PDA

View Full Version : williams vs 16v



schakal
04-02-2010, 00:19
welcome to another epic thread 8)

2 identical clio 16v shells , 1 fitted with standard 16v and the other
fitted with a standard williams engine (both engines using same gearboxes,
not that it really matters )

under load , which car would reach 5k rpm faster & why ?

DaneC
04-02-2010, 00:41
Same gearboxes so same ratios, so the Williams will. More torque so it will accelerate faster.

Coops
04-02-2010, 01:13
i believe the block of immaculatly aged camembert will get the 5k quickest

1995clio16v
04-02-2010, 02:38
This Threads in the wrong section pal.





























:wink:

Wobba
04-02-2010, 05:29
Williams I reckon.

Justin..
04-02-2010, 07:50
I reckon the Williams also due to the power delivery

a 16 vcw
04-02-2010, 17:02
i would say the williams.

vkosho
04-02-2010, 17:22
I dont see how there is any physical possibility that a valver would rev up quicker under load when theres less displacement.

schakal
04-02-2010, 17:29
ok what about the long and short throw business between the
different cranks in the engines ?
surely that would favour the 1.8 engine for its short throw

NO :?:

vkosho
04-02-2010, 17:42
Short throw is gonna make for a more revvy engine with a higher powerband. Valvers redline is set 500rpm higher i think. I guess in theory when not under load the 1.8 would rev up quicker but when it comes to moving the same mass its just a case of physics. And as American muscle car drivers say.. Theres no replacement for displacement!

5k in 1st gear, whats that about 25mph? Williams would get there first imo.

DaneC
04-02-2010, 18:45
ok what about the long and short throw business between the
different cranks in the engines ?
surely that would favour the 1.8 engine for its short throw

NO :?:

Nope.

schakal
04-02-2010, 19:02
ok what about the long and short throw business between the
different cranks in the engines ?
surely that would favour the 1.8 engine for its short throw

NO :?:

Nope.

woowww , top reply so far :idea:

Justin..
04-02-2010, 19:05
What you say schaks may help the engine higher up in the rev range but low down (ie upto 5k as you've asked) I can't see it getting over the torque-iness of the 2.0

DaneC
04-02-2010, 19:20
woowww , top reply so far :idea:

Lol sorry but it just won't!

schakal
04-02-2010, 20:09
What you say schaks may help the engine higher up in the rev range but low down (ie upto 5k as you've asked) I can't see it getting over the torque-iness of the 2.0

i know the F7-TEC kicks in earlier in a williams and you
get a bigger bang in them cylinders .

i see your reasoning for getting to 5k quicker as f7p really starts
going off around 4k rpm .
what about after that ? say from 0 to 6500 rpm ??

vkosho
04-02-2010, 20:41
still no :roll:

Swervin_Mervin
06-02-2010, 01:48
They'd get there at the same time.

:wink: