RunX RSi

[SauRoNZA]

Yea it was 141kw and that is where the controversy started, as it didn't perform like a 141kw ... at altitude.

I think I remember it being at just under 9 seconds up here. But the same car at the coast (Carmag, if I recall) was around 7.8 seconds sprint ... so the engine did actually develop that power (if it didn't, then 7.8 seconds is blistering time!)

A ran marginally quicker than a stock Fiesta ST at the time - which wasn't bragging because it was 112kw vs 141kw, so you'd have thought the RunX would run away from it. We're essentially saying the same thing I think?

Short of pulling the engine out of every car to check at a meaningless number anyway.

Not to even mention no two dynos are the same and compensate for different temperatures, altitudes and air pressures so short of running all cars on the same dyno it’s also a useless comparison.

I do however recall that Toyota was a bit like Telkom in this one where it was an “up to 141 kW” claim where other manufacturers claim a minimum X kW.

 

[TheChamp]

Low blinker fluid could cause that, get it checked out first.

That is old and tired.

 

[Dolby]

.

I wouldn't really say meaningless - it does give some indication as to what the car can do. And yes, the engines all put different power - but there is a factory tolerance of (if I recall +-3%).

But a 141KW car sprinting to 100km/h in 7.8 seconds shows the engine is working and developing the correct power? There's an issue in that it dropped far too much altitude - that's all I'm saying.

EDIT : Read this : http://www.carmag.co.za/road-tests-blog/volkswagen-golf-gti/

The Golf GTI was 8.03 (147KW), the RunX was 7.88 (141KW) and the Astra 9.2 (108KW). So was certainly no slouch at being faster with less power. It was actually more than on par.

But like I said the issue with the RSI was bringing it up here. The power did decline because the car couldn't breathe. Their VVT wasn't great at altitude

 

[chickenbeef]

That is old and tired.

We're all getting old and tired.