vtr to vts torque

[blacksax1]

has a vtr got more low down torque than a vts or am i just being bull shi**ted:wacko:

[Barry123]

certainly feels like it.

The VTS seems to be a bit 'sluggish' below 4000rpm like then kicks in whereas the VTR has a much smooth torque by the feel of it.

[Yates]

ive driven both, vtr certainly kicks in first at around 2.5k revs vts is around 4

vts does feel sluggish til 4k

[bullit]

yes it does

[godfridge]

Yeah vtr is a really torquey car especially once its got breathin mods it goes at praticly any revs!

[Leegriffiths]

that would be cause the vts is twin cam. it needs the second band for its torque, dont let that fool ya cause if ya get it right when ya pull off ya gone.

[williamsvts]

i tihk you's are getting a bit mixed up.
vts has more torque than a vtr, BUT the vtr makes its peak torque lower down the rev range than the vts.

[WestyVTR]

thats correct & thats also y the 0-60 times are very similar.

[CampDavid]

thats correct & thats also y the 0-60 times are very similar.

hahahahahahhahahahaahhaa. No.

Having actually driven both the VTR and VTS feel very similar to about 3.5k and then the S is much quicker. VTR 0-60 is around the 9 second mark, the VTS is at 7.2. The S is also 9 seconds quicker to 100. Which is loads

[williamsvts]

on paper the above is true but on the 1/4 mile they are only 1-2 secs difference, that puzzels me a bit????

[CampDavid]

2 seconds on a quarter is a lot. THe VTRs main problem is it runs out of beans at about 70mph, 70-100 takes around a week

[Ry_B]

8valve = makes power low down, 16valve = needs to be revved to make power.

[CampDavid]

8valve = makes power low down, 16valve = needs to be revved to make power.

Torque at about 2k I believe is the same for both, the VTR feels more torquey as it runs out qucker

[WestyVTR]

this is what i thought! VTR is ever so slightly lighter also i think...

[spencer_cammedvts]

yes it is but not much lighter and its only the bit of extra engine weight! i think.

[Scott]

15kg between the two if i remember rightly

[Barry123]

Peak torques at:
3000 for the VTR
5200 for the VTS

Hence why the VTR seems just as nippy at low speeds and brief blips on the throttle

[spencer_cammedvts]

spot on mate!

ayup scott how the fcuk did you get all yer reps? i help loads of people and they give me F/A! lol

[spencer_cammedvts]

Peak torques at:
3000 for the VTR
5200 for the VTS

Hence why the VTR seems just as nippy at low speeds and brief blips on the throttle

obviously these are standard figures. peaks change with mods.

[Barry123]

15kg between the two if i remember rightly

so 1.6% difference in weight yet the VTS has 20% more power BUT...

The VTS only has 7% more torque over a Mk1 VTR!

[Barry123]

obviously these are standard figures. peaks change with mods.

really? :omg:

[spencer_cammedvts]

well that 7% makes 2 second 0-60

[Barry123]

well that 7% makes 2 second 0-60

that'll be the box, the higher rev limit and the fact that the VTR engine torque will die off quicker than the VTS whilst the VTS's remains fairly high etc etc

[spencer_cammedvts]

yes and the extra 22 brake!

[Barry123]

yes and the extra 22 brake!

the brake is derived from the torque and rpm which i had been mentioning but has nothing to do with acceleration lol

[spencer_cammedvts]

so if a vtr had the same torque as a vts, same box as a vts and could rev as high it would be faster? (i say faster as its 15kg lighter)

[saunders]

the brake is derived from the torque and rpm which i had been mentioning but has nothing to do with acceleration.

yea also weight has alot to do with it too

[Barry123]

not sure to be honest... i doubt it because of the breathing difficulties with 8valves would hold the torque back at higher rpms.

yea also weight has alot to do with it too
F=M*A

[Colin]

This thread just proves that 16 valves are overated and you do not need a VTS.

Mind you, anyone who does not have a VTS would say that!

This is why I think people with VTRs should concentrate on getting more power from their 8 valves instead of always comparing it to a 16v.

Oh yeah, and whats one of the most popular Rally cars to use? A 106 Rallye or XSI. 8 Valve.

[Barry123]

This thread just proves that 16 valves are overated and you do not need a VTS.

Mind you, anyone who does not have a VTS would say that!

This is why I think people with VTRs should concentrate on getting more power from their 8 valves instead of always comparing it to a 16v.

Oh yeah, and whats one of the most popular Rally cars to use? A 106 Rallye or XSI. 8 Valve.

It's a trade off in the end. The VTR engine will have the smoother torque curve which will peak early which is good for 'everyday driving'. whereas the 16v appear to suffer low down the rpm range but torque is much larger higher up the rev range giving it a much more racey style for driving.

[Colin]

It's a trade off in the end. The VTR engine will have the smoother torque curve which will peak early which is good for 'everyday driving'. whereas the 16v appear to suffer low down the rpm range but torque is much larger higher up the rev range giving it a much more racey style for driving.


Exactly. And this is why everyone who I know who has a VTS has blown theirs up because they rev the bollocks off them!

[CampDavid]

Wow, so much incorrect information in only two pages!

The VTR does produce its torque lower down because getting air into the engine is difficult with only half the number of valves.

The VTR and VTS both have smooth torque curves. The VTRs is just a lot shorter

The Rallye cars use the 8 valve engines because they have to. Given half a chance they'd use 4 valves per cylinder. The F1 boys are allowed 5 valves per cylinder, they'd use 10 if they could!

VTS engines take A LOT of abuse. Any engine that revs high need regular oil changes though. My camm'd unit goes to 8k daily and has done a load of trackwork over the past year and 25k miles. Its on 60k now and its showing no signs of going bang (touch wood) though the ECU is fucked!

15kgs makes nigh on fuck all difference to performance. Try driving your car with a case of larger on the passenger side? Does it feel taht much slower? Thought not.

VTR owners shouldn't, IMO consentrate on making there cars more powerful. Gains on a VTR are minimal on the engine side but real improvements can be made by chucking a grand at the suspension and brakes, not at a trick cam. Want more power? Buy a VTS.

A VTR with the same rev limit as a VTS, the same torque figure (amount) and the same gearbox would not be quicker than a VTS. The torque produced by a VTR tails off a lot earlier due to airflow through the head

[CampDavid]

Worth also noting that the Engine in my mums skoda fabia VRs has similar torque to an F1 car. it isn't as fast though. Odd

[williamsvts]

lol, vtr-attitude :P

[bullit]

i enjoyed reading that lol

[CampDavid]

which bit?

[Barry123]

A VTR with the same rev limit as a VTS, the same torque figure (amount) and the same gearbox would not be quicker than a VTS. The torque produced by a VTR tails off a lot earlier due to airflow through the head

It wouldn't have the same torque figure (amount) then would it? - because of the head

[blacksax1]

nice one cheers

[CampDavid]

It wouldn't have the same torque figure (amount) then would it? - because of the head

Well, it depends how you define it. Both could produce 100ftlb of torque with the VTR producing it lower down the rev range at say 2k and the VTS at 5k. The VTR will however stop producing that amount of grunt at 3.5k

Torque is the force, power is the work done (torque x rpm)

[Barry123]

Well, it depends how you define it. Both could produce 100ftlb of torque with the VTR producing it lower down the rev range at say 2k and the VTS at 5k. The VTR will however stop producing that amount of grunt at 3.5k

Torque is the force, power is the work done (torque x rpm)

I think we're discussing the same point here :wacko:


the brake is derived from the torque and rpm which i had been mentioning but has nothing to do with acceleration lol
Yes i know what torque is.

[spencer_cammedvts]

AS SAID. A VTR WILL NEVER MATCH A VTS WHILST n/a

[Barry123]

What was originally asked was:

'has a vtr got more low down torque than a vts or am i just being bull shi**ted'

i suspect VTR does.
We know that the peak torques of both engines are quite similar but occur at very different points in the rev range.
VTR - 3000 (and 3500 on the Mk2)
VTS - 5200

This seems to point to the fact that the VTR engine has more low down torque UNLESS the VTS engine has a similar amount of torque below its peak - Which i doubt as anyone who has been in a VTS will say the engine 'kicks in at around 4000rpm) suggesting there isnt much torque below that figure.


discuss...

[CampDavid]

What was originally asked was:

'has a vtr got more low down torque than a vts or am i just being bull shi**ted'

i suspect VTR does.
We know that the peak torques of both engines are quite similar but occur at very different points in the rev range.
VTR - 3000 (and 3500 on the Mk2)
VTS - 5200

This seems to point to the fact that the VTR engine has more low down torque UNLESS the VTS engine has a similar amount of torque below its peak - Which i doubt as anyone who has been in a VTS will say the engine 'kicks in at around 4000rpm) suggesting there isnt much torque below that figure.


discuss...

Indeed, I follow however its largely irrelivant anyway as the VTS will spin up much more quickly than the VTR.

Interestingly I've been using a 90bhp 1.6 106 (VTR engine) with an auto box this week which has actually used more fuel than the VTS ever does (I get 350 to a tank in the S, this will be lucky to nail 300 in the same driving)

If it wasn't for the insurance difference the VTR would be totally pointless

[Barry123]

spins up quicker?

[CampDavid]

the engine will spin up to a higher rpm quicker.

Take both engines and put them in nutural. Welt the throttle and note that the VTS will get up to 6k first due to lighter camshafts and greater airflow

[Barry123]

the engine will spin up to a higher rpm quicker.

Take both engines and put them in nutural. Welt the throttle and note that the VTS will get up to 6k first due to lighter camshafts and greater airflow


I dont think that has anything to do with the original question though. the VTR has more torque low down.

But I would have thought that the VTR engine would spin up slightly quicker up until 4500rpm (peak torque remember) where the VTS engine hits its freer flowing 16valve rhythm and (peakier torque)

[williamsvts]

how do you know the torque is 'peakier'?
we we need to see torque graphs for both standard cars side by side.
a vts will pull the same as a vtr up till it comes 'on cam' then it will leave the vtr.

[Barry123]

how do you know the torque is 'peakier'?
we we need to see torque graphs for both standard cars side by side.
a vts will pull the same as a vtr up till it comes 'on cam' then it will leave the vtr.

Purely guess work to be honest.

As i said earlier... we know both engines produce similar PEAK (maximum)torque
VTR ~100lbft (not much difference between Mk1 and Mk2 engines)
VTS ~107lbft

BUT these max torques occur at VERY different regions of the rev range
VTR - 3000 (3500 Mk2)
VTS - 5200

now the guess work... having driven a VTS, there is a noticeable 'kick' in acceleration just after 4000rpm. As has been mentioned a couple of times, acceleration is dependant on torque (and gearing but we can ignore this for time being - but will add weight to my arguement)...
Torque is a force - Newton 2nd Law Force = Mass * Acceleration

rearranging gives...

Acceleration = Force/Mass
an increase in force (torque), an increase in acceleration.

This 'kick' in acceleration suggests to me that there isnt a lot of torque relative to peak torque below this 4000rpm threshold i.e. nowhere near 100 -107lbft below that rpm.

thus I'm assuming that the VTR has more low down torque.


NOW the gearbox, a gearbox acts as a torque multiplier, think about it... the engines produce 100-107lbft. if (hypothetically) the engine had a lever extended at a right angle to the crankshaft and a person weighing 100lb (45kg) stood on that lever a foot away, the engine wouldnt be able to shift. YET the same engine can whisk a tonne car to 60 in <10secs.

We know that the VTS gearbox has shorter ratios than the VTR, these shorter ratios aid acceleration as they multiply the torque by a higher factor. This again suggests that despite the lower gearing the engine doesnt really 'kick' until 4000rpm thus the VTR produces more torque low down the rev range.


...and breathe. Well done if you got that far.

Obviously as i say, it's purely guess work so after all that i could still be wrong lol, but with the figures i have to me it seems a logical conclusion.

:)