Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 12
Australia risks auto industry collapse, down to one car manufacturer within next few years
Topic Started: 28 Jan 2012, 08:36 PM (12,949 Views)
Trojan
Default APF Avatar


Count du Monet
19 Jul 2012, 01:43 PM
3. Weight 70's sedan was 1400 kg.....FG 1700 kg. But you don't need kw's to push weight, the important element is torque.

The only thing KW's are good for is speed. What we don't need, because the state roads are not racing tracks.

I don't agree with doctored engines, I'm talking about engine from the ground up to be lower KW's.

I'm already talking to my political friends on the issue. We need laws to restrict power to weight ratio.
You do realise kW is a function of torque?
If you increase torque, kW goes up with it.

But other than that, I agree torque is more important if you don't intend to race around the roads.
That's why I drive a diesel powered family transport :)
I put trolls and time wasters on my ignore list so if I don't respond to you, you are probably on it ....
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Count du Monet
Member Avatar


Trojan
19 Jul 2012, 01:49 PM
You do realise kW is a function of torque?
If you increase torque, kW goes up with it.

But other than that, I agree torque is more important if you don't intend to race around the roads.
That's why I drive a diesel powered family transport :)
70's 4.1l ...torque...(325Nm) at 1600rpm

Today 4.0l...torque...(391 N·m) at 3250 rpm

I don't think we'll be missing much and the older engines torque was more practical in any case it delivered the torque at general moving speed.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!!
You are no longer customer, you are property!!!

Don't be SAUCY with me Bernaisse
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stinkbug
Member Avatar


Count du Monet
18 Jul 2012, 09:48 PM
1970's 3.3l was 100kw and the 4.1l was 130 kw. The typical V8 was about 180kw.


Automotive engine power was measured quite differently back then, and these numbers are not comparable to modern cars. If you wanted to use numbers for those engines that are comparable to the way power is measured now, it would be more like:

3.3litre 6 - 70kW
4.1litre 6 - 85kW
5.0 litre V8 - 120kW

Bear in mind too that when the new anti-pollution laws were implemented that cars lost power and performance, and used more fuel. When unleaded petrol came in cars also lost performance and used more fuel. Of course, the cars of the early 70's were a lot lighter than current models. For example, an LH Torana with a 3.3litre engine weighed around 1200kg, less than a new Corolla!

If you want to have a genuinely fuel efficient car, you need to look at building something that encourages sensible driving with appropriate gear ratios. Having a sufficiently powerful engine is a good way to stop people thrashing the engine leading to poor economy.

I also second the comment above about driving style, as how you drive makes an enormous difference to economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------

While it's true that those who win never quit, and those who quit never win, those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stinkbug
Member Avatar


Count du Monet
19 Jul 2012, 02:09 PM
70's 4.1l ...torque...(325Nm) at 1600rpm

Today 4.0l...torque...(391 N·m) at 3250 rpm

I don't think we'll be missing much and the older engines torque was more practical in any case it delivered the torque at general moving speed.
One of the things that modern engines are MUCH better at is producing usable torque across a much wider rev range. That Ford engine you're referring to got going at about 1200 rpm in 1975, but was flat out at about 4500 rpm. The modern version starts at about 1200 rpm but runs cleanly up to 6000rpm, and produces more consistent torque output also.

I remember playing with cars as a younger man and being told (quite correctly):

"Power rules the strip, but torque rules the street".

Oh, and power has very little to do with speed. Speed is a combination of torque, gearing and wind resistance.
Edited by stinkbug, 19 Jul 2012, 02:21 PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------

While it's true that those who win never quit, and those who quit never win, those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Doubtful
Member Avatar


Count du Monet
19 Jul 2012, 02:09 PM
I don't think we'll be missing much and the older engines torque was more practical in any case it delivered the torque at general moving speed.
it delivered torque at general moving speed? What the f.ck is that?

Torque is delivered at a point in the rev range. doesnt matter if @ 1,000rpm in 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc, torque output is the same (gears just multiply)


You are very wrong on torque delivery - new cars provider a much flatter torque curve than older cars. A lot of new cars have a flat torque curve from 2,000-5,000rpm , ensuring the power is available when required and providing economy benefits, regardless of "moving speed"

http://paultan.org/2006/08/27/audi-a4-20t-fsi-multitronic-test-drive/


Glad you were able to admit you know nothing about cars. The problem is you are lobbying the government (or friends in) on a topic you know f.ck all about.

What we need is proper driver training, much like in the scandanavian countries. Dont dumb down the applicance for the base level user group. Otherwise we should apply the same laws to housing and restrict debt to asset ratios.

People can get in trouble when they borrow too much - everyone should be happy with a 200k house - after all, what do you need extra rooms for. one to sleep in, one to live in. Much like it was back in the 30's (wasnt that awesome!)

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Count du Monet
Member Avatar


Doubtful
19 Jul 2012, 03:35 PM
it delivered torque at general moving speed? What the f.ck is that?

Torque is delivered at a point in the rev range. doesnt matter if @ 1,000rpm in 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc, torque output is the same (gears just multiply)


You are very wrong on torque delivery - new cars provider a much flatter torque curve than older cars. A lot of new cars have a flat torque curve from 2,000-5,000rpm , ensuring the power is available when required and providing economy benefits, regardless of "moving speed"

http://paultan.org/2006/08/27/audi-a4-20t-fsi-multitronic-test-drive/


Glad you were able to admit you know nothing about cars. The problem is you are lobbying the government (or friends in) on a topic you know f.ck all about.

2,000-5,000rpm That's a turbo charged diesel engine, did you notice that? Even I who knows nothing about cars, knows a turbo charged diesel is a different kettle of fish. What's your excuse! I've been referring to plain simple gasoline engines old and new.

The modern gasoline engine is pretty good up top, but piss poor down below. You can have one or the other. The 70's ford has peak torque coming in at 1600 revs and peak power at 4500 revs, between those two set of revs is its powerband. After that it is not much chop. Modern engine only starts at 3250 revs and goes to 6000 revs.

So you got the older engine that works best at 1600 to 4500 revs, and the current that works best at 3250 to 6000 revs.

Out of these two which one has is the fastest and which delivers the more useful powerband?

My entire point here is driving and accelerating fast is not useful and not safe, and we need engines clipped back to what they once were.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!!
You are no longer customer, you are property!!!

Don't be SAUCY with me Bernaisse
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stinkbug
Member Avatar


Count du Monet
19 Jul 2012, 07:29 PM

The modern gasoline engine is pretty good up top, but piss poor down below. You can have one or the other. The 70's ford has peak torque coming in at 1600 revs and peak power at 4500 revs, between those two set of revs is its powerband. After that it is not much chop. Modern engine only starts at 3250 revs and goes to 6000 revs.

Have you ever actually driven a modern Falcon? In normal driving you won't even get to 3000rpm, even accelerating to keep up with traffic. And it will manage this using only two thirds the fuel, while leaving plenty in reserve for the occasional overtake or steep hill. The engine will also last three times as long with regular servicing (where the service intervals are three times as long as the old engine).
---------------------------------------------------------------

While it's true that those who win never quit, and those who quit never win, those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Thatguy
Member Avatar


Count du Monet
19 Jul 2012, 01:43 PM
I know bugger all about cars.

But the simply fact a lower KW engine built today can deliver way better fuel savings than a high out put. If 130 kw was good for a 4l in the 70's it's good enough today.






3. Weight 70's sedan was 1400 kg.....FG 1700 kg. But you don't need kw's to push weight, the important element is torque.

The only thing KW's are good for is speed. What we don't need, because the state roads are not racing tracks.

I don't agree with doctored engines, I'm talking about engine from the ground up to be lower KW's.

I'm already talking to my political friends on the issue. We need laws to restrict power to weight ratio.
I really don't want to offend you but your assertions are flat out wrong. Objectively false. Power is the only important factor, engine torque is completely irrelevant. It is the most completely misquoted and misunderstood factor. Even a significant number of engine tuners don't understand this. Wheel torque is VERY relevant, engine torque is completely irrelevant.

I hope you aren't talking to your political friends to reduce kw/weight because you clearly have no idea about this particular topic. Although this seems to be the way of the world these days (or was this always the way?).....heaps of instant experts who only know enough to get it completely wrong. Legislating a lower power/weight will likely do nothing to reduce the road toll. A car with 80kw/tonne is MORE THAN enough to kill yourself at high speed while being less capable of merging at high speed on a highway, overtaking a truck on the singel-lane carriageways that make up the VAST majority of Australian roads. You're also perpetuating the deadly myth that you can engineer a solution to people have poor car control and poor understanding of how to drive safely.

Try driving on the highway in my car (200kw/tonne) and merge and overtake.....you'll feel and understand how much safer it is.

Yes, cars should be lighter. They should remove the insulating mass and crazy about of rubber mounts that deliberately fools peoples senses into thinking they are sitting in a safe, quiet lounge chair where nothing is likely to go wrong. This won't happen, but it's a choice people COULD make if they wanted to actually be safer, rather than feel safer. People(the free market) has had the option of reducing fuel consumption since the beginning of mass produced cars. The alternative was heavier, larger cars. Overall the mass market has chosen heavier and larger cars instead of reduced fuel consumption, up until the early 2000s.

Funnily enough since the early 2000 the ratio of income spent on housing has vastly increased, while that spent on cars and fuel has decreased (and we've linked it back to property).







Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Thatguy
Member Avatar


Doubtful
19 Jul 2012, 03:35 PM
it delivered torque at general moving speed? What the f.ck is that?

Torque is delivered at a point in the rev range. doesnt matter if @ 1,000rpm in 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc, torque output is the same (gears just multiply)


You are very wrong on torque delivery - new cars provider a much flatter torque curve than older cars. A lot of new cars have a flat torque curve from 2,000-5,000rpm , ensuring the power is available when required and providing economy benefits, regardless of "moving speed"

http://paultan.org/2006/08/27/audi-a4-20t-fsi-multitronic-test-drive/


Glad you were able to admit you know nothing about cars. The problem is you are lobbying the government (or friends in) on a topic you know f.ck all about.

What we need is proper driver training, much like in the scandanavian countries. Dont dumb down the applicance for the base level user group. Otherwise we should apply the same laws to housing and restrict debt to asset ratios.

People can get in trouble when they borrow too much - everyone should be happy with a 200k house - after all, what do you need extra rooms for. one to sleep in, one to live in. Much like it was back in the 30's (wasnt that awesome!)
This person, and a few others in this thread, know what they are talking about.

Also, stop talking about engine torque, stop thinking about it and stop trying to imagine how it is applied. Engine torque is 100% irrelevant. You might as well talk about how many air vents a car has.

Power is far more relevant. Better again you can talk about energy or work done (power over a given rev range), or area under the curve.

P.S. Do not mention engine torque again.

The free market has spoken and people prefer a safer and more comfortable car over a fuel efficient one. Otherwise everyone would be driving Fiesta econetic diesels. But they aren't. They are driving SUVs.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Thatguy
Member Avatar


Count du Monet
19 Jul 2012, 07:29 PM
2,000-5,000rpm That's a turbo charged diesel engine, did you notice that? Even I who knows nothing about cars, knows a turbo charged diesel is a different kettle of fish. What's your excuse! I've been referring to plain simple gasoline engines old and new.

The modern gasoline engine is pretty good up top, but piss poor down below. You can have one or the other. The 70's ford has peak torque coming in at 1600 revs and peak power at 4500 revs, between those two set of revs is its powerband. After that it is not much chop. Modern engine only starts at 3250 revs and goes to 6000 revs.

So you got the older engine that works best at 1600 to 4500 revs, and the current that works best at 3250 to 6000 revs.

Out of these two which one has is the fastest and which delivers the more useful powerband?

My entire point here is driving and accelerating fast is not useful and not safe, and we need engines clipped back to what they once were.
The only thing you have written that is correct is that petrol is different to diesel.

All other points you are again flat out objectively wrong. I don't want to sound too harsh but here we go:

1. The modern gasoline engine is BETTER at ALL ENGINE speeds than the 1970's engine. It makes more torque at ALL ENGINE SPEEDS, from less than idle to redline.

2. Yes the 70's engine makes it's maximum torque at 1600rpm, but the modern engine makes MORE TORQUE than this at 1600rpm. It continues to make MORE TORQUE at every single increment up to redline.

3. Where on earth did you get the info that the modern engine starts at 3250 rpm. The modern engine starts at idle. Have you driven a Ford Falcon? They makes shedloads of torque from 900rpm...absolute shedloads. I rarely see a taxi go above 2000rpm, they regularly shift at 1600rpm.

4. Most engine perform perfectly well above peak power, it's just that the torque drops proportionally faster than the revs rise (so the coupled multiplied reduces). This DOES NOT mean they are not useful above this peak power rpm, the most energy (and fastest acceleration) is found by shifting above this peak power point such that the area under the curve is maximized (depends on spread to next gear ratio - somewhat related to my comment about gearing in an earlier thread).

5. Clearly the modern engine has the better power band. Case closed. Strangely I understand where you are going wrong - you feel that the maximum tells you more than it actually does, you think it somehow implies a significant drop off? Well it doesn't. Can you draw a line with 1 point? Can you imply a 2nd point on that line from 1 point? No you can't. It's like saying you are richer than Kerry Packer because his peak wealth of $3.2 billion was in 2004 (fictional) and your peak wealth of $800,000 happened in 2011. Wow you are richer than Kerry Packer.....WRONG Kerry Packer was richer than you since birth and still is.

6. Driving fast is useful. It is also safe. Accelerating fast can be safe, it can be life saving##. Yet further.....define fast. Is standing on the earth and travelling around the Sun at hundreds of thousands of km/hr safe?

7. Can you provide an instance to me where too much power was a major contributor to an accident ?

8. How much safer should we be? Define acceptable risk? Do you want to live forever (this isn't possible), when does it become a point of dimishing returns? Road fatalities are constantly falling (mostly due to car design), but with significant contributions from radial tyres, seat belts, random breath tests, (in that order). Also ad in ABS, crumble zones, airbags, increased car rigidity/strength, better tyres, brakes, roadholding and dynamics.

While the government loves to target speeding as it is a massive net revenue generator (even has a budget line in NSW causing fines to need to increase!!) we have one stand-out figure that is INCREASING which is assault. Then again it's no surprise when solving assault doesn't provide income to the police.


## Fast acceleration is life saving is these real world examples (hundreds of people will be experiencing these such situation as you read this)
- merging from a standstill onto a highway with a short on-ramp (there are thousands of these around rural and country areas....thousands)
- overtaking a vehicle on a single carriageway
- overtaking on a dual carriageway (merging into the fast-lane)
- turning from a side-road onto a highway (most applicable in rural and country areas)
There would be many lives saved every year due to sufficient (and constantly improving) acceleration in these situations.
Edited by Thatguy, 20 Jul 2012, 12:49 AM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 12



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy