View Full Version : williams vs 16v
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 ?
Same gearboxes so same ratios, so the Williams will. More torque so it will accelerate faster.
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:
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.
I dont see how there is any physical possibility that a valver would rev up quicker under load when theres less displacement.
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 :?:
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.
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.
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
woowww , top reply so far :idea:
Lol sorry but it just won't!
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 ??
Swervin_Mervin
06-02-2010, 01:48
They'd get there at the same time.
:wink:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.