escos

[Eat this 2]

How heavy is an escort cosworth i need to know before work iv got money on it bein a bit heavier than a golf lol

[Guest Olly_K]

yes it deffo heavier than a golf. dont forgot the escworth has all the 4WD gubbins which the golf doesnt have. yes ok the engine is lighter, but the cossie's bodykit must weigh a bit (especially with the whale tail)

[tandino 1]

Bout 100kgs heavier than the Golf iirc,

The engine isnt that much lighter than the VR as its a cast iron bottom end - same as the VR.

They top out about the same as a VR6 due to drag - especially with the 'tail but how many run standard boost pressure - not many i would wager 8)

Pete.

[Eat this 2]

yeah thats exactly what i said i reckoned i could keep up with 1 in a straight line but iv just seen 5.7secs 0-60 so wed have to be rollin first lol im gonna check new 330 bmw stats cuz i played with 1 0-100 we both launched and no1 moved an inch

[acf8181 0]

i thought they did some rwd escort's? surely they'll be a fair bit lighter than the 4wd versions?

[tandino 1]

Not since the MK2 - unless you include the Gartrac Mk3 8)

[Guest Olly_K]

Escort Cosworth's are ALL 4WD, its the sapphire cosworth they did in RWD and FWD form. As i believe the 3 door cosworth (sierra) was also 4WD

[Eat this 2]

i think the hatchback sierra (original 1) was rwd the escort was rwd until the mk3s then they were fwd but the cossie is a cut down sierra floorpan and all were 4wd i think all the mk2 escorts were rwd though

[Valver 0]

Yep, original hatch Sierra Cossie was 2wd, then came the Sapphire initally 2wd upto G plate iirc and then 4wd onwards. All Escort Cossies were 4wd.

[anorak 0]

yeah thats exactly what i said i reckoned i could keep up with 1 in a straight line but iv just seen 5.7secs 0-60 so wed have to be rollin first lol im gonna check new 330 bmw stats cuz i played with 1 0-100 we both launched and no1 moved an inch

I'm bored of tv' date=' so;

The original (big turbo) Escort Cosworth was tested by Autocar in 1995 and did 0-60 in 6.3 and 0-100 in 17.9

The first VR Golf (3 door) recorded 7.1 and 18.7

So while the Ford is predictably quicker off the line with 4wd traction the 2 cars 60 - 100mph times are identical.

The Golf was actually a tenth of a second quicker between 30 and 70 (6.3 secs).

So I reckon a standard (if one exists) Cossie Escort and VR6 Golf would stay virtually side-by-side from 30 to 138mph (both cars' recorded top speed)

If you ever follow one off a roundabout see what happens

The 330 Coupe Beemer's got a slight advantage both off the line (6.7 secs 0-60) and at the top end (16.7 0-100).

Nothing an extra 20 bhp on the Golf wouldn't cancel out.

So a sweetly tuned VR with exhaust and filter should do nicely

You'd need 228bhp to match its 151 maximum though (because the power requirement varies as a cube of the top speed - ie you need 33% more power to increase top speed by 10%)

I need to get out more.

[ Edited Wed Oct 27 2004, 07:32PM ']

[Eat this 2]

cheers anorak aerodynamics become a huge factor at serious speed also how much transmision loss would a vr and a cossie (or uk scooby) have ie how much power is gettin to the road i was thinkin it would be quite similer power actually on the tarmac

[anorak 0]

cheers anorak aerodynamics become a huge factor at serious speed also how much transmision loss would a vr and a cossie (or uk scooby) have ie how much power is gettin to the road i was thinkin it would be quite similer power actually on the tarmac

Yes mate. Air resistance is why you need to cube the top speed increase to work out the required power increase.

It means that increasing power by 10% only gives a 3% increase in speed. Or put anoother way - a bolt on cone filter giving a quoted 8bhp extra on a VR should increase top speed by just 2mph.

With regard to tranny losses if you work on 15% for fwd' date=' 17% for rwd and 20% for 4wd you won't be far out.

A lot of rolling roads quote higher losses (to bump up the flywheel figures, usually). I've seen lots of standard VRs give around 150bhp at the wheels on a RR Day. Allow a 15% loss and you get 176bhp at the fly. Not a million miles from what VW quote is it?

Using these figures a new UK spec Scooby puts 172bhp through the wheels, 15% more than a VR Golf, and weighs 15% more. Their acceleration figures from 30mph (which disregards the traction advantage) are almost identical.

You do have to allow a tiny tolerance for different gearing but in general these numbers work for all cars.

Check out www.pumaracing.co.uk when you've got a spare half hour - tells you everything you ever need to know

[ Edited Thu Oct 28 2004, 10:34AM ']

[CHRISVR6 0]

I thought the golf vr6 top speed was about 160 ish, i know my corrado's was

[Guest Olly_K]

160 out of a raddo ? never had one so i cant say. does seem high though, as for a golf.....not a million miles away, but deffo not 160 !

[Eat this 2]

iv had 149 on speedo (got a major slipstream from a corvette hehe) ur speedo was readin wrong or it was seriously tuned speedos over read by approx 7% very roughly bigger wheels also throw the speedo off 149 on speedo = 158 on 17"s then knock 7% off that for speedo over read i was actually doin around 147mph and my car isnt capable of much more imo

[anorak 0]

I thought the golf vr6 top speed was about 160 ish' date=' i know my corrado's was [/quote']

At the risk of going too far off topic (Ford Escorts, wasn't it?) I quote the following road test top speeds;

Autocar

Corrado VR6 143mph

Golf VR6 138mph

Performance Car

Corrado VR6 145mph

Golf VR6 137mph

Top Gear

Corrado VR6 141mph

Allowing for the accepted normal couple of 'lost' mph due to tyre scrub around the high speed bowls that most mags use I'd say a realistic maximum is 140 for the Golf and 145 for the 'Rado.

A Golf with a Corrado engine would top out at 144 using the cube law, meaning that a Golf has a marginally higher coefficient of drag tha a C (haven't checked yet!)

So for a Corrado to do 160mph it would need 255bhp and be able to rev to 6800rpm in 5th on standard gearing

(Mine had 257 and I saw 155mph once).

Of course 160mph indicated on the speedo is probably closer to a true 153 or 154mph (which you'd still need over 220bhp to achieve).

Sorry for being soooooo anal (it's in the username )

[CHRISVR6 0]

I see what your saying but ive got GPS in the car, which helps. The speedo was out a tiny bit but not a lot, and it aint necessarily due to BHP but torque as well, when the car was doing 120 it then hits around 4k on the rev counter and then its starts pulling, the GPS said 157, so the maths is out a bit !dodge , but my golf does not pull anywhere near as hard as the rado at higher speeds, as when it will get to 140-145 easily the rado will get to 150-155 easily then starts easing the speedo up. Those 0-60 are way out, as the gearing will easily do the speed but i am not sure if it the same box on the rado as the golf (dont think it is as the golf uses a synchromesh system, and the rado is links), And my corrado was stock as well i.e. no performance filter or exhaust.

Interesting might see what other rado members have got out of theres on the track

A mate og mine has a golf vr6 and he said he got 162 on the track out of his golf!!! but i am not sure as he is a bit blind

[anorak 0]

I won't dispute a GPS reading (although they're not 100% accurate, they're certainly better than car speedometers) so if you saw 157mph on yours then that's how fast your Corrado could go.

What I do stand by is how much power a Corrado would need to do 157mph. Assuming you might have had wind direction in your favour you'd still have had to have close to 240bhp.

That's definately the most I've ever heard of a stock 2.9 VR6 making. (Sure it didn't have a supercharger bolted on somewhere? )

Top speed is entirely down to maximum power output, regardless of mid-range torque.

Power is a by-product of torque multiplied by engine speed.

(Power = torque/5252 x engine speed)

So if an engine developes 170lbft of torque at 4000rpm (an average VR6) it is only making 129bhp at that speed whereas if it could hold that amount of torque to 6000rpm it would be putting out 194bhp.

So while power is determined by torque it is dependant on engine speed as well.

Torque is the twisting force which affects acceleration.

Power dictates the top speed of a car.

Torque dictates how long it takes to get there.

As I mentioned earlier, my 'Rado had 257bhp (measured at Stealth) and did an indicated 155mph at 6300rpm and wouldn't go any faster after a mile of trying.

And 162mph in a Golf on track - not in this country.

I've been on a dozen trackdays and never hit more than 125mph on the longest straights).

In fact I've been a passenger in a Porsche 911 GT2 (the 450bhp version) at Snetterton which is one of the fastest circuits in the UK and never quite saw 160mph.

Think your buddy's telling porkies.

[Eat this 2]

i struggle to understand torque/bhp i know torque is the actual power the engine has but if thats the case y dont f1 cars have 900lb/ft (im sure i read somewhere around 290) instead of huuuge bhp????? i im fairly sure rally cars have more torque than f1s i know bhp is related to revs but y do vrs seem to pull best when the torque graph is goin downhill??

[dubloke 4]

i have "played" with several car in my time, both with 3.1 engine, and 2.8 installed! i have found that 4wd drive cars, although mainly devestating away from the line, are not much quicker in the mid-reange or top end than a well sorted vr. speedo reading will always tell a story but comparatively speaking, if you work on standard performance figures across the board, the vr does seem to endow itself with more performance than is quoted, especially when tuned!

[CHRISVR6 0]

I must admit 162 in a standard golf vr6 sounded strange to me as well, but i saw him this morning and he said he takes corners at 135mph so i think his speedo is in kph not mph . If your rado only did 155 with 257 bhp thats weird, were you a member of the corrado owners club? if so ask them because they were getting similar figures to me. You were pressing the right pedel , 257 bhp not bad at all, supercharged then?

So what is the top speed of the golf, i have done 140 with no real strain but wobbled a bit !dodge , were as the rado is solid however fast, excellent car

[anorak 0]

i struggle to understand torque/bhp i know torque is the actual power the engine has but if thats the case y dont f1 cars have 900lb/ft (im sure i read somewhere around 290) instead of huuuge bhp????? i im fairly sure rally cars have more torque than f1s i know bhp is related to revs but y do vrs seem to pull best when the torque graph is goin downhill??

Torque is a twisting force so is a measure of how strongly an engine can turn a driveshaft and will dictate how quickly a car accelerates and how much weight it can pull.

F1 cars have 900bhp but it's at enormous crank speeds (19,000rpm). At those rpm the engine is only developing about 250lbft. It's peak torque is probably produced at around 15,000rpm.

While 290lbft sounds relatively low (I thought F1s made more like 400) it accelerates so quickly because it weighs just 500kg. Imagine a Golf with 1000lbft and you're getting close to F1 acceleration!

A superbike engine works similarly to F1 engines in that it produces big power at high rpm but low torque.

Theoretically if you put a 174 bhp / 100lbft bike engine in a Golf it would be capable of the same top speed as a VR but accelerate much more slowly.

As for VRs pulling harder when the torque curve is going downhill - can't say I've ever experienced that.

The 3 I've had (2 'charged, 1 standard) have all had sweet spots between about 4000 and 6000rpm. Above that the pull definately tails off. This coincides with the torque curve being virtually flat from 4 - 6k (a Schrick brings it in a bit earlier).

I've been reading up on engine dynamics and still only have a basic grasp of how it all works - hope this helps

[anorak 0]

i have "played" with several car in my time' date=' both with 3.1 engine, and 2.8 installed! i have found that 4wd drive cars, although mainly devestating away from the line, are not much quicker in the mid-reange or top end than a well sorted vr. speedo reading will always tell a story but comparatively speaking, if you work on standard performance figures across the board, the vr does seem to endow itself with more performance than is quoted, especially when tuned![/quote']

I agree - VRs seem to respond well to tuning but I'm not sure they feel any quicker than the figures suggest as standard. BMWs always seem to be quicker than they should be IMO.

Take the E46 323i for example. Very similar power and torque outputs to a VR (from just 2.5 litres) about 250kg heavier yet virtually identical performance.

How do they do that? :?

[anorak 0]

I must admit 162 in a standard golf vr6 sounded strange to me as well' date=' but i saw him this morning and he said he takes corners at 135mph so i think his speedo is in kph not mph . If your rado only did 155 with 257 bhp thats weird, were you a member of the corrado owners club? if so ask them because they were getting similar figures to me. You were pressing the right pedel , 257 bhp not bad at all, supercharged then?

So what is the top speed of the golf, i have done 140 with no real strain but wobbled a bit !dodge , were as the rado is solid however fast, excellent car [/quote']

I'm sure the rev limiter would cut in well before 162mph on standard VR gearing. That's almost 7000rpm in top!

And cornering at 135mph He must have F1 style downforce! As you say kph is more like it.

The Corrado probably struggled to do more than 155 as it produced peak power at 5800rpm which equated to just 140mph on 17' rims. Above 6000rpm the torque (hence also the power) tailed off dramatically.

So although in theory 257bhp should be enough to top 160mph the gearing would have had to have been changed to allow it.

As in the earlier post with mag road test quotes, I reckon 140 is about the max for a stock Golf. So you should be able to see around 146 / 147 on the speedo on an unrestricted Autobahn.

The Corrado feels so much more stable because of the little rear spoiler that pops up once you go over 55mph. Makes all the difference, you know

I REALLY have to get out more.

[ Edited Sat Oct 30 2004, 08:39PM ]

[acf8181 0]

i'm sure i read somewhere that the vr6 runs out revs at 167mph..if you can get it to that!

cornering at 135mph is fine...as long as it ain't a very tight corner! lol