UCP Car Statistics

[Kitdy]

There are really great stats available in UCP's car databank, but I think there is room for potential improvement in some of the statistics.

Several examples: the power to weight ratio is listed in bhp/kg which is a mix of measurement systems and not a system I am familiar with - maybe used in Europe but it is strange. What I thought of would be several measurements, for the US and Canada and Britain, the most practical measurement is probably bhp/ (imperial) tonne, maybe this could be used in future potentially along with bhp/pound and kW/Kg?

Another thing I thought of that could be interesting although it is rare would be specific torque. Finally, I saw that the engine mass was given for the R8 V10 - a cool stat is power to weight of the engine - I know engine masses on UCP are rare but in future maybe this could be thought of?

I know you love me so much that you'll probably instantly accept all these ideas Wouter, this is mainly a thread to gauge other's opinions on my ideas.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

There are really great stats available in UCP's car databank, but I think there is room for potential improvement in some of the statistics.

Several examples: the power to weight ratio is listed in bhp/kg which is a mix of measurement systems and not a system I am familiar with - maybe used in Europe but it is strange. What I thought of would be several measurements, for the US and Canada and Britain, the most practical measurement is probably bhp/ (imperial) tonne, maybe this could be used in future potentially along with bhp/pound and kW/Kg?

Another thing I thought of that could be interesting although it is rare would be specific torque. Finally, I saw that the engine mass was given for the R8 V10 - a cool stat is power to weight of the engine - I know engine masses on UCP are rare but in future maybe this could be thought of?

I know you love me so much that you'll probably instantly accept all these ideas Wouter, this is mainly a thread to gauge other's opinions on my ideas.

Specific torque doesn't make much sense.
power to weight of engines neither.

I'm interested on the weight of engines though.

2 cents from LotD.

[Kitdy]

I think specific torque is interesting - I learned that an E92 M3 has more torque per litre than the torque monster C6 Z06. Maybe it makes no sense but beh - UCP could be unique at least.

Power to weight of engines certainly makes sense though in my books as two critical components of engines is 1) their power 2) their mass. You want to have high power, low mass, and a good evaluation of this is power to weight, is it not?

Why does it make no sense?

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

I think specific torque is interesting - I learned that an E92 M3 has more torque per litre than the torque monster C6 Z06. Maybe it makes no sense but beh - UCP could be unique at least.

Power to weight of engines certainly makes sense though in my books as two critical components of engines is 1) their power 2) their mass. You want to have high power, low mass, and a good evaluation of this is power to weight, is it not?

Why does it make no sense?

because the power the engine delivers and its weight are two completely separated things.
while the performance of the car is related both to the power (not starting again the powerVStorque war ) and to its weight, engine included.

a good part of the engine's weight is due to auxiliary parts, mechanisms not working for generating more power but to give power to other parts of the car. it becomes quite difficult to say which parts of the engine that are actually working in the power-generating process should be counted.
while the whole weight of the powertrain itself (perhaps engine+gearbox as two separated numbers) is interesting because not only it gives the power to the whole car, but it's also the heavier part of it (I think it could be even heavier than than the chassis itself in some cars, I remember the Jag XK's aluminum monocoque to be very light).

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

because the power the engine delivers and its weight are two completely separated things.
while the performance of the car is related both to the power (not starting again the powerVStorque war ) and to its weight, engine included.

They are separated, but their relationship is critical to how the car works and how we can evaluate engines. If an engine weighs 700 pounds and makes 400 hp, and another weights 400 pounds and makes 400 hp with other things being roughly equal, I'd say that the lighter engine is at a greater advantage. It's a performance stat like many others and jsut as valid as far as I'm concerned.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

They are separated, but their relationship is critical to how the car works and how we can evaluate engines. If an engine weighs 700 pounds and makes 400 hp, and another weights 400 pounds and makes 400 hp with other things being roughly equal, I'd say that the lighter engine is at a greater advantage. It's a performance stat like many others and jsut as valid as far as I'm concerned.

but some part of the engine are also used for strengthening the chassis or the car itself (especially in super/sportcars) or even to move the CG in a more convenient position using a different material (lighter or heavier) to do so.
it's a too complex and multi-purposes part to be considered just as something that gives that much power and weights that much kilos.
consider the 335i we discussed on another thread. it doesn't deliver much mroe power than the 330i engine, but it surely weights more, simply because of te two turbos and additional cooling parts and so on. but which engine is more efficient? obviously the 335i.
so a better thing to consider is power to mileage, even if this number is itself wrong because it consider just the engine for as regards the power, but the whole car for as regards the mileage.

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

but some part of the engine are also used for strengthening the chassis or the car itself (especially in super/sportcars) or even to move the CG in a more convenient position using a different material (lighter or heavier) to do so.
it's a too complex and multi-purposes part to be considered just as something that gives that much power and weights that much kilos.
consider the 335i we discussed on another thread. it doesn't deliver much mroe power than the 330i engine, but it surely weights more, simply because of te two turbos and additional cooling parts and so on. but which engine is more efficient? obviously the 335i.
so a better thing to consider is power to mileage, even if this number is itself wrong because it consider just the engine for as regards the power, but the whole car for as regards the mileage.

When it comes down to it in the end, both calculations are probably useless. The first, as you described makes sense so I won't repeat it. Hp/Tq per mileage isn't worth it either when taking into account the abundance of high mpg/low power engines that would dominate this category.

[Ferrer]

I think weight of the engines would be interesting. But probably is very hard to know.

[wwgkd]

I'd like to see the weight of engines more. I've heard some surprises there (the weight of "monster" engines vs tiny little turbo engines ebing the same for instance) and think it's a cool stat. But often manufacturers don't provide the number, so unless wouter verifies for us...

Also, you could compute specific torque given that we do get both the necessary numbers, usually.

[Kitdy]

Yeah I realise that engine mass is not something that is a common stat given by manufacturers.

Yes wwgkd, I could calculate specific torque and power to weight ratio on my own too, but the site is meant to be a convenience and the reason I visit the cars section is because it has good info.

[wwgkd]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Yeah I realise that engine mass is not something that is a common stat given by manufacturers.

Yes wwgkd, I could calculate specific torque and power to weight ratio on my own too, but the site is meant to be a convenience and the reason I visit the cars section is because it has good info.

That's a good point and I guess putting the number on wouldn't be that much more work.

[Kitdy]

I didn't say anything about hp/tq per mile.

Comparing the 335i engine and 330i engine is troublesome because the 335i is turbocharged so when it comes to efficiency it has a large advantage - I'm more interested in comparing NA engines as comparing turbocharged ones is hard anyways as you don't know what boost is being run all the time.

Speaking of boost, peak boost would also be a cool UCP stat.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

I didn't say anything about hp/tq per mile.

Comparing the 335i engine and 330i engine is troublesome because the 335i is turbocharged so when it comes to efficiency it has a large advantage - I'm more interested in comparing NA engines as comparing turbocharged ones is hard anyways as you don't know what boost is being run all the time.

Speaking of boost, peak boost would also be a cool UCP stat.

even considering just NA engines, just using a new ECU the hp of an engine could be quite modified without touching its weight. but the gain in power would not mean a better efficiency too. so the engine would have more power, the same weight, but what about efficiency? perhaps the mileage could even be better, but so what about reliability?

there are ratios that can be cool or interesting to have, but somehow pointless.

agree on the peak boost though.

may I suggest carfolio.com?

[Kitdy]

Yeah I dig carfolio, I didn't see boost ratings though but maybe I missed it. The power/weight ratio is only sorta a measure of efficiency as you know there are many measures of efficiency in engines, volumetric, thermal, I suppose power/weight - I think each tells a tale and I wouldn't consider any useless or not important.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Yeah I dig carfolio, I didn't see boost ratings though but maybe I missed it. The power/weight ratio is only sorta a measure of efficiency as you know there are many measures of efficiency in engines, volumetric, thermal, I suppose power/weight - I think each tells a tale and I wouldn't consider any useless or not important.

the other measures are tbh derived from mathematical calculation and not physical measurements. and they had a direct role in the calculation of the power (so of the torque), that's why skeptical about the power/weight, it doesn't mean something if not the ratio itself.

another example: Honda aluminum diesel engine: it's lighter (I assume) than its contenders, but not more powerful (140 hp from a 2.2). making that exact engine using steel and other metals, would end up with the same power, but a different weight.

and another one: displacement: an engine with a big displacement could be quite light considering it's a say 8.3 liters (Viper) for the simple fact that the displacement is made of an empty space (so weightless), but the displacement has a direct role in how much power you are going to have.
consider a 2.0 I4 which weghts about 150 kg. increase the displacement to 4 liters (both boring and stroking, regardless of the fact that it would require building new parts).
the weight is not going to be 300 kg, more likely something between 200 and 250 kg at worst. power? theoretically, it would be double, but we should consider the fact tat it's impossible for a 4 cylinder engine to be efficient with such a large displacement.
that's just to say that power and weight are independent variables.