbo to use or where to start.

I just like driving cars :), any problems and it goes to my dads garage lol.
 
Traffic light grand prix is all a bit silly, extremely childish and doesn't achieve anything. So why I continue to do it I have no idea. lol

Have to remember any Saxo will be nippy off the line as it's an engine with a Kit-Kat wrapper round it.

Standard 1.8T is calimed about the 8 second mark which if I'm honest I would think is very very optimistic. When I got my stock 1.8T it was depressingly slow
 
A4Quattro said:
Despite all the **** I'm having with my BM, it still manages to haul its fat *** to 60 in 6 seconds.
Click to expand...

What is your BMW man :)

I have check the 0-60 of the S4 few place's I found out that they claiming 5.7 Sec and some place's 5.3 Sec so which one is correct :uhm: to me its the 5.3 Sec :busted_cop:
 
Oranoco said:
Standard 1.8T is calimed about the 8 second mark which if I'm honest I would think is very very optimistic. When I got my stock 1.8T it was depressingly slow
Click to expand...

8 seconds is just about doable in mine, but I don't like doing it very often, we're talking dumping the clutch and revving the ******** off it, doesn't feel very sympathetic, and i WANT MY CAR TO LAST A LONG WHILE.

It's worth noting that our gearing is pretty tall, much more so than a Saxo, so our top end is waaaay better.

Which is the area of performance me likey.
 
tbh the gearing doesnt affect the top end, so long as the motor doesnt have enough power to run out of revs.

I've never seen a standard car that had the power to reach the rev limiter in 5th.

The reason the top end is better comes down to horsepower. Once you start to climb past around 90mph, the power to weight ratio becomes less important and raw power starts to become more important, due to air resistance.

You could theorise that a 800kg car with 100hp would get to 60 in roughly the same time as a 1600kg car with 200hp. However once into three figure speeds, the 100hp becomes unable to overcome the air resistance, and the 200hp car will start to pull out ahead, and will go on to a higher terminal speed.

The heavier cars weight does mean its a lot harder to get off the line too, simply because you've more weight to get moving and generally not that much more grip

I dont think our A4 has ever seen a 8 sec 0-60 dash since we've had it, dawn isnt a particularly aggressive driver, and even when trying to go fast always seems to short-shift first gear at about 4krpm!
 
aragorn said:
tbh the gearing doesnt affect the top end, so long as the motor doesnt have enough power to run out of revs.

I've never seen a standard car that had the power to reach the rev limiter in 5th.
Click to expand...

Certainly 3000 rpm at (an indicated) seventy is lower than most other manual machines I've driven, and seems very low for a five speed car.

We're lucky that the B5 is a pretty aerodynamic shape, more so than a Saxo, certainly. And it's true that we don't have the power to reach the rev-limiter in top. But this doesn't stop the speedo needle from being deep into the 130s before the car stops noticeably accelerating (we're talking Autobahn here, obv.).

A saxo, which is already doing 3900 rpm at seventy, in top, with a similar rev limit around the 6000 mark, must theoretically run out of top end before we do.
 
oh sure the saxo gearing will be shorter, but then its top speed is lower anyway, due to it having less power.

What i meant was that fitting audi gearing to the saxo wouldnt let it go any faster, so assuming you dont hit the limiter the gearing wont affect the top speed so much.

The A4 is particularly long legged, however most larger saloon cars are like this tbh, as they tend to be designed for comfort and crusing up and down the motorways, rather than razzing down the school run.

I had a box in my old nova that was even longer than the audi box, it came from some diesel van, and its theoretical max speed, should it have had enough power to reach the limiter in 5th, was about 175mph. Problem is if the gearing is too long for the power available you just slow the car down with little benefit. Hence cars are designed with gearing such that they will be reasonably close to the limiter when then reach Vmax. That derv box in the nova rendered 5th almost useless in anything other that sitting on flat motorways at cruise, any hills or overtakes required 4th or 3rd to actually get the car to move!
 
The S4 6-speed that's going into Outlaw I rebuilt, using the 5th and 6th from an Allroad 2,5 TDI quattro.

The Allroad is geared at 37,5mph per 1,000rpm in 6th.
In theory, if my S8 motor had the torque (not power) to pull 6,000rpm in 6th, it would achieve 225mph.

That's in an ideal world, the S8 motor is redlined at 7,000rpm. To pull high rpm in top gear requires a LOT of torque to overcome wind resistance, in even the most aerodynamic of bodyshells, at over 70mph when aerodynamics comes into play, weight plays very little part. Weight of course, will play a part in how long a car takes to reach it's maximum though.

Mass affects accelleration, more power required.
Aerodynamics affects maximum speed, more torque required.
 
Siena: its not torque you need, its power.

You need energy to overcome air resistance, power is a measure of energy, torque is not. Torque is an instantaneous force. You can think of power as Work Done. Torque is the tool with which you use to do the work

If your producing 2000lbft but only doing 100rpm, your not doing a lot of work, but producing 400lbft and doing 6000rpm your doing a lot of work

if you convert both of those figures into power we get:

(2000*100)/5252 = 38hp
(400*6000)/5252 = 456hp

a 12x difference.

Unless your comparing things against a fixed RPM point, the torque figure alone is useless. Power is what you need, without power you cant accellerate.

Mass and aerodynamics both affect accelleration, its just that as the speed climbs, the mass part starts to become far less significant. You need power to accellerate, the torque is just what is used to generate the power.
 
Yep. My Dad once had an old Sierra 2.0 (Ghia, don't you know) which was geared so max speed was actually attained in 4th.

In the 80s there was a habit of companies fitting "Economy" top gear ratios to their cars to reduce revs in top. Of course, this was only economical if you NEVER tried to accelerate in top, the MPG would go right down.

I am reminded of Fast And The Furious with "I need NOS, my car topped out at 140 this morning" and we are shown the rev needle bouncing off the limiter. NOS is the last thing you need mate. WHat you need is a sixth gear or higher final drive ratio.
 
audinary said:
I am reminded of Fast And The Furious with "I need NOS, my car topped out at 140 this morning" and we are shown the rev needle bouncing off the limiter. NOS is the last thing you need mate. WHat you need is a sixth gear or higher final drive ratio.
Click to expand...

Off subject but how funny is it in Fast And The Furious in the drag race through the street when the Mitsi Eclipse (according to the laptop) has manifold failure and the floor falls out?!? Ha Ha Love it!!
 
Jessy also diagnoses blown piston rings from some steam coming out from under the bonnet, and informs us he managed to blow the welds on his (cast alloy?) intake manifold...

The quarter mile also took about 4 days and 16 gearshifts.

I also amuse myself at the scenes where (in the middle of a drag race) you get a view of him going from half throttle to full throttle, because his competitor has caught up with him, and even downshifting...

Its stupid because it would only take 20mins to chat to someone who knows anything about cars to get these details right.
 
also, after topping out at 140, he somehow manages to totally lose control for no reason whatsoever and pirouettes down the road, coming to a halt 4inches from the cliff edge.
 
I know.

I could watch it end to end fifteen times and still not get bored.

If I watch it with mates we just chorus all the mistakes.

Altogether now "Granny shifting not double-clutching like you should"

If It had been labled as a Monty Python or National Lampoon they might have had an excuse!

Aragorn:- Never driven an Eclipse with an 18 speed shimano transmission before?
 
Shame the supercharger was non-functional.

In fact, iirc none of the cars used for filming had any genuine tuning modifications.

Not even the Jetta! Jetta vs. S2000? (with "a hundred grand under the hood")
!!!!!! and !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mac1403
beaten and dejected
Replies
3
Views
714
Jonc
J
I
S4 vid made by a guy for a college assignment
Replies
3
Views
831
imported_Yaseen
I
J
fog lights from a TQS and a aluminum undertray for a B5
Replies
10
Views
919
aragorn
A
C
New diesel injectors and loom paid for by Audi UK
Replies
1
Views
683
B5NUT
B5NUT
Lowride
Back and lookin for a DERV..
Replies
0
Views
1K
Lowride
Lowride
Top
Back