Joined
·
14 Posts
Is it worth paying extra for the 75 PS instead of the 60 PS? What's the actual difference in performance? The 60 PS I tested certainly lacked that va va voom.
75 or 60?
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
The 75 ps isn't going to snap your neck when you drop the clutch but it does have 15 ps more than the 60 has but if it's only fuel economy you're interested in then you'll stay with the 60. There's not a huge difference in the fuel efficiency of the two motors anyway so for that reason I went for the the extra 15 ps.mazzarati888 said:
I have the 60 and I find that if I want it to move fast away from a junction it will do the job,in factI have wheel spun a couple of time pulling away, also on motorways iteasily keeps up with the big boys drop a gear and your away. I washappilydoing 90mph (private land of course) yesterday and It had more to give
saying that my engine isnicelybedded it now.
saying that my engine isnicelybedded it now.
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
75 definately required if you drive 4-up regularly......apart from initial cost, fuel use difference is negligible.
other countries get the option of 75ps in the lower spec models....not the UK though doh!
other countries get the option of 75ps in the lower spec models....not the UK though doh!
Don't forget both have the same torque so in gear they are pretty much evenStevens, 75ps just gives you greater GP potential at the traffic lights. It's torque that matters most when you are fully laden.
You need to hit 6200rpm before all 74 horses are released 200 rpm up on the 60. From what I know the two engines differ in the tuning of the ECU and nothing more.
You need to hit 6200rpm before all 74 horses are released 200 rpm up on the 60. From what I know the two engines differ in the tuning of the ECU and nothing more.
ducatikid said:
I found that hard to believe that VW Ireland wasn't offering the 60ps version at all but after having a look at their website I see the 60ps motor is nowhere mentioned, not even in the brochures.
source:http://www.volkswagen.ie/en/models/up/brochures_and_prices.html
jezyg said:
I'm not sure I agree with you there. The quoted torque is the maximum value. I would suggest that the 75 has a broader torque curve which helps with it's improved acceleration. Also I would suspect the torque in the 75 is higher in the 60-75 mph area to give a more relaxing motorway experience and the ability to maintain speed at 70 up hills. The revs are not in the high torque area at 70.
I hope I am right or I will be disappointed.
ducatikid said:
Torque spread is identical for both engines 3000-4300. The 75ps version will feel more sprightly off the mark and a little more pull top end as you get more power higher up the rev range. Mid range they will feel pretty much the same unless VW has seen fit to reduce throttle response very slightly on the 60ps version, which has been done before.
<div style="margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 2px; margin-right: 2px; margin-bottom: 2px; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb0, 0, 0; font-weight: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; -: none; : rgb255, 255, 255; "><div style="margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 2px; margin-right: 2px; margin-bottom: 2px; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb0, 0, 0; font-weight: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; -: none; : rgb255, 255, 255; ">As said here above the torque is the same on both engines but apart from that both engines have their own transmission ratio's. The 75 shifts shorter than the 60 which means that at the same speed and in the same gear the 75 makes more rpm than the 60. This results in more torque and hence a swifter acceleration. Not only do you gain 1 sec from 0 - 100 km/h but more importantly you gain 2 sec from 80 - 120km/h (which comes in nicely when overtaking)... The fifth gear seems to be the same though and the diference in topspeed is only due to the 15hp more attained at higher rpm.Only downside to the 75 is the slightly higher fuel consumption.
The 60hp is as fuel-economic as possible and the 75hp drive a bit more flexible (less gearshifting)
grtz
Gunter
The 60hp is as fuel-economic as possible and the 75hp drive a bit more flexible (less gearshifting)
grtz
Gunter
I got one of the first 75 Blue Motion cars in the UK. I'm well impressed with it, both from a performance standpoint (not a Ferrari but very good considering I'm used to driving a Lexus GS300) and fuel economy - it managed 64.7 mpg doing the 4.5 mile trip back from work today.
I would say it gives the best of both worlds, albeit for a greater initial outlay.
I would say it gives the best of both worlds, albeit for a greater initial outlay.
Joined
·
14 Posts
Many thanks for allthe replies - my mind is made up: the 75 it is. Now, what colour??
![]()
Hi Gunter, Thanks for your words. I still don't understand your explanation! can you give me a source that shows/explains the torque/power curves in a way that I will understand. As you've explained it the 75 car suddenly gets 15 horse power between 6000 and 6200.GunSpeed said:
I'd love to but it's hard to find them back... I found the full explaination with charts somewhere on a german forum (some annex to a topic)...
But about the extra power it only seemed to come from higher revs. The 60hp-curve flattened out somewhere around 5200-5500rpm as where the 75hp-curve continued up to around 6200-6400...
![]()
Can't recall the exact numbers though but if I might come across the charts again I'll post them over here of course
![]()
But about the extra power it only seemed to come from higher revs. The 60hp-curve flattened out somewhere around 5200-5500rpm as where the 75hp-curve continued up to around 6200-6400...
Can't recall the exact numbers though but if I might come across the charts again I'll post them over here of course
Thanks very much.
I'll just enjoy the car when it finally comes. I just enjoy getting to the bottom of technical things.
What we need is lightweight and low wind resistance. My Ducati 350 used to do 85 mpg.......
I think there should be anew branch of tuning going around. One to suite our nice little cars. Titanium body shells, you know something simple. I know Audi tried the aluminium A2 that didn't sell well. The VAG group seem to have got it right this time.
I know the platform is available to audi so perhaps the audi will be the premium very low fuel consumption cars. It's all very well making low fuel consumption cars like the 100mpg lupo, but the volkswagen buyer hasn't got pockets that deep.
Edited by: ducatikid
I'll just enjoy the car when it finally comes. I just enjoy getting to the bottom of technical things.
What we need is lightweight and low wind resistance. My Ducati 350 used to do 85 mpg.......
I think there should be anew branch of tuning going around. One to suite our nice little cars. Titanium body shells, you know something simple. I know Audi tried the aluminium A2 that didn't sell well. The VAG group seem to have got it right this time.
I know the platform is available to audi so perhaps the audi will be the premium very low fuel consumption cars. It's all very well making low fuel consumption cars like the 100mpg lupo, but the volkswagen buyer hasn't got pockets that deep.
Edited by: ducatikid
Joined
·
619 Posts
Without actually seeing the relevant power, torque curves and gearbox specifications, my comments are just guesswork perhaps. Anyway, it seems to me unlikely to me that VW would have different gearboxes for the 60 and 75 hp cars.
If the gearboxes, ratios etc are the same and the 75hp car has marginally more torque across the rev range than the 60hp car, drivers of the 75hp car should be able to change up sooner. This gives slightly better acceleration and a faster 0 - 60mph time in the higher powered car.
As mentioned, my feeling is that both engines and gearboxes will be the same in both cars. The power output of the 75hp car being achieved via some tweeks to the ECU. You can only do so much with this sort of mod - usually bhp is increased with minimal changes to torque.
The Bluemotion cars will have additional modifications to increase fuel efficiency etc.
If the gearboxes, ratios etc are the same and the 75hp car has marginally more torque across the rev range than the 60hp car, drivers of the 75hp car should be able to change up sooner. This gives slightly better acceleration and a faster 0 - 60mph time in the higher powered car.
As mentioned, my feeling is that both engines and gearboxes will be the same in both cars. The power output of the 75hp car being achieved via some tweeks to the ECU. You can only do so much with this sort of mod - usually bhp is increased with minimal changes to torque.
The Bluemotion cars will have additional modifications to increase fuel efficiency etc.
GunSpeed said:
It is just the final drive ratio that is changed on the 75 it gives 16.7mph at 1000rpm compared to the 60 which gives 17.8 mph at 1000rpm. The final reduction gives the torque lift and extra turn of speed then. Both cars have the following ratios:
1 3.643
2 1.955
3 1.270
4 0.959
5 0.786
R 3.417
WARNING THIS CONTENT MAY CAUSE BRAIN ACHE
In reality it is the torque that reaches the drivewheels
that dictates both acceleration AND max speed. This figure is comprised of
engine torque and gearing.
Higher engine torque = higher torque at the wheels = higher
acceleration.
Lower gearing = higher torque at the wheels = higher
acceleration.
Remember that TORQUE is the only engine output a driver
feels. Power is a kind of esoteric measure that is simply calculated from
Torque and Engine Speed. If we are talking ""BHP""� and ""lbs.ft""� then the equation
is:-
Power= (Torque x rpm)/5252
But the power on most cars is rated at the flywheel and not
the wheels so the powerloss through various transmissions is:
FWD 15%
RWD 20%
4WD 25%
Power dictates how much advantage you can make of gearing
I've seen a few analogies before, but the best one I've have
ever seen is the analogy of the human body as we all now the basics of how we
work don't we? So I shall use this analogy of Bill and Ben on their bikes.
Torque is what your legs generate. If you press harder on
the pedals you'll accelerate harder. You use the gears on your bike to multiply
the torque your legs generate. In 1st gear the bike wheel may only rotate once
for every 5 times you spin the pedals. In this gear you can zip up a hill (or
accelerate really quickly), as this has the gearing has the effect of
multiplying your leg power by 5.
If you maintain a steady force on the pedals, the bike
accelerates at a steady rate. The torque you are generating stays constant, but
the faster you spin your legs the more power you muster. Eventually you
discover that you run out of steam and cannot peddle any faster, and you can't
really get any force into your leg strokes. This is like your engine going upto
and beyond its' peak power point.
Higher gears allow you to move along quickly whilst your
legs go round at a comfortable pace. Nice one. Try to pull away from a
standstill in the same gear however and (without enormous multiplication of
your leg strength) it'll take you significantly longer to get up to speed.
Bill and Ben are out two examples of engine. Bill has very
strong legs. But struggles to pedal very fast. So whilst he can put allot of
force into each revolution, he can only manage slow rotations. This is the good
old TDi
Ben conversely has very athletic and supple legs - . He has however
very flexible and fast moving ankle muscles (think VANOS) that helps him to
peddle very fast. Although his legs lack power he can pedal very fast.
We line them up on the drag strip and the light goes green
and Away!! Bill storms into the lead, his rear tyre barely able to contain the
thrust created by those strong legs. But he soon cannot peddle any faster, and
he's quickly forced to change up into second, then third""¦and look at this! Ben
is staging a comeback, still in first with his legs going round allot faster
than Bills. Whilst Bill is producing major leg thrust, he's currently using 3rd
gear, which only doubles the torque his legs generate before it reaches the
rear wheel. Bill is still in first, so his supple legs continues to be subject
to 5-times multiplication""¦and he's reeling Bill in!
It's a similar story when they are up to maximum speed. By
enormous coincidence they appear to have an identical flat-out pace. Bill is
pumping his top gear firmly and steadily ~ wind resistance and friction
conspire against him ""“ he can go no faster. Ben is right up there with him, but
he's still in 3rd his legs pedalling faster than Bill.
Back to the world of cars. You should now be able to
understand why TDI's are often quoted as having ""massive in-gear thrust""�,
whilst it's acknowledged that they are not quite as good when it comes to both
""0-60""� and top speed although they are catching up i BMW 335D or 123d. Most
TDI's barely get to 60 in third, so in addition to requiring an extra gear
change over most petrol models, they pass ""the magic 60""� in 3rd ~ which is by
definition higher geared than 2nd, so torque is multiplied to a lesser extent
before it gets the chance to arrive at the drivewheel and ""do the business""�.
This gearbox multiplication is the real important factor and why two engines of
the same power output can seem faster.
As diesels operate using compression ignition they don't
require spark plugs. This omission unfortunately makes advancing the spark
somewhat difficult the main cause of their high rpm torque deficit. Also
needing a longer stroke for compression reasons also inhibits high RPM.
Because ignition cannot be adjusted like a petrol car they
cannot rev to such a high level as a petrol engine.
A BMW VANOS engine with 140lbs.ft max torque CANNOT punch as
hard as a BM Diesel with 290lbs.ft. In a VANOS engine however you will choose
to accelerate with a lower gear than the derv, so the torque it does have is
multiplied to a greater extent before it reaches the wheels. A TDI might feel
impressive in 4th~ certainly more impressive than a petrol in 4th, but the
petrol driver would undoubtedly pop it into 3rd (or even 2nd) to make better
progress. The TDI has no such option. So high RPM means that we can stay in a
lower gear for longer!!
As a rule - lower gearing makes better use of what torque
you have available, but leads to unfashionably (and often uncomfortably)
high-rev cruising.
This gearbox multiplication is the real important factor and
why two engines of the same power output can seem faster. It is also why some
people say this engine feels more tourqey even though engine A has the same
power/torque as engine B.
Another note needs to be made of chipping, most engine
re-maps will increase the power but it is the torque that they concentrate on.
As the increase in Power for a diesel comes from an increase
in fuel/air density which comes from the injection pressure currently at 2000
for a common rail system. The increased pressure gives more torque at any set
engine speed for a like for like engine capacity. This leads to smaller more
powerful engines able to match Petrol via the Gearbox/torque ratio.
Let's look at a F1 car example-
Assume 800hp at 18000rpm. Using the equation at the start
(Power= (Torque x rpm)/5252) , we can see that it is only producing 233lbs.ft
at this point. Not a lot really""¦.a 1.9TDI VAG unit produces up to 235lbs.ft.
However if we want it to do 210mph, then our mega-revvy F1
engine only needs a top gear pulling 12mph per 1000rpm. Which is barely higher
than 2nd gear in most road cars. Hence the ""torque multiplier""� from the gearing
is massive, and you can still spin those fat rear slicks in top gear. Massive
power allows vast exploitation of gearing. (I would guess gearing ratio in top
is approx 6.5:1. So the engines' 233lbs.ft becomes 1500+ lbs.ft to be shared
between the rear wheels).
What if you could extend the rev range further? Let's double
it to 36000rpm. With this, the same car could use gearing of only 6mph per
1000rpm (about the same as 1st in a road car) and still manage 210mph. All 800
horses are still required (and produced), although only 116.5 lbs.ft torque is
required to create it at this astronomical engine speed. Has the torque
arriving at the wheels changed? (No). You can see why F1 engineers love engines
that rev.
Edited by: jezyg
Joined
·
619 Posts
ducatikid said:
I could never work out why the A2 never sold, it seemed ahead of its time to me. The main stumbling block for aluminium cars was the price of the raw metal and the difficult manufacturing (welding?) processes.
Companies like VW are now using high strength steels instead of going down the aluminium route. To me the perfect target for use of lightweightmaterials would be electric and hybrid cars i.e. less weight, more miles per charge. Of course, light weight means more expensive...
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!