Is it just me?

[Doodle]

Ah - SAAB 99 Turbo would be another ULEZ exempt car ; think maybe the 900 just a little too new ?

900 turbo was '79/'80 release if I recall correctly, so the earliest ones have just come of age.

 

[markjay]

Don't they have friction brakes as well as regenerative ( eddy current ? ) brakes like on trains ?

They do, for emergency braking (plus you can configure the car to not use regenerative braking if you so wish), but in typical use the disc brakes are rarely applied, again to maximise efficiency and reduce thermal losses.

This also means that the pads and discs are typically good for the life of the car, and that EVs generate very little brake dust pollution.

 

[markjay]

900 turbo was '79/'80 release if I recall correctly, so the earliest ones have just come of age.

My personal favourite was the 1990 SAAB 9000 with the 2.3L DOHC 16V NA engine.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

900 turbo was '79/'80 release if I recall correctly, so the earliest ones have just come of age.

Exactly, mine was the 1980, with that great buzz of acceleration you could use as you shot home after a long day desk jockeying.

I mean the car that someone else was driving, down Park Lane and Embankment, after the Rush Hour…

All cars that are very difficult to find, 40 years on, despite the Ulez tax break.

 

[ALFAitalia]

If I remember my high school physics correctly , and I am peering through 50 odd years of cobwebs here , the amount of energy required to accelerate a given mass from one speed to another speed does not change with the rate of acceleration ; therefore , say , applying a force of 1N for 10 seconds should be exactly the same as applying a force of 10N for 1 second to achieve the same velocity . To then maintain that velocity only requires enough force to overcome losses , be it mechanical friction or air resistance .

I know that in practice , gentle acceleration tends to produce the best fuel economy , and avoiding unnecessary deceleration and re-acceleration through observation and planning is the best way .

Two paragraphs that contradict each other! Clearly the first one is rubbish....we all know that you will use loads more fuel in an ICE car by accelerating hard all the time compared to accelerating slowly.....ever done a track day....or better still been a a drag strip where braking does not enter into it? You would be right if it were not for all the other loses incurred from accelerating hard and using higher revs.....the only way you would be right is if you could accelerate hard but only use the lower half of the rev range.....not very possible in most ICE cars. The more revs the more losses.
From a hypermiling site...
Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration) wastes petrol. It can lower your mileage by roughly 15% to 30% at highway speeds and 10% to 40% in stop-and-go traffic.
Then of course you have the extra wear and tear you put a car and it's drive line with heavy throttle pedal use.

 

[markjay]

Two paragraphs that contradict each other! Clearly the first one is rubbish....we all know that you will use loads more fuel in an ICE car by accelerating hard all the time compared to accelerating slowly.....ever done a track day....or better still been a a drag strip where braking does not enter into it? You would be right if it were not for all the other loses incurred from accelerating hard and using higher revs.....the only way you would be right is if you could accelerate hard but only use the lower half of the rev range.....not very possible in most ICE cars. The more revs the more losses.
From a hypermiling site...
Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration) wastes petrol. It can lower your mileage by roughly 15% to 30% at highway speeds and 10% to 40% in stop-and-go traffic.
Then of course you have the extra wear and tear you put a car and it's drive line with heavy throttle pedal use.

I think that what we are not taking into account is the engine efficiency. Hard acceleration means more fuel being injected and less perfect burn process, which is causing fuel waste as this process does not optimise the use of the caloric value of the fuel. And for those enjoying the crackling noises from the AMG exhaust when taking the foot off the loud pedal - raw petrol igniting in the back box does not produce energy that propels the car forward any more than a bonfire does....

 

[Meldrew2]

I like to keep my windscreen clean ; sometimes I see them in my mirrors copying me when I do it .

Me too!

 

[Bellow]

I think that what we are not taking into account is the engine efficiency. Hard acceleration means more fuel being injected and less perfect burn process, which is causing fuel waste as this process does not optimise the use of the caloric value of the fuel. And for those enjoying the crackling noises from the AMG exhaust when taking the foot off the loud pedal - raw petrol igniting in the back box does not produce energy that propels the car forward any more than a bonfire does....

The vagaries of engine efficiency varying across the load/speed range does influence results (but harder acceleration with a SI engine reduces throttling losses and can be more fuel efficient if fuel enrichment (to deter detonation) isn't invoked)).
That, however does not negate the fact that the acceleration rate has no effect on total energy usage when these variations are absent.

 

[Bellow]

Two paragraphs that contradict each other! Clearly the first one is rubbish....we all know that you will use loads more fuel in an ICE car by accelerating hard all the time compared to accelerating slowly.....ever done a track day....or better still been a a drag strip where braking does not enter into it? You would be right if it were not for all the other loses incurred from accelerating hard and using higher revs.....the only way you would be right is if you could accelerate hard but only use the lower half of the rev range.....not very possible in most ICE cars. The more revs the more losses.
From a hypermiling site...
Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration) wastes petrol. It can lower your mileage by roughly 15% to 30% at highway speeds and 10% to 40% in stop-and-go traffic.
Then of course you have the extra wear and tear you put a car and it's drive line with heavy throttle pedal use.

Well, at least the spelling is correct...

 

[Dippo]

My personal favourite was the 1990 SAAB 9000 with the 2.3L DOHC 16V NA engine.

That was the first Saab in the UK with a catalytic converter, so a lot of the purists thought it was underpowered.

 

[Pontoneer]

Two paragraphs that contradict each other! Clearly the first one is rubbish....we all know that you will use loads more fuel in an ICE car by accelerating hard all the time compared to accelerating slowly.....ever done a track day....or better still been a a drag strip where braking does not enter into it? You would be right if it were not for all the other loses incurred from accelerating hard and using higher revs.....the only way you would be right is if you could accelerate hard but only use the lower half of the rev range.....not very possible in most ICE cars. The more revs the more losses.
From a hypermiling site...
Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration) wastes petrol. It can lower your mileage by roughly 15% to 30% at highway speeds and 10% to 40% in stop-and-go traffic.
Then of course you have the extra wear and tear you put a car and it's drive line with heavy throttle pedal use.

I know that in the real world using hard acceleration uses a lot more fuel . As for hard acceleration at low revs , well any decent sized V-8 will do that , my 500SEL had an absolute plateau of torque from about 1100 RPM onwards and you could just tickle the throttle to get a mighty push in the back .

This is even better demonstrated in steam engines where you get maximum torque from start up , in fact with steam locomotives , the skill is in not breaking traction as you move off .

 

[ALFAitalia]

Well, at least the spelling is correct...

True...I need to read them better before hitting post.....but the site could help by allowing editing for long than 20 minutes! On other sites you can edit posts forever.

 

[Pontoneer]

Exactly, mine was the 1980, with that great buzz of acceleration you could use as you shot home after a long day desk jockeying.

I mean the car that someone else was driving, down Park Lane and Embankment, after the Rush Hour…

All cars that are very difficult to find, 40 years on, despite the Ulez tax break.

View attachment 145630

I always liked the one-liner in the GBU section at the back of CAR magazine " Thoughtful cars , for thoughtful people " .

 

[Fastcar155]

Although I would love to live a few days in the late 1890s, I would love even more to experience life in the late 1960s.

Both were remarkable and pioneering times, with some similarities: Interesting architecture, rapid urban regeneration, exciting technological advances, and the feeling of anything being possible.

The things invented in the late 19th and early 20th century reached a level of maturity in the 1960s, like the car and transatlantic travel, and eventually cross channel hovercrafts and space travel.

What a time to be alive and what a time to drive a British sporting saloon from London to Bath. Must have been remarkable. I’d have preferred to do it in a Jaguar E-Type roadster though. Perfection.

Hi Bobby Dazzler:

I must have led a sheltered life but I remember , girls in mini skirts , no micro skirts , kinky boots , I must take the tablets.

Ford Anglia 105E , lower all round , 5.5 J wheels all round running on Goodyear G800s with large bore exhaust.

Fill the Anglia up for £1.50 ( 5 gallons )

Weekly shop to Sainsbury £5.00

Purchased a detached bungalow in Worcester for £ 5250

Pint of good beer £ .20p. ( equivalent)

I good salary was £2000 pa

Oh for the good old days