Can you get 200 bhp out of a 2.0 NA diesel? Can you f**k.
there are lots of people on here with 2.0 na touching the 200 bhp mare
Yes you can so research before you post.
So what there 200HP petrol? There 20,000hp diesel
Can you get 200 bhp out of a 2.0 NA diesel? Can you f**k.
there are lots of people on here with 2.0 na touching the 200 bhp mare
Wow this thread really sucks you in, I just spent half an hour reading it when I should be working!!
Anyway time for my tuppence worth:
Thurlby astra - 200bhp,330ft/lb 0-100 17.6s
Astra VXR - 237bhp,236ft/lb 0-100 17.4s
A pretty fair match I would say, both turbo'd, (I reckon that if you add the power and torque figures together and they're fairly similar the cars will be evenly matched, maybe I could convince EVO magazine to test my theory ).
If both cars were naturally aspirated and both had 200bhp they would have pretty much exactly the same performance. If both cars are turbo'd to the same bhp the diesel will be slightly quicker; full stop.
If both cars are tuned to similar torque the petrol will be faster by a much bigger margin. eg BMW M5 - 384ft/lb 0-60 4.6
BMW 535d -413ft/lb 0-60 6.4
No contest no matter what road you're on, fair do the diesel might give the M5 driver a bit of a scare but once he got his wits about him the 535 driver wouldn't even see which way he went!
The 172 cup is far quicker than the williams imo
NA engines I think m8
Chris
LOLBuying a diesel is like being gay, its more acceptable than it used to be but its still not the done thing. Jeremy Clarkson.
Go and buy a 200 BHP diesel. If you want to sound like an Argos delivery van
The cars your quoting have completly different Hp though.Wow this thread really sucks you in, I just spent half an hour reading it when I should be working!!
Anyway time for my tuppence worth:
Thurlby astra - 200bhp,330ft/lb 0-100 17.6s
Astra VXR - 237bhp,236ft/lb 0-100 17.4s
A pretty fair match I would say, both turbo'd, (I reckon that if you add the power and torque figures together and they're fairly similar the cars will be evenly matched, maybe I could convince EVO magazine to test my theory ).
If both cars are tuned to similar torque the petrol will be faster by a much bigger margin. eg BMW M5 - 384ft/lb 0-60 4.6
BMW 535d -413ft/lb 0-60 6.4
No contest no matter what road you're on, fair do the diesel might give the M5 driver a bit of a scare but once he got his wits about him the 535 driver wouldn't even see which way he went!
Not everyone after the noise I'm not cannot stand it,.Exactly. If you want a performance car then petrol all the way. It's not just the speed and handling, its the sound of the thing etc...
I'm a c**t for bringing this thread back
At £1 per litre im sure the petrol driver will be lighter on the foot so my vote goes diesel.
Buying a diesel is like being gay, its more acceptable than it used to be but its still not the done thing. Jeremy Clarkson.
Buying a diesel is like being gay, its more acceptable than it used to be but its still not the done thing. Jeremy Clarkson.
That must make me king of the gays with a diesel Clio! Though you're definately bringing up the rear with a red Lupo
That must make me king of the gays with a diesel Clio! Though you're definately bringing up the rear with a red Lupo
Jeremy Clarkson quote, not necessarily my own opinion, just adding abit of banter to an otherwise serious thread.
Agreed the Lupo is camper than a row of tents, no one expects it to be quick though :approve:
Jeremy Clarkson quote, not necessarily my own opinion, just adding abit of banter to an otherwise serious thread.
Agreed the Lupo is camper than a row of tents, no one expects it to be quick though :approve:
It's not.
It's not.
And a 172 cup is rapid, yeah right.
130bhp/ ton and insurance group 11 keeps me happy, not to mention the residuals.
7.7 0-60 isn't exactly slow.
It's not.
And a 172 cup is rapid, yeah right.
130bhp/ ton and insurance group 11 keeps me happy, not to mention the residuals.
7.7 0-60 isn't exactly slow.
And a 172 cup is rapid, yeah right.
130bhp/ ton and insurance group 11 keeps me happy, not to mention the residuals.
7.7 0-60 isn't exactly slow.
It is in the 21st century.
7.7 was fast in the 80s.
It is in the 21st century.
7.7 was fast in the 80s.
True, but even 7.7 0-60 is still faster than alot of cars on the road today, and a 172 ff is only 7.2 so are you saying there not fast either?
Fast isn't just about 0-60. 0-100 is a different story, especially in a Lupo. So yes, Lupo's are not fast. I would like to see 7.7 secs to 60. 8.3 would be closer.