YUM Cossie VS Si B Evo TORQUE CURVES NOW ADDED PAGE 2
#1
YUM Cossie VS Si B Evo TORQUE CURVES NOW ADDED PAGE 2
New graph added on page 2, showing torque curves as well!
Right, potential for a major shit storm of a post if the morons on here read any further. If you have nothing constructive / postive to add, kindly Foxtrot Oscar to another thread
Having read Dave's post about running his car up on the rollers today I thought it would make an interesting (well for me anyway ) comparison to see how my car stacks up against Dave's frankly awesome Escort.
So, using the two following Dyno Dynamics graphs showing our BHP at the flywheel, I've knocked up a comparison chart, to see how and where our two cars make their power.
2 very different cars, engines, tuners and end goals, but very similar peak power - the graphs used:
The comparison graph for BHP @ flywheel:
I'm not sure of Dave's engine capacity, but mine is a 2.3 litre "Stroker" engine, up from the normal 2 litre. I run a GT35 .63 at 2.1 bar, Dave was using a GT40 at 1.9 bar.
My cas has been mapped as far as I can probably safely go for sustained track use. Dave's road mapping was not finished, and the car was not running full boost. The comparison is not at all scientific, with his car finished his numbers would no doubt trounce mine.
Here's the data set I used, some numbers are rough / rounded:
RPM Si B Evo BHP YUM Escort BHP
3000 90
3200
3400 126
3600
3800
4000 270 176
4200 306 200
4400 351 224
4600 423 288
4800 450 352
5000 495 432
5200 522 464
5400 540 496
5600 549 520
5800 560 552
6000 572 560
6200 576 576
6400 585 592
6600 590 608
6800 585 616
7000 580 616
7200 576 616
7400 576 608
Looking at that comparison graph, I don't reckon there would have been too much between Dave and I on the track. My car pulls sooner and harder from low down the rev range, his makes better peak power and sustains it - good top end power helps on track, but drive out of slower corners is pretty handy too.
I'm now even more gutted I never got to see it used in proper anger, as I think a few very epic races may have been on the cards
I'll add the torque graphs tomorrow when I have another spare half hour to fiddle about.
Sorry if I bored you, I know some people may have found it interesting to compare the two, and I'm sure a real life on the track comparison would have been even better still
Si
Right, potential for a major shit storm of a post if the morons on here read any further. If you have nothing constructive / postive to add, kindly Foxtrot Oscar to another thread
Having read Dave's post about running his car up on the rollers today I thought it would make an interesting (well for me anyway ) comparison to see how my car stacks up against Dave's frankly awesome Escort.
So, using the two following Dyno Dynamics graphs showing our BHP at the flywheel, I've knocked up a comparison chart, to see how and where our two cars make their power.
2 very different cars, engines, tuners and end goals, but very similar peak power - the graphs used:
The comparison graph for BHP @ flywheel:
I'm not sure of Dave's engine capacity, but mine is a 2.3 litre "Stroker" engine, up from the normal 2 litre. I run a GT35 .63 at 2.1 bar, Dave was using a GT40 at 1.9 bar.
My cas has been mapped as far as I can probably safely go for sustained track use. Dave's road mapping was not finished, and the car was not running full boost. The comparison is not at all scientific, with his car finished his numbers would no doubt trounce mine.
Here's the data set I used, some numbers are rough / rounded:
RPM Si B Evo BHP YUM Escort BHP
3000 90
3200
3400 126
3600
3800
4000 270 176
4200 306 200
4400 351 224
4600 423 288
4800 450 352
5000 495 432
5200 522 464
5400 540 496
5600 549 520
5800 560 552
6000 572 560
6200 576 576
6400 585 592
6600 590 608
6800 585 616
7000 580 616
7200 576 616
7400 576 608
Looking at that comparison graph, I don't reckon there would have been too much between Dave and I on the track. My car pulls sooner and harder from low down the rev range, his makes better peak power and sustains it - good top end power helps on track, but drive out of slower corners is pretty handy too.
I'm now even more gutted I never got to see it used in proper anger, as I think a few very epic races may have been on the cards
I'll add the torque graphs tomorrow when I have another spare half hour to fiddle about.
Sorry if I bored you, I know some people may have found it interesting to compare the two, and I'm sure a real life on the track comparison would have been even better still
Si
Last edited by Si B; 01-12-2009 at 11:10 PM. Reason: Added torque curves to bhp curves!
#3
10K+ Poster!!
Would be very interesting Si.
I think Daves is under a 2.2 as I remember reading on Rods spec which if I'm right is a very similar specced engine.
Mad mile it is !
I think Daves is under a 2.2 as I remember reading on Rods spec which if I'm right is a very similar specced engine.
Mad mile it is !
Trending Topics
#17
Focus St mk2 310 bhp :D
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bolton/Kirkham
Posts: 2,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 on that one for me folks whats the point in flywheel figures for a genuine comparison like this? At the wheels is where it's at
I'm quite intersted to see what kind of transmission loss both tuners have used for the two different 4wd systems!
#21
Resident Wrestling Legend
iTrader: (3)
it would all be down to the gearbox ratio's really to be able to work the best around a track
with more power dave would obviously have been faster at the top end with 100 or so more brake but it would have been close around a track, especially the twisty bits to see which car was able to put down the power better
with more power dave would obviously have been faster at the top end with 100 or so more brake but it would have been close around a track, especially the twisty bits to see which car was able to put down the power better
#23
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
That graph is exactly what they feel like too IMHO, having been in both lots of times, I would defiantely say that even on low boost (which is what you are comparing obviously) YUM feels stronger at the top, but the evo definately pulls from lower down, due largely to the extra stroke obviously!
#24
TT T38 Power
iTrader: (15)
That graph is exactly what they feel like too IMHO, having been in both lots of times, I would defiantely say that even on low boost (which is what you are comparing obviously) YUM feels stronger at the top, but the evo definately pulls from lower down, due largely to the extra stroke obviously!
Steve
#25
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
Better everyday car would be Helen's Saph or Si B's 320bhp Evo
#26
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Co Durham
Posts: 14,796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldnt go that far just based on those curves TBH, although Si B's has a little more midrange torque than Dave's on low boost, YUM is hardly shy, and still WAY more than I would ever want out of an everyday car anyway TBH
Better everyday car would be Helen's Saph or Si B's 320bhp Evo
Better everyday car would be Helen's Saph or Si B's 320bhp Evo
To compare the 2 cars I really would have to drive the Evo, wonder if Si would let me have the keys ?
#27
TT T38 Power
iTrader: (15)
I wouldnt go that far just based on those curves TBH, although Si B's has a little more midrange torque than Dave's on low boost, YUM is hardly shy, and still WAY more than I would ever want out of an everyday car anyway TBH
Better everyday car would be Helen's Saph or Si B's 320bhp Evo
Better everyday car would be Helen's Saph or Si B's 320bhp Evo
But out of the 2 cars im sure the Evo woud be the easiest to drive everyday
Steve
#28
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
Without a doubt, but for entirely different reasons, like its got a full interior with sound deadening etc, engine wise both would be fine as an everyday car, YUM drives like a shopping car when you are just pottering about, I drove it 3 hours in slow moving traffic and the only thing that wasnt pleasant about the experience was the noise (mainly from the gearbox) the engine just picks up and goes at any rpm you put your foot down, the stroker kit totally transforms a YB.
#32
Regular Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warlingham
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
even if both cars had identical power and torque graphs, the evo delivers the power in a different way due to shorter gearing. The suspension design is also superior to the old coz. As much as i love daves, ( and any escoz ) an evo with a similar spec engine would eat the coz for breakfast a to b unless you'd REALLY gone to town on the handling of the escoz. ( mike rainbirds or hadlands for example ). Mr Shead is probably a good person to contribute on this thread as he drives them both in all different states of tune every day!! ( and yes i'm an evo owner ). I'll get my coat and f@ck off back to the MLR!!! lol
#34
Advanced PassionFord User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sutton
Posts: 2,250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unless you'd REALLY gone to town on the handling of the escoz. ( mike rainbirds or hadlands for example ). Mr Shead is probably a good person to contribute on this thread as he drives them both in all different states of tune every day!! ( and yes i'm an evo owner ). I'll get my coat and f@ck off back to the MLR!!! lol
Cheers
#37
Regular Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warlingham
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ps, dependent on what suspension set up si has in his evo i still think it would have YUM through the twisties. pmsl!!!
warren
#39
SHITE!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Yorkshire
Posts: 2,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts