OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th at 
motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.

Any easy way of changing the final drive ratio? Is the same diff fitted to 
any other Fords with a higher ratio? (Mk 1 Mondeo, 2.0 Zetec, from 
1995/6...)

Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with the 
number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear windows, not to 
mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....

Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)

or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an Orion a 
few years back



"PC Paul"  wrote in message 
news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th at 
> motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.
>
> Any easy way of changing the final drive ratio? Is the same diff fitted to 
> any other Fords with a higher ratio? (Mk 1 Mondeo, 2.0 Zetec, from 
> 1995/6...)
>
> Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with the 
> number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear windows, not to 
> mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....
>
>
>
>
>
> 

PC Paul wrote in message ...

>OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th at
>motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.
>
>Any easy way of changing the final drive ratio? Is the same diff fitted to
>any other Fords with a higher ratio? (Mk 1 Mondeo, 2.0 Zetec, from
>1995/6...)
>
>Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with the
>number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear windows, not to
>mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....
>
>
>
>
>
>


I'd expect the diff from a diesel to have a higher ratio but no data to back
this up- but you would possibly find it on the Ford website.

Bob

"R. Murphy" wrote:

> 
> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
> 
> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an Orion a
> few years back


If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in some
modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.

Johannes wrote:

> "R. Murphy" wrote:
>>
>> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
>>
>> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an
>> Orion a few years back
>
> If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in
> some modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.


I never said that ;-)

The 0-60 is plenty good enough, I want low revs at high speeds :-(

"PC Paul"  wrote in message 
news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


>
> Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with the 
> number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear windows, not to 
> mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....
>


Didn't you notice these things before you paid for it then?

PC Paul wrote:

> 
> Johannes wrote:
> > "R. Murphy" wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
> >>
> >> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an
> >> Orion a few years back
> >
> > If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in
> > some modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.
> 
> I never said that ;-)
> 
> The 0-60 is plenty good enough, I want low revs at high speeds :-(


True, but if they design a gearbox with close ratios 2,3,4, then 5th
must also follow suit or there would be a large gap in the ratio. 

Also, it doesn't help when mad motoring journalists often complains
that high gearing is hurting acceleration.

Johannes wrote:

> PC Paul wrote:
>>
>> Johannes wrote:
>>> "R. Murphy" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
>>>>
>>>> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on
>>>> an Orion a few years back
>>>
>>> If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in
>>> some modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.
>>
>> I never said that ;-)
>>
>> The 0-60 is plenty good enough, I want low revs at high speeds :-(
>
> True, but if they design a gearbox with close ratios 2,3,4, then 5th
> must also follow suit or there would be a large gap in the ratio.
>
> Also, it doesn't help when mad motoring journalists often complains
> that high gearing is hurting acceleration.


Not too fussed about close 2,3,4 either - I just want a relaxed car. If I 
want 'sporty', I won't get a Ford ;-)

I was spoiled by my Carlton GSi - nice torquey engine for a relaxed cruise 
<3000rpm at 70.

DougP wrote:

> "PC Paul"  wrote in message
> news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>
>> Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with
>> the number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear windows,
>> not to mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....
>>
>
> Didn't you notice these things before you paid for it then?


Well yes, but I paid 300 for an N reg car in good nick with 50K on the 
clock so I didn't complain too much ;-)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:08:51 GMT, "PC Paul"  wrote:


>OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th at 
>motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.
>


Are you sure a 2.0 Mondeo can actually manage enough power to maintain
motorway cruising speed at 2500RPM?

Cheers,

Colin.

In article <fl1Se.3924$hv5.2564@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul 
says...

> Johannes wrote:
> > "R. Murphy" wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
> >>
> >> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an
> >> Orion a few years back
> >
> > If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in
> > some modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.
> 
> I never said that ;-)
> 
> The 0-60 is plenty good enough, I want low revs at high speeds :-(
> 

Sorry but to get that by changing the final drive ratio, you'll lose 0-
60 performance.


-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

In article <fl1Se.3924$hv5.2564@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul 
says...

> Johannes wrote:
> > "R. Murphy" wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
> >>
> >> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an
> >> Orion a few years back
> >
> > If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in
> > some modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.
> 
> I never said that ;-)
> 
> The 0-60 is plenty good enough, I want low revs at high speeds :-(
> 

It'll slow down to a crawl at the slightest hill.


-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

Conor wrote:

> In article <fl1Se.3924$hv5.2564@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> says...
>> Johannes wrote:
>>> "R. Murphy" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
>>>>
>>>> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on
>>>> an Orion a few years back
>>>
>>> If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in
>>> some modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.
>>
>> I never said that ;-)
>>
>> The 0-60 is plenty good enough, I want low revs at high speeds :-(
>>
> Sorry but to get that by changing the final drive ratio, you'll lose
> 0- 60 performance.


I do understand gear ratios, but thanks anyway ;-)

I meant the 0-60 can afford to lose some, in exchange for better cruising...

Conor wrote:

> In article <fl1Se.3924$hv5.2564@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> says...
>> Johannes wrote:
>>> "R. Murphy" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
>>>>
>>>> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on
>>>> an Orion a few years back
>>>
>>> If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in
>>> some modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.
>>
>> I never said that ;-)
>>
>> The 0-60 is plenty good enough, I want low revs at high speeds :-(
>>
> It'll slow down to a crawl at the slightest hill.


Then I'll change down...

It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines would have 
at 4500. They manage...

In article <Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
   PC Paul  wrote:

> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th
> at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.


Very roughly 15mph per 1000 rpm? That's '50s cars. You've got something
wrong.

-- 
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul 
says...


> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines would have 
> at 4500. They manage...
> 

Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one is 
on a petrol car engine?


-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

PC Paul  wrote in message
news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th at
> motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.


I used to have a Mk1 2.0 Mondeo and it was geared perfectly normally for a 2
litre car. About 22 or 23 mph per 1000rpm from memory. Either your speedo or
revcounter are faulty or someone has fitted the wrong gearbox. The early
gearboxes did have a common synchromesh problem on third gear so it isn't
unusual for them to have been changed or rebuilt. Maybe someone got a cheap
second hand one from a breakers and it wasn't the right box.
--
Dave Baker

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>   PC Paul  wrote:
>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in
>> 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing
>> 2500rpm.
>
> Very roughly 15mph per 1000 rpm? That's '50s cars. You've got
> something wrong.


Err.. no.

I said 'motorway cruising speed', not '70mph'....

Conor wrote:

> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> says...
>
>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
>> would have at 4500. They manage...
>>
> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one is
> on a petrol car engine?


Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later if I'm 
bored...

In article <43190110$0$18641$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, "Dave Baker" 
<Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> says...

> 
> PC Paul  wrote in message
> news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th at
> > motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.
> 
> I used to have a Mk1 2.0 Mondeo and it was geared perfectly normally for a 2
> litre car. About 22 or 23 mph per 1000rpm from memory. Either your speedo or
> revcounter are faulty or someone has fitted the wrong gearbox. 


I'd agree.

On my old 2.0 Mondeo, cruising (80) in 5th would be about 3200 rpm.

To be doing 4500 in 5th, you've got to be doing an enormous speed.

ISTR that red-line was 80 in 3rd and 100 in 4th.

There's definitely something wrong with the gearbox.

Looking at the MTX75 gearbox ratios (if I've found the right one - I gave 
away my old Haynes manual), the ratio of 3rd to 5th is 1.45, giving a 
cruising RPM of 3100 if you've incorrectly selected 3rd gear.

I'd check that you've got the right gearbox, and that all the links are in 
good condition. 4500 at cruise in 5th in the UK is wrong. I assume it does 
have 5 gears? If it's only labelled at 4, try putting it in 5th.

If it doesn't have 5th, you may have an old Escort 1.3 gearbox or 
something!

Pete.

-- 
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be deleted
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

"Dave Baker" <Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:43190110$0$18641$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

>
> PC Paul  wrote in message
> news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th 
>> at
>> motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.
>
> I used to have a Mk1 2.0 Mondeo and it was geared perfectly normally for a 
> 2
> litre car. About 22 or 23 mph per 1000rpm from memory. Either your speedo 
> or
> revcounter are faulty or someone has fitted the wrong gearbox. The early
> gearboxes did have a common synchromesh problem on third gear so it isn't
> unusual for them to have been changed or rebuilt. Maybe someone got a 
> cheap
> second hand one from a breakers and it wasn't the right box.


Or more likley his crusing speed is 100mph, in that case what does he 
expect?

In article <mabSe.1215$ix3.246@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul 
says...

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >   PC Paul  wrote:
> >> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in
> >> 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing
> >> 2500rpm.
> >
> > Very roughly 15mph per 1000 rpm? That's '50s cars. You've got
> > something wrong.
> 
> Err.. no.
> 
> I said 'motorway cruising speed', not '70mph'....
> 

So whats that then? As others have pointed out, you're looking at 
around 100MPH.


-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul 
says...

> Conor wrote:
> > In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> > says...
> >
> >> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
> >> would have at 4500. They manage...
> >>
> > Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one is
> > on a petrol car engine?
> 
> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later if I'm 
> bored...
> 

Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".



-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

> Or more likley his crusing speed is 100mph, in that case what does he 
> expect?


Exactly.  And not only that, is the engine really going to be generating 
enough power at 2500-3000rpm to keep the car going at 100mph?

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've had your big end bearings go."

In article <mabSe.1215$ix3.246@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
   PC Paul  wrote:

> >> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in
> >> 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing
> >> 2500rpm.
> >
> > Very roughly 15mph per 1000 rpm? That's '50s cars. You've got
> > something wrong.

> Err.. no.

> I said 'motorway cruising speed', not '70mph'....


If you make that 90, then it equates to 20 mph/1000. Not unreasonable for
a medium sized engine in a heavy car.

-- 
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers 

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <mabSe.1215$ix3.246@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>   PC Paul  wrote:
>>>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in
>>>> 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing
>>>> 2500rpm.
>>>
>>> Very roughly 15mph per 1000 rpm? That's '50s cars. You've got
>>> something wrong.
>
>> Err.. no.
>
>> I said 'motorway cruising speed', not '70mph'....
>
> If you make that 90, then it equates to 20 mph/1000. Not unreasonable
> for a medium sized engine in a heavy car.


That's in the ballpark. Maybe it's not unreasonable, but I don't like it!

Maybe I just need to wait till I can afford a 6 speed :-(

>>>>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in
>>>>> 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing
>>>>> 2500rpm.
>>>>
>>>> Very roughly 15mph per 1000 rpm? That's '50s cars. You've got
>>>> something wrong.
>>
>>> Err.. no.
>>
>>> I said 'motorway cruising speed', not '70mph'....
>>
>> If you make that 90, then it equates to 20 mph/1000. Not unreasonable
>> for a medium sized engine in a heavy car.
>
> That's in the ballpark. Maybe it's not unreasonable, but I don't like it!
>
> Maybe I just need to wait till I can afford a 6 speed :-(


I bet that, if you sat down with a pen and paper, and actually worked out, 
taking into account the drag coefficient, mass of the car etc., the amount 
of power needed to maintain a constant speed of 90mph on a flat surface, 
then the chances are the 2 litre engine wouldn't be producing enough power 
at the lower revs you'd quite like.  If it's only going be coping at those 
revs on a downhill stretch then you won't save any fuel as it'll be at a 
much smaller throttle opening anyway, or possible on the overrun (i.e. no 
fuel being pumped through at all), and obviously on any upwards gradient 
you'd be wanting to drop down a gear, so it'd spend a *lot* less time in 5th 
gear anyway.  You want either a TD or a V6/V8 somethingorother!  But you're 
not going to get a low mileage one of them for 300, so just be happy with 
what you've got :-)

Or you could try a Metro GTi, to see what low gearing *really* is.

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've had your big end bearings go."

Conor wrote:

> In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
>>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
>>>>
>>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
>>> is on a petrol car engine?
>>
>> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
>> if I'm bored...
>>
> Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".


For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines comes 
at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.

In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.

AstraVanMan wrote:

>>>>>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm
>>>>>> in 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be
>>>>>> doing 2500rpm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very roughly 15mph per 1000 rpm? That's '50s cars. You've got
>>>>> something wrong.
>>>
>>>> Err.. no.
>>>
>>>> I said 'motorway cruising speed', not '70mph'....
>>>
>>> If you make that 90, then it equates to 20 mph/1000. Not
>>> unreasonable for a medium sized engine in a heavy car.
>>
>> That's in the ballpark. Maybe it's not unreasonable, but I don't
>> like it! Maybe I just need to wait till I can afford a 6 speed :-(
>
> I bet that, if you sat down with a pen and paper, and actually worked
> out, taking into account the drag coefficient, mass of the car etc.,
> the amount of power needed to maintain a constant speed of 90mph on a
> flat surface, then the chances are the 2 litre engine wouldn't be
> producing enough power at the lower revs you'd quite like.  If it's
> only going be coping at those revs on a downhill stretch then you
> won't save any fuel as it'll be at a much smaller throttle opening
> anyway, or possible on the overrun (i.e. no fuel being pumped through
> at all), and obviously on any upwards gradient you'd be wanting to
> drop down a gear, so it'd spend a *lot* less time in 5th gear anyway.
> You want either a TD or a V6/V8 somethingorother!  But you're not
> going to get a low mileage one of them for 300, so just be happy
> with what you've got :-)
> Or you could try a Metro GTi, to see what low gearing *really* is. 

PC Paul wrote:

> AstraVanMan wrote:
>>>>>>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm
>>>>>>> in 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be
>>>>>>> doing 2500rpm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very roughly 15mph per 1000 rpm? That's '50s cars. You've got
>>>>>> something wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> Err.. no.
>>>>
>>>>> I said 'motorway cruising speed', not '70mph'....
>>>>
>>>> If you make that 90, then it equates to 20 mph/1000. Not
>>>> unreasonable for a medium sized engine in a heavy car.
>>>
>>> That's in the ballpark. Maybe it's not unreasonable, but I don't
>>> like it! Maybe I just need to wait till I can afford a 6 speed :-(
>>
>> I bet that, if you sat down with a pen and paper, and actually worked
>> out, taking into account the drag coefficient, mass of the car etc.,
>> the amount of power needed to maintain a constant speed of 90mph on a
>> flat surface, then the chances are the 2 litre engine wouldn't be
>> producing enough power at the lower revs you'd quite like.  If it's
>> only going be coping at those revs on a downhill stretch then you
>> won't save any fuel as it'll be at a much smaller throttle opening
>> anyway, or possible on the overrun (i.e. no fuel being pumped through
>> at all), and obviously on any upwards gradient you'd be wanting to
>> drop down a gear, so it'd spend a *lot* less time in 5th gear anyway.
>> You want either a TD or a V6/V8 somethingorother!  But you're not
>> going to get a low mileage one of them for 300, so just be happy
>> with what you've got :-)
>> Or you could try a Metro GTi, to see what low gearing *really* is.


Oops finger trouble..

Alright, I give in, they've geared it just right, I'm being unreasonable. 
Although the 2.0 Zetec does have 80% of it's peak torque from practically 
nothing right to 5800rpm or so, it's surprised me like that.

Unlike the small Rovers which seem to have a torque band about 300 revs 
wide...

In article <wffSe.1273$ix3.381@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
   PC Paul  wrote:

> > If you make that 90, then it equates to 20 mph/1000. Not unreasonable
> > for a medium sized engine in a heavy car.

> That's in the ballpark. Maybe it's not unreasonable, but I don't like it!


Perhaps not, but if the gearing was higher you'd probably find you'd be
forever changing gear on a motorway.


> Maybe I just need to wait till I can afford a 6 speed :-(


-- 
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <_qfSe.1326$ix3.1313@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
   PC Paul  wrote:

> > Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".

> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines
> comes at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.


Not on most 16 valve designs.

-- 
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.  

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

>>> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
>>> if I'm bored...
>>>
>> Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
>
> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines 
> comes at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
>
> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.


The thing is, torque gets you there, but power (product of torque and revs) 
keeps you there.

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've had your big end bearings go."

PC Paul wrote:

> 
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> > says...
> >> Conor wrote:
> >>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> >>> says...
> >>>
> >>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
> >>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
> >>>>
> >>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
> >>> is on a petrol car engine?
> >>
> >> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
> >> if I'm bored...
> >>
> > Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
> 
> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines comes
> at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
> 
> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.


1) Why not cruise at legal limit 70mph, this will relax the engine and 
driver, and other road users will also feel more relaxed by not having to
look over their shoulder all the time. 

2) Get a better car.

AstraVanMan  wrote:


> >>> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
> >>> if I'm bored...
> >>>
> >> Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
> >
> > For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines
> > comes at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
> >
> > In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.
> 
> The thing is, torque gets you there, but power (product of torque and revs)
> keeps you there.


Where did you nick that from? - I know it's not yours 'cos you're a
mechanical numpty :-P
-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Pete Smith  wrote in message
news:MPG.1d8352044b06da3498978e@usenet.plus.net...

> In article <43190110$0$18641$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, "Dave Baker"
> <Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> says...
> >
> > PC Paul  wrote in message
> > news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in
5th at
> > > motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.
> >
> > I used to have a Mk1 2.0 Mondeo and it was geared perfectly normally for
a 2
> > litre car. About 22 or 23 mph per 1000rpm from memory. Either your
speedo or
> > revcounter are faulty or someone has fitted the wrong gearbox.
>
> I'd agree.
>
> On my old 2.0 Mondeo, cruising (80) in 5th would be about 3200 rpm.
>
> To be doing 4500 in 5th, you've got to be doing an enormous speed.
>
> ISTR that red-line was 80 in 3rd and 100 in 4th.
>
> There's definitely something wrong with the gearbox.


No sadly just something wrong with the OP. It was a troll and he wasn't
talking about 70 mph at 4500 rpm. So he's blocked for wasting everyone's
time and if he ever does have a serious question it won't be getting
answered.
--
Dave Baker

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:28:34 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
 wrote:


>In article <wffSe.1273$ix3.381@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>   PC Paul  wrote:
>> > If you make that 90, then it equates to 20 mph/1000. Not unreasonable
>> > for a medium sized engine in a heavy car.
>
>> That's in the ballpark. Maybe it's not unreasonable, but I don't like it!
>
>Perhaps not, but if the gearing was higher you'd probably find you'd be
>forever changing gear on a motorway.


Indeed. With the cruise control set well under 90, my 2.0 turbo is
nearly on boost even on the flat at 3000 RPM.

Cheers,

Colin.

In article <_qfSe.1326$ix3.1313@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul 
says...


> For cruising, we're talking torque. 

Oh dear.

> Peak torque on most petrol engines comes 
> at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
> 
> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating. 
> 

And is smack in the middle of the powerband - where it wants to be.


-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

"PC Paul"  wrote in message
news:_qfSe.1326$ix3.1313@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Conor wrote:
> > In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> > says...
> >> Conor wrote:
> >>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> >>> says...
> >>>
> >>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
> >>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
> >>>>
> >>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
> >>> is on a petrol car engine?
> >>
> >> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
> >> if I'm bored...
> >>
> > Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
>
> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines
comes
> at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
>
> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.


Err no, I think you will find peak torque for your Mondeo petrol is at or
around 4000rpm. You dont mention which engine you have though..

If the gearing is too high the engine will have insufficient torque or less
than ideal torque to propel the vehicle at that speed and mpg will be worse
due to a wider throttle opening being needed.

tim..


>
>

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
news:ModSe.257$741.4@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...

> > Or more likley his crusing speed is 100mph, in that case what does he
> > expect?
>
> Exactly.  And not only that, is the engine really going to be generating
> enough power at 2500-3000rpm to keep the car going at 100mph?
>


No!

Tim,,

Tim.. wrote:

> "PC Paul"  wrote in message
> news:_qfSe.1326$ix3.1313@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
>>> says...
>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
>>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
>>>>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
>>>>> is on a petrol car engine?
>>>>
>>>> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
>>>> if I'm bored...
>>>>
>>> Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
>>
>> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol
>> engines comes at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to
>> be at 85-90.
>>
>> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.
>
> Err no, I think you will find peak torque for your Mondeo petrol is
> at or around 4000rpm. You dont mention which engine you have though..


It's the 2.0 Zetec 16V, the original not the Zetec-E. From what I can find 
(the 'original' curves on tuning sites) it has a fairly flat torque curve in 
any case.


>
> If the gearing is too high the engine will have insufficient torque
> or less than ideal torque to propel the vehicle at that speed and mpg
> will be worse due to a wider throttle opening being needed.
>


That's very true. 'If'.

Since it will still pull well if I floor it at 85 in 5th, I think it can 
afford to lose 'some' revs still.

But it all looks too hard to change it anyway, so what the hell. I'll turn 
the radio up.

Dave Baker wrote:

> Pete Smith  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d8352044b06da3498978e@usenet.plus.net...
>> In article <43190110$0$18641$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, "Dave Baker"
>> <Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> says...
>>>
>>> PC Paul  wrote in message
>>> news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm
>>>> in 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be
>>>> doing 2500rpm.
>>>
>>> I used to have a Mk1 2.0 Mondeo and it was geared perfectly
>>> normally for a 2 litre car. About 22 or 23 mph per 1000rpm from
>>> memory. Either your speedo or revcounter are faulty or someone has
>>> fitted the wrong gearbox.
>>
>> I'd agree.
>>
>> On my old 2.0 Mondeo, cruising (80) in 5th would be about 3200 rpm.
>>
>> To be doing 4500 in 5th, you've got to be doing an enormous speed.
>>
>> ISTR that red-line was 80 in 3rd and 100 in 4th.
>>
>> There's definitely something wrong with the gearbox.
>
> No sadly just something wrong with the OP. It was a troll and he
> wasn't talking about 70 mph at 4500 rpm. So he's blocked for wasting
> everyone's time and if he ever does have a serious question it won't
> be getting answered.


Thank you for your input.

Actually it wasn't a troll, it was a serious question. I *never* complained 
that it was doing 4500rpm at 70mph.

Feel free to block me, but if you think that makes me disappear for 
*everybody* then you have no idea how usenet works.

"PC Paul"  wrote in message 
news:_qfSe.1326$ix3.1313@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Conor wrote:
>> In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
>> says...
>>> Conor wrote:
>>>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
>>>> says...
>>>>
>>>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
>>>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
>>>>>
>>>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
>>>> is on a petrol car engine?
>>>
>>> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
>>> if I'm bored...
>>>
>> Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
>
> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines 
> comes at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
>
> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.
>


That was the old days.  Modern multivalve engines have the torque much 
higher up the range.

"PC Paul"  wrote in message 
news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th at 
> motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.


Then drive at 50 not 90?


> Any easy way of changing the final drive ratio? Is the same diff fitted to 
> any other Fords with a higher ratio? (Mk 1 Mondeo, 2.0 Zetec, from 
> 1995/6...)


Yes, basically you can change the final drive.  As I understand it, all four 
banger Mondeos mark one and two can mix and match transmissions and what 
not.  The mark one 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 have similar gearing, the TD is pushing 
2,700 rpm at 70 indicated.

The mark two, hmm, Ford gave the 1.6 tall gearing, the 2.0 has short gearing 
and I can't remember what the 1.8 uses.


> Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with the 
> number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear windows, not to 
> mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....


I have to ask why you didn't pick up on these points when looking.  Steel 
wheels are mostly irrelevant and as for the pain of having to open your own 
run roof... :)

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"Johannes"  wrote in message 
news:43189EF1.A6D0F3BB@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...

>
>
> "R. Murphy" wrote:
>>
>> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
>>
>> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an 
>> Orion a
>> few years back
>
> If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in some
> modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.


That's not entirely correct.  Check out those cars to have been engineered 
for a low 0 - 60 and some have _tall_ gearing... so as to reach 62 mph in 
second gear.

It's more associated with many multivalve engines' relativly disappointing 
torque output at low to mid range engine speeds and wanting mix-range 
flexibility.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.1d82d16a5988cbe798aa42@news.individual.net...

> In article <fl1Se.3924$hv5.2564@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> says...
>> Johannes wrote:
>> > "R. Murphy" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
>> >>
>> >> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an
>> >> Orion a few years back
>> >
>> > If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in
>> > some modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.
>>
>> I never said that ;-)
>>
>> The 0-60 is plenty good enough, I want low revs at high speeds :-(
>>
> Sorry but to get that by changing the final drive ratio, you'll lose 0-
> 60 performance.



You may not.  Actually you might improve it if you lengthen it such that 
it'll reach 62 mph in second gear.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.1d82eee8267008f898aa51@news.individual.net...

> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> says...
>
>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines would 
>> have
>> at 4500. They manage...
>>
> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one is
> on a petrol car engine?



Do you know the relevance of this?

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"Johannes"  wrote in message 
news:43199971.353F25AD@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...

>
>
> PC Paul wrote:
>>
>> Conor wrote:
>> > In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
>> > says...
>> >> Conor wrote:
>> >>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
>> >>> says...
>> >>>
>> >>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
>> >>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
>> >>>>
>> >>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
>> >>> is on a petrol car engine?
>> >>
>> >> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
>> >> if I'm bored...
>> >>
>> > Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
>>
>> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines 
>> comes
>> at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
>>
>> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.
>
> 1) Why not cruise at legal limit 70mph, this will relax the engine and
> driver, and other road users will also feel more relaxed by not having to
> look over their shoulder all the time.
>
> 2) Get a better car.


Taller gearing doesn't make it a better car!

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"PC Paul"  wrote in message 
news:GqlSe.1688$ix3.773@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Tim.. wrote:

[snip]

>>>>>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
>>>>>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
>>>>>> is on a petrol car engine?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
>>>>> if I'm bored...
>>>>>
>>>> Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
>>>
>>> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol
>>> engines comes at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to
>>> be at 85-90.
>>>
>>> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.
>>
>> Err no, I think you will find peak torque for your Mondeo petrol is
>> at or around 4000rpm. You dont mention which engine you have though..
>
> It's the 2.0 Zetec 16V, the original not the Zetec-E. From what I can find 
> (the 'original' curves on tuning sites) it has a fairly flat torque curve 
> in any case.


That's because it'll be a relatively modern petrol four cylinder Ford. 
"They all do that, sir."  Okay not _quite_ true if you drop into the smaller 
capacity Zetec-SE engines.


>> If the gearing is too high the engine will have insufficient torque
>> or less than ideal torque to propel the vehicle at that speed and mpg
>> will be worse due to a wider throttle opening being needed.
>>
> That's very true. 'If'.
>
> Since it will still pull well if I floor it at 85 in 5th, I think it can 
> afford to lose 'some' revs still.
>
> But it all looks too hard to change it anyway, so what the hell. I'll turn 
> the radio up.


It's not that difficult at all.  Find a scrapped TD...

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan wrote:

> "PC Paul"  wrote in message
> news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in
>> 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing
>> 2500rpm.
>
> Then drive at 50 not 90?


Hey!..... umm.... nah. Thanks.


>
>> Any easy way of changing the final drive ratio? Is the same diff
>> fitted to any other Fords with a higher ratio? (Mk 1 Mondeo, 2.0
>> Zetec, from 1995/6...)
>
> Yes, basically you can change the final drive.  As I understand it,
> all four banger Mondeos mark one and two can mix and match
> transmissions and what not.  The mark one 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 have
> similar gearing, the TD is pushing 2,700 rpm at 70 indicated.


Is the TD the same block/gearbox mounting then? I haven't been able to find 
any info.


> The mark two, hmm, Ford gave the 1.6 tall gearing, the 2.0 has short
> gearing and I can't remember what the 1.8 uses.


I know the 2.0Si has shorter gearing than mine... must be a pig on the 
motorway...


>> Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with
>> the number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear windows,
>> not to mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....
>
> I have to ask why you didn't pick up on these points when looking. Steel 
> wheels are mostly irrelevant and as for the pain of having to
> open your own run roof... :)


It was a good offer and I needed a car that could do some serious miles. I'm 
not so fussed about any of it, just comparing it to similarly placed models 
in the Mazda/Toyota range...

"Bob Minchin"  wrote in message 
news:I41Se.2472$t_4.1447@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

>
> PC Paul wrote in message ...
>>OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in 5th at
>>motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing 2500rpm.
>>
>>Any easy way of changing the final drive ratio? Is the same diff fitted to
>>any other Fords with a higher ratio? (Mk 1 Mondeo, 2.0 Zetec, from
>>1995/6...)
>>
>>Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with the
>>number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear windows, not to
>>mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....
>>
> I'd expect the diff from a diesel to have a higher ratio but no data to 
> back
> this up- but you would possibly find it on the Ford website.



It's around 15% taller in the gearing department.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"PC Paul"  wrote in message 
news:2AfSe.1331$ix3.1073@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> PC Paul wrote:
>> AstraVanMan wrote:
>>>>>>>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm
>>>>>>>> in 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be
>>>>>>>> doing 2500rpm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very roughly 15mph per 1000 rpm? That's '50s cars. You've got
>>>>>>> something wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Err.. no.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I said 'motorway cruising speed', not '70mph'....
>>>>>
>>>>> If you make that 90, then it equates to 20 mph/1000. Not
>>>>> unreasonable for a medium sized engine in a heavy car.
>>>>
>>>> That's in the ballpark. Maybe it's not unreasonable, but I don't
>>>> like it! Maybe I just need to wait till I can afford a 6 speed :-(
>>>
>>> I bet that, if you sat down with a pen and paper, and actually worked
>>> out, taking into account the drag coefficient, mass of the car etc.,
>>> the amount of power needed to maintain a constant speed of 90mph on a
>>> flat surface, then the chances are the 2 litre engine wouldn't be
>>> producing enough power at the lower revs you'd quite like.  If it's
>>> only going be coping at those revs on a downhill stretch then you
>>> won't save any fuel as it'll be at a much smaller throttle opening
>>> anyway, or possible on the overrun (i.e. no fuel being pumped through
>>> at all), and obviously on any upwards gradient you'd be wanting to
>>> drop down a gear, so it'd spend a *lot* less time in 5th gear anyway.
>>> You want either a TD or a V6/V8 somethingorother!  But you're not
>>> going to get a low mileage one of them for 300, so just be happy
>>> with what you've got :-)
>>> Or you could try a Metro GTi, to see what low gearing *really* is.
>
> Oops finger trouble..
>
> Alright, I give in, they've geared it just right, I'm being unreasonable. 
> Although the 2.0 Zetec does have 80% of it's peak torque from practically 
> nothing right to 5800rpm or so, it's surprised me like that.


Aye they do, but it's the area up to that point as well as the level itself.


> Unlike the small Rovers which seem to have a torque band about 300 revs 
> wide...



Heh.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan wrote:

> 
> "Johannes"  wrote in message
> news:43199971.353F25AD@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
> >
> >
> > PC Paul wrote:
> >>
> >> Conor wrote:
> >> > In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> >> > says...
> >> >> Conor wrote:
> >> >>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> >> >>> says...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
> >> >>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
> >> >>> is on a petrol car engine?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
> >> >> if I'm bored...
> >> >>
> >> > Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
> >>
> >> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines
> >> comes
> >> at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
> >>
> >> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.
> >
> > 1) Why not cruise at legal limit 70mph, this will relax the engine and
> > driver, and other road users will also feel more relaxed by not having to
> > look over their shoulder all the time.
> >
> > 2) Get a better car.
> 
> Taller gearing doesn't make it a better car!


I would certainly look at the mph/1000rpm as an important criteria when
deciding a car. My present car is a quiet and relaxed motorway cruiser,
yes only a 2.0L petrol engine. However, it does have a turbo.

"PC Paul"  wrote in message 
news:6epSe.2579$ix3.1601@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> DervMan wrote:
>> "PC Paul"  wrote in message
>> news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in
>>> 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing
>>> 2500rpm.
>>
>> Then drive at 50 not 90?
>
> Hey!..... umm.... nah. Thanks.


Matching the HGVs at busy times saves stacks of fuel, when it's quiet you 
can resume normal service.


>>> Any easy way of changing the final drive ratio? Is the same diff
>>> fitted to any other Fords with a higher ratio? (Mk 1 Mondeo, 2.0
>>> Zetec, from 1995/6...)
>>
>> Yes, basically you can change the final drive.  As I understand it,
>> all four banger Mondeos mark one and two can mix and match
>> transmissions and what not.  The mark one 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 have
>> similar gearing, the TD is pushing 2,700 rpm at 70 indicated.
>
> Is the TD the same block/gearbox mounting then? I haven't been able to 
> find any info.


It's the same gearbox but not the same block.


>> The mark two, hmm, Ford gave the 1.6 tall gearing, the 2.0 has short
>> gearing and I can't remember what the 1.8 uses.
>
> I know the 2.0Si has shorter gearing than mine... must be a pig on the 
> motorway...


But who buys the Si for motorway trips? :)


>>> Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with
>>> the number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear windows,
>>> not to mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....
>>
>> I have to ask why you didn't pick up on these points when looking. Steel 
>> wheels are mostly irrelevant and as for the pain of having to
>> open your own run roof... :)
>
> It was a good offer and I needed a car that could do some serious miles. 
> I'm not so fussed about any of it, just comparing it to similarly placed 
> models in the Mazda/Toyota range...


So it was cheaper than the equivalent Mazda or Toyota, then? :)

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

In article <F9pSe.952$zw1.559@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, DervMan says...

> "Conor"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.1d82eee8267008f898aa51@news.individual.net...
> > In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> > says...
> >
> >> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines would 
> >> have
> >> at 4500. They manage...
> >>
> > Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one is
> > on a petrol car engine?
> 
> 
> Do you know the relevance of this?
> 
> 

Yep.

-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

"Johannes"  wrote in message 
news:431A30BC.503D3619@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...

>
>
> DervMan wrote:
>>
>> "Johannes"  wrote in message
>> news:43199971.353F25AD@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > PC Paul wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Conor wrote:
>> >> > In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
>> >> > says...
>> >> >> Conor wrote:
>> >> >>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
>> >> >>> says...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
>> >> >>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
>> >> >>> is on a petrol car engine?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
>> >> >> if I'm bored...
>> >> >>
>> >> > Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
>> >>
>> >> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines
>> >> comes
>> >> at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
>> >>
>> >> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.
>> >
>> > 1) Why not cruise at legal limit 70mph, this will relax the engine and
>> > driver, and other road users will also feel more relaxed by not having 
>> > to
>> > look over their shoulder all the time.
>> >
>> > 2) Get a better car.
>>
>> Taller gearing doesn't make it a better car!
>
> I would certainly look at the mph/1000rpm as an important criteria when
> deciding a car.


Quite, but higher certainly isn't better.


> My present car is a quiet and relaxed motorway cruiser,
> yes only a 2.0L petrol engine. However, it does have a turbo.


That, erm, interesting I suppose.  But not especially relevant.  Cars can be 
great on the motorway with low gearing, conversely cars with tall gearing 
can suffer from "acme engine noise" versions two through seven, variations 
of "background annoying droning" if you take my point.

It's useful, yes, but it can easily be changed.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan wrote:

> "PC Paul"  wrote in message
> news:6epSe.2579$ix3.1601@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> DervMan wrote:
>>> "PC Paul"  wrote in message
>>> news:Ty0Se.3455$hv5.1527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> OK, so I have this nice new-to-me 2.0 Mondeo. It's doing 4500rpm in
>>>> 5th at motorway cruising speed, and I'd much prefer it to be doing
>>>> 2500rpm.
>>>
>>> Then drive at 50 not 90?
>>
>> Hey!..... umm.... nah. Thanks.
>
> Matching the HGVs at busy times saves stacks of fuel, when it's quiet
> you can resume normal service.


If it's really busy and I'm in no hurry, I do that. Have to watch for HGVs 
crowding me from behind though!


>>>> Any easy way of changing the final drive ratio? Is the same diff
>>>> fitted to any other Fords with a higher ratio? (Mk 1 Mondeo, 2.0
>>>> Zetec, from 1995/6...)
>>>
>>> Yes, basically you can change the final drive.  As I understand it,
>>> all four banger Mondeos mark one and two can mix and match
>>> transmissions and what not.  The mark one 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 have
>>> similar gearing, the TD is pushing 2,700 rpm at 70 indicated.
>>
>> Is the TD the same block/gearbox mounting then? I haven't been able
>> to find any info.
>
> It's the same gearbox but not the same block.


Hmm. Tempting!


>>> The mark two, hmm, Ford gave the 1.6 tall gearing, the 2.0 has short
>>> gearing and I can't remember what the 1.8 uses.
>>
>> I know the 2.0Si has shorter gearing than mine... must be a pig on
>> the motorway...
>
> But who buys the Si for motorway trips? :)


The sort of cars I thrive on you don't necessarily choose the model...


>>>> Also, after a Mazda and a Toyota, I've been sadly disappointed with
>>>> the number of toys on a 'GLX' spec - not even electric rear
>>>> windows, not to mention the manual sunroof and steel wheels....
>>>
>>> I have to ask why you didn't pick up on these points when looking.
>>> Steel wheels are mostly irrelevant and as for the pain of having to
>>> open your own run roof... :)
>>
>> It was a good offer and I needed a car that could do some serious
>> miles. I'm not so fussed about any of it, just comparing it to
>> similarly placed models in the Mazda/Toyota range...
>
> So it was cheaper than the equivalent Mazda or Toyota, then? :)


Originally, yes, I'm sure it was.

But thanks to the Joy of Bangernomics, I paid 250 for my Mazda (323F), 550 
for my Toyota (Supra 3.0) and 300 for the Mondeo (2.0 GLX).

PC Paul wrote:


>> Matching the HGVs at busy times saves stacks of fuel, when it's quiet
>> you can resume normal service.
>
> If it's really busy and I'm in no hurry, I do that. Have to watch for
> HGVs crowding me from behind though!


If you do it in a smart it feels like you could reach out the window and rip 
the Volvo badge off the truck behind you - most disconcerting.

Wonder how much I'd get to trade my volvo for a smart - that'll reduce my 
costs...


-- 
re-configure the solar matrix in parallel for endothermic propulsion

"Tim S Kemp"  wrote in message 
news:6pGdnWbmJPruOofeRVn-iQ@karoo.co.uk...

> PC Paul wrote:
>
>>> Matching the HGVs at busy times saves stacks of fuel, when it's quiet
>>> you can resume normal service.
>>
>> If it's really busy and I'm in no hurry, I do that. Have to watch for
>> HGVs crowding me from behind though!
>
> If you do it in a smart it feels like you could reach out the window and 
> rip the Volvo badge off the truck behind you - most disconcerting.

Heh!

> Wonder how much I'd get to trade my volvo for a smart - that'll reduce my 
> costs...


Two Smarts, in case you break one (or for Smart Racing?).

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan wrote:

> 
> "Johannes"  wrote in message
> news:431A30BC.503D3619@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
> >
> >
> > DervMan wrote:
> >>
> >> "Johannes"  wrote in message
> >> news:43199971.353F25AD@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > PC Paul wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Conor wrote:
> >> >> > In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> >> >> > says...
> >> >> >> Conor wrote:
> >> >> >>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul
> >> >> >>> says...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller engines
> >> >> >>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average one
> >> >> >>> is on a petrol car engine?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might later
> >> >> >> if I'm bored...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
> >> >>
> >> >> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol engines
> >> >> comes
> >> >> at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
> >> >>
> >> >> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.
> >> >
> >> > 1) Why not cruise at legal limit 70mph, this will relax the engine and
> >> > driver, and other road users will also feel more relaxed by not having
> >> > to
> >> > look over their shoulder all the time.
> >> >
> >> > 2) Get a better car.
> >>
> >> Taller gearing doesn't make it a better car!
> >
> > I would certainly look at the mph/1000rpm as an important criteria when
> > deciding a car.
> 
> Quite, but higher certainly isn't better.
> 
> > My present car is a quiet and relaxed motorway cruiser,
> > yes only a 2.0L petrol engine. However, it does have a turbo.
> 
> That, erm, interesting I suppose.  But not especially relevant.  Cars can be
> great on the motorway with low gearing, conversely cars with tall gearing
> can suffer from "acme engine noise" versions two through seven, variations
> of "background annoying droning" if you take my point.
> 
> It's useful, yes, but it can easily be changed.


Some cars have a dreaded 'boom' resonance around 70-80 mph, that makes people
drive them at 80-90mph at motorways. Probably not so much these days than in
past years.

DervMan wrote:

> 
> "Johannes"  wrote in message
> news:43189EF1.A6D0F3BB@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
> >
> >
> > "R. Murphy" wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
> >>
> >> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an
> >> Orion a
> >> few years back
> >
> > If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in some
> > modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.
> 
> That's not entirely correct.  Check out those cars to have been engineered
> for a low 0 - 60 and some have _tall_ gearing... so as to reach 62 mph in
> second gear.


But this might not help 0-60 time if the engine is peaky and need to be in
the power band to produce the goods. Close ratios means that the power band
can be better utilised. 

However, 0-60 is as a performance measure is not ideal. In fact it is
theoretically possible that a slower 0-60 car will cross the finishing line
of a fixed length track before a faster 0-60 car. (even at full blast!). IMO
we should try to get away from 0-60 time, bet it will never happen.

"Johannes"  wrote in message 
news:431ADA1D.61019C1@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...

>
>
> DervMan wrote:
>>
>> "Johannes"  wrote in message
>> news:431A30BC.503D3619@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > DervMan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Johannes"  wrote in message
>> >> news:43199971.353F25AD@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > PC Paul wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Conor wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <PabSe.1216$ix3.386@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC 
>> >> >> > Paul
>> >> >> > says...
>> >> >> >> Conor wrote:
>> >> >> >>> In article <KJ3Se.1134$ix3.461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC 
>> >> >> >>> Paul
>> >> >> >>> says...
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> It would have more torque at 2/3 revs than many smaller 
>> >> >> >>>> engines
>> >> >> >>>> would have at 4500. They manage...
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>> Do you know what a powerband is? Do you know where the average 
>> >> >> >>> one
>> >> >> >>> is on a petrol car engine?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes thanks. Can't be arsed to find the graphs now but I might 
>> >> >> >> later
>> >> >> >> if I'm bored...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Why do you need to find graphs? I said "average".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For cruising, we're talking torque. Peak torque on most petrol 
>> >> >> engines
>> >> >> comes
>> >> >> at around 2300-2800 revs, which is where I'd like to be at 85-90.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In practice, it's running at 4000-4500 which is irritating.
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) Why not cruise at legal limit 70mph, this will relax the engine 
>> >> > and
>> >> > driver, and other road users will also feel more relaxed by not 
>> >> > having
>> >> > to
>> >> > look over their shoulder all the time.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) Get a better car.
>> >>
>> >> Taller gearing doesn't make it a better car!
>> >
>> > I would certainly look at the mph/1000rpm as an important criteria when
>> > deciding a car.
>>
>> Quite, but higher certainly isn't better.
>>
>> > My present car is a quiet and relaxed motorway cruiser,
>> > yes only a 2.0L petrol engine. However, it does have a turbo.
>>
>> That, erm, interesting I suppose.  But not especially relevant.  Cars can 
>> be
>> great on the motorway with low gearing, conversely cars with tall gearing
>> can suffer from "acme engine noise" versions two through seven, 
>> variations
>> of "background annoying droning" if you take my point.
>>
>> It's useful, yes, but it can easily be changed.
>
> Some cars have a dreaded 'boom' resonance around 70-80 mph, that makes 
> people
> drive them at 80-90mph at motorways. Probably not so much these days than 
> in
> past years.


Our aftermarket exhaust is noisy in the 68 - 71 indicated zone, at 72 or 
higher (indicated) it's quieter.  72 indicated is ~67 GPS reported, so that 
works.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"Johannes"  wrote in message 
news:431ADEA2.910F0D46@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...

>
>
> DervMan wrote:
>>
>> "Johannes"  wrote in message
>> news:43189EF1.A6D0F3BB@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > "R. Murphy" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sure you aren't in 3rd instead of 5th (sloppy gearchange)
>> >>
>> >> or perhaps its the rev counter thats at fault - happened to me on an
>> >> Orion a
>> >> few years back
>> >
>> > If he's cruising at 90mph, then it could well be 4500rpm. Gearing in 
>> > some
>> > modern cars are disappointingly low to get better 0-60 figures.
>>
>> That's not entirely correct.  Check out those cars to have been 
>> engineered
>> for a low 0 - 60 and some have _tall_ gearing... so as to reach 62 mph in
>> second gear.
>
> But this might not help 0-60 time if the engine is peaky and need to be in
> the power band to produce the goods. Close ratios means that the power 
> band
> can be better utilised.


Yes it does, but the difference for most cars is changing from second to 
third or not.  On a few, there could be a third to fourth.  Using taller 
gearing can improve acceleration because the engine spends more time closer 
to maximum power.

As you say, this is a "problem" with using one benchmark for performance 
measurement.  Shorter gearing makes it easier to keep the engine on the boil 
over a range of speeds but off the line stuff, it's not so useful.

If our Ka had slightly taller gearing it would probably be marginally 
quicker over the quarter mile.  I'm approaching the quarter mile point above 
maximum power engine speed in third.  Peak power arrives at 5,600 rpm and 
drops off very quickly; we cross the line just under 6,000 rpm in third 
almost at the limiter.  It's not worth changing up...  :-/


> However, 0-60 is as a performance measure is not ideal. In fact it is
> theoretically possible that a slower 0-60 car will cross the finishing 
> line
> of a fixed length track before a faster 0-60 car. (even at full blast!). 
> IMO
> we should try to get away from 0-60 time, bet it will never happen.


We already have, almost all manufacturers use 0 - 62 these days. :)

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan wrote:

> 
[...]
> 
> We already have, almost all manufacturers use 0 - 62 these days. :)


Ahh you mean 0 - 62.15 mph ?

In article , Tim S Kemp says...

> PC Paul wrote:
> 
> >> Matching the HGVs at busy times saves stacks of fuel, when it's quiet
> >> you can resume normal service.
> >
> > If it's really busy and I'm in no hurry, I do that. Have to watch for
> > HGVs crowding me from behind though!
> 
> If you do it in a smart it feels like you could reach out the window and rip 
> the Volvo badge off the truck behind you - most disconcerting.
> 

Ah the joys of the magnifying rear view mirror.


-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

Conor wrote:

> In article , Tim S Kemp says...
>> PC Paul wrote:
>>
>>>> Matching the HGVs at busy times saves stacks of fuel, when it's
>>>> quiet you can resume normal service.
>>>
>>> If it's really busy and I'm in no hurry, I do that. Have to watch
>>> for HGVs crowding me from behind though!
>>
>> If you do it in a smart it feels like you could reach out the window
>> and rip the Volvo badge off the truck behind you - most
>> disconcerting.
>>
> Ah the joys of the magnifying rear view mirror.


Sometimes...


I did see a lovely photoshopped image once, taken from inside a car looking 
at the wing mirror. Engraved on the mirror (For Murrikans, obviously..) was:

'Caution: Objects in the mirror are actually behind you'

In article <fvCSe.3436$ix3.1569@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, PC Paul 
says...


> I did see a lovely photoshopped image once, taken from inside a car looking 
> at the wing mirror. Engraved on the mirror (For Murrikans, obviously..) was:
> 
> 'Caution: Objects in the mirror are actually behind you'
> 

ROFL.  

-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

Personally, I'm much more concerned about 40-80 times than 0-60, since
that's what you want when accelerating onto a motorway; I very seldom
need to floor the accelerator when starting from rest anyway.

pyruse wrote:

> 
> Personally, I'm much more concerned about 40-80 times than 0-60, since
> that's what you want when accelerating onto a motorway; I very seldom
> need to floor the accelerator when starting from rest anyway.


Yes, and it's very unhealthy for the car anyway: Burning clutch, gearbox
grind, CVJ wear, squealing tyres. Save your car and let the others do it.

"pyruse"  wrote in message 
news:1125913849.757510.322430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Personally, I'm much more concerned about 40-80 times than 0-60, since
> that's what you want when accelerating onto a motorway; I very seldom
> need to floor the accelerator when starting from rest anyway.



It's not what I want, but I know what you mean, heh.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"Johannes"  wrote in message 
news:431C2681.82966C0C@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...

>
>
> pyruse wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I'm much more concerned about 40-80 times than 0-60, since
>> that's what you want when accelerating onto a motorway; I very seldom
>> need to floor the accelerator when starting from rest anyway.
>
> Yes, and it's very unhealthy for the car anyway: Burning clutch, gearbox
> grind, CVJ wear, squealing tyres. Save your car and let the others do it.


Not if you accelerate with mechanical sympathy of course.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"PC Paul"  wrote in message 
news:2AfSe.1331$ix3.1073@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>>
> Alright, I give in, they've geared it just right, I'm being unreasonable. 
> Although the 2.0 Zetec does have 80% of it's peak torque from practically 
> nothing right to 5800rpm or so, it's surprised me like that.
>
> Unlike the small Rovers which seem to have a torque band about 300 revs 
> wide...
>

Just my two pennorth. If you changed the diff to get around 2-3k revs at 90 
instead of 4-5k you'd be roughly halving the gear ratio (doubling it? I 
dunno) in all gears. This would make 1st equivalent to at least 2nd and 
would mean slipping your clutch even more when starting.

-- 
Malc

"Your mother can't climb stairs"
Dalek playground taunt

DervMan wrote:

> 
> "Johannes"  wrote in message
> news:431C2681.82966C0C@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
> >
> >
> > pyruse wrote:
> >>
> >> Personally, I'm much more concerned about 40-80 times than 0-60, since
> >> that's what you want when accelerating onto a motorway; I very seldom
> >> need to floor the accelerator when starting from rest anyway.
> >
> > Yes, and it's very unhealthy for the car anyway: Burning clutch, gearbox
> > grind, CVJ wear, squealing tyres. Save your car and let the others do it.
> 
> Not if you accelerate with mechanical sympathy of course.


I've read that 0-60 testers perform certain tricks, like moving the left
foot sideways off the clutch.

"Johannes"  wrote in message 
news:431D5D89.5C7AB445@spam-no-chance-sizefitter.com...

>
>
> DervMan wrote:
>>
>> "Johannes"  wrote in message
>> news:431C2681.82966C0C@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > pyruse wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I'm much more concerned about 40-80 times than 0-60, since
>> >> that's what you want when accelerating onto a motorway; I very seldom
>> >> need to floor the accelerator when starting from rest anyway.
>> >
>> > Yes, and it's very unhealthy for the car anyway: Burning clutch, 
>> > gearbox
>> > grind, CVJ wear, squealing tyres. Save your car and let the others do 
>> > it.
>>
>> Not if you accelerate with mechanical sympathy of course.
>
> I've read that 0-60 testers perform certain tricks, like moving the left
> foot sideways off the clutch.


Erm, but that's not the same as applying full throttle from rest...

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan wrote:

> 
> "Johannes"  wrote in message
> news:431D5D89.5C7AB445@spam-no-chance-sizefitter.com...
> >
> >
> > DervMan wrote:
> >>
> >> "Johannes"  wrote in message
> >> news:431C2681.82966C0C@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > pyruse wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Personally, I'm much more concerned about 40-80 times than 0-60, since
> >> >> that's what you want when accelerating onto a motorway; I very seldom
> >> >> need to floor the accelerator when starting from rest anyway.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, and it's very unhealthy for the car anyway: Burning clutch,
> >> > gearbox
> >> > grind, CVJ wear, squealing tyres. Save your car and let the others do
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> Not if you accelerate with mechanical sympathy of course.
> >
> > I've read that 0-60 testers perform certain tricks, like moving the left
> > foot sideways off the clutch.
> 
> Erm, but that's not the same as applying full throttle from rest...


They do that too. I guess that they must wear slippery shoes such that
they can easily slide off the clutch pedal rather than lifting the foot.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:46:56 +0100, Johannes  
 wrote:


>
>
> DervMan wrote:
>>
>> "Johannes"  wrote in message
>> news:431D5D89.5C7AB445@spam-no-chance-sizefitter.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > DervMan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Johannes"  wrote in message
>> >> news:431C2681.82966C0C@spam-gets-stamped-sizefitter.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > pyruse wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Personally, I'm much more concerned about 40-80 times than 0-60,  
>> since
>> >> >> that's what you want when accelerating onto a motorway; I very  
>> seldom
>> >> >> need to floor the accelerator when starting from rest anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, and it's very unhealthy for the car anyway: Burning clutch,
>> >> > gearbox
>> >> > grind, CVJ wear, squealing tyres. Save your car and let the others  
>> do
>> >> > it.
>> >>
>> >> Not if you accelerate with mechanical sympathy of course.
>> >
>> > I've read that 0-60 testers perform certain tricks, like moving the  
>> left
>> > foot sideways off the clutch.
>>
>> Erm, but that's not the same as applying full throttle from rest...
>
> They do that too. I guess that they must wear slippery shoes such that
> they can easily slide off the clutch pedal rather than lifting the foot.



Anything with a noticeable power band will probably accelerate quicker if  
you don't dump the clutch.