Puzzle...
Puzzle...
Watching 5th Gear the other night and VBH mentions that the Pug 205 GTi weighs circa 800kg and is powered by a 1.9 130 bhp engine...
Mmm, I think, that almost indentical to an Elise S1/S2... so why is it an Elise is MUCH quicker to 60? Gears?
Weird.
Mmm, I think, that almost indentical to an Elise S1/S2... so why is it an Elise is MUCH quicker to 60? Gears?
Weird.
Meenrod
I am the Stig.
I am the Stig.
I'd imagine gears will have a bit to do with it, but how many of those 130 horses will have run away from the Pug 1.9 engine over time?
Also, the torque and where it's available in the range will come in to play. I'd also say that the Elise can get off the line far quicker because of the weight over the rear wheels.
Just my 2p.
Also, the torque and where it's available in the range will come in to play. I'd also say that the Elise can get off the line far quicker because of the weight over the rear wheels.
Just my 2p.
I have no signature.
1. I think the elise (S1 anyway) is maybe a bit lighter
2. Over 50ishMPH aerodynamics start playing a factor, the elise gaining some more time there.
3. As others mention; traction. As the car accelerates, the weight gets thrown to the rear, putting more weight over the driven tyres in a Liz, and less over the fronts on the pug. (will make biggest difference in 1st gear when acceleration is the greatest)
4. It also depends where the 130 BHP is in the power range; how usuable it is.. and hop much torque there is to back it up.
5. Could also be down to gearing, (a tall 1st gear would mean a slightly sluggish start / short gears would mean needing to change to 3rd before 60: taking more time).
Any of the above factors alone would make little difference, but collectively, could add up to the 1.5 / 2 secs difference in 0-60 times...
All IMHO... i'm no expert
2. Over 50ishMPH aerodynamics start playing a factor, the elise gaining some more time there.
3. As others mention; traction. As the car accelerates, the weight gets thrown to the rear, putting more weight over the driven tyres in a Liz, and less over the fronts on the pug. (will make biggest difference in 1st gear when acceleration is the greatest)
4. It also depends where the 130 BHP is in the power range; how usuable it is.. and hop much torque there is to back it up.
5. Could also be down to gearing, (a tall 1st gear would mean a slightly sluggish start / short gears would mean needing to change to 3rd before 60: taking more time).
Any of the above factors alone would make little difference, but collectively, could add up to the 1.5 / 2 secs difference in 0-60 times...
All IMHO... i'm no expert

If power (or more correctly torque) and weight were the only variables, then the 205 would hammer an elise. The 1.9 205 is an 8 valve engine, so won't produce horsepower like a 16v - it'll be a more low-down torquey delivery, therefore will require more torque than an elise to produce 130 bhp (horsepower being a calculation of torque and revs)
Simple fact is the 205 is wrong wheel drive - all the weight is lifted off the fronts when you accellerate, just as you need the weight over them. Try a full bore start in a 205 and it'll wreath you in smoke - in the elise, it usually burns the clutch.
Simple fact is the 205 is wrong wheel drive - all the weight is lifted off the fronts when you accellerate, just as you need the weight over them. Try a full bore start in a 205 and it'll wreath you in smoke - in the elise, it usually burns the clutch.

2010 Honda VFR1200F
1990 Honda VFR400 NC30
2000 Honda VTR1000 SP1
2000 Kawasaki ZX-7R
1990 Honda VFR400 NC30
2000 Honda VTR1000 SP1
2000 Kawasaki ZX-7R
The 1900 Gti is pretty long geared in the first couple of gears; the mi 16 has the same 1st & 2nd ratios but a 20% shorter final drive ratio for comparision.
Also, an ordinary 205 may be about 800kg, but thats by far the lightest I've heard of a GTi being quoted as, I'd say it'd be closer to 900kg for the 1900.
Also, an ordinary 205 may be about 800kg, but thats by far the lightest I've heard of a GTi being quoted as, I'd say it'd be closer to 900kg for the 1900.
IIRC the 1.9 205 would hit 68 in 2nd - a mate had one back in the early 90s and the fact it almost hit motorway speeds in 2nd was a big deal to us back then (like woody says, long geared).Dominic wrote:5. Could also be down to gearing, (a tall 1st gear would mean a slightly sluggish start / short gears would mean needing to change to 3rd before 60: taking more time).
And the engine had buckets of torque

- alicrozier
- Posts: 4390
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:58 pm
- Location: Aberdeen
Exactly what I was gunna say - there's no way a standard 1.9GTI is 800kg...woody wrote:The 1900 Gti is pretty long geared in the first couple of gears; the mi 16 has the same 1st & 2nd ratios but a 20% shorter final drive ratio for comparision.
Also, an ordinary 205 may be about 800kg, but thats by far the lightest I've heard of a GTi being quoted as, I'd say it'd be closer to 900kg for the 1900.

Ross
---------
1972 Alfaholics Giulia Super
2000 Elise S1 Sport 160
2004 Bentley Conti GT
2017 Schkoda Yeti
2x Hairy GRs (not Toyota)
Now browsing the tech pages

---------
1972 Alfaholics Giulia Super
2000 Elise S1 Sport 160
2004 Bentley Conti GT
2017 Schkoda Yeti
2x Hairy GRs (not Toyota)
Now browsing the tech pages

