Big Poppa T

Or just an `82model in stock form (#`s) I`ve been on several sites looking for #`s on the car and have found everything from 0-60 in 8.1secs to 0-60 in 6.4secs for the same car in supposedly stock form. Also 1/4mile times from 15.8secs @ IIRC 98mph to 14.1 @ IIRC 104mph and the other way around. If anyone has slips for this or similar car (4.5ltr with LSD and 2.75 rearend) or knows of a reputasble source for #`s it would be appreciated as my bro wont let it go. HE thinks its an overrated & understyled wannabe supercar (his words not mine) I figured even if I give him a black eye it would only egg him on more your input is appreciated thanks T

hacker-pschorr

Have him show you how many 1982 cars were faster than even the slowest time you found. Put things into perspective. In 1982-1983ish Road and Track took a US 928 to I think Laguna Seca with a 911SC. The 928 was faster around the track - so what is he trying to compare it to?

Jim bailey - 928 International

FYI the 4.5 USA engine is 273 cubic inches and based on my dyno sheet for my 1980 puts down about 198 hp to the rear wheels that is it ! Given the weight of the car there is only so much 198 HP can do. The 1980 > European S engine 4.7 liter higher compression bigger valves more camshaft bigger intake runners bigger throttle body easily made another 70 hp which makes a big difference in how the performs. The Competition package was brakes flat wheels and spoilers unfortunately NOT the Euro S engine.

Rob Edwards

That was an interesting little retrospective in this month's R&T- mid-'80's Quattro vs 911 vs 928. The only mention of the 928 at all is that it was faster 'round the track than either the Audi or the 911, and the shark is halfway cut off out of the picture.

No respect, I tell ya!

PorKen

Don't forget ~220 ftlbs of torque at the wheels!

With that huge intake, the '80 euro S has less than ten more ftlbs of torque at the crank than the US! (163 versus 156)

Jim bailey - 928 International

All torque means is how steep a hill you can climb in a gear without stalling ! IT says NOTHING about how quickly you get to the top The moment you add an element of time you measure work over time as horsepower....horsepower rules ! just give me enough gears...

Big Poppa T

Specifications for the original 928
1978-1982

Engine:Water cooled 90 degree V8, aluminum block and heads
Bore and Stroke: 3.74 x 3.11 in (95.0 x 78.9 mm)
Displacement:273 cu.in. or 4,474cc
Horsepower :219@5,250 rpm
Torque: 254 lb-ft@ 3,600 rpm
Power to weight ratio: 13.1 lbs per horsepower
Compression ratio: 8.5:1
Cd: .34
Fuel system: K-jetronic (Bosch)
Drivetrain:
5 speed manual transmission,. 3 speed automatic
Suspension:
Front: Independent unequal length control arms, coil springs anti-roll bar
Rear: same ?????? NO wiessach WTF!!!
Dimensions:
Curb weight: 3,420 lbs
Wheelbase: 98.4"
Length: 175.1"
Width: 72.3"
Height: 51.7"
Track front/rear: 60.8"/59.6"
Ground clearance: 4.5"
Brakes and Wheels:
Power assisted, internally vented discs
16x7.0" front, 16x7.0" rear cast aluminum wheels
Fuel Economy: 13 mpg (city) 17 mpg (hwy)
Performance: 0-60mph: 6.4 seconds
0-1/4 mile: 15.3s @ 92.6 mph
Top Speed: 151 mph

. So basically what it says here.
but one more interesting question it says here that the `78-`82 does not have the weissach rear axle I thought every 928 had this??? also I thought the "comp package" also had upgraded suspension along with the rims brakes and spoilers

PorKen

That info is somewhat generic.

All 928's have the »Weissach«* rear suspension.

Here is a better listing by year: (928 Specialists | Engine Types)

Note that the ftlb torque spec for '80-'82 is often misquoted because of a typo in the WSM - the glovebox manual, and dealer brochures show the correct figure. Should be 348Nm = 255lbft.



*Working Elasticities Integrated for a Systematic Stablizing Alignment Change

hacker-pschorr

Some might actually claim LSD will slow down 0-60 and 1/4 mile times due to more drivetrain resistance & weight.

Off the line my 81 will leave two nice black patches without LSD.

mark kibort

Jim's right. we have been here before!

acceleration = power/(mass x velocity)

at any vehicle speed, its the hp that determines acceleration, and acceleration is directly proportional to hp. torque, as ive always said is almost meaningless, unless you tie a RPM to it (ie HP). Now, dont confuse, as most do, with rear wheel torque, multiplied through the gear box. This is comparitively equal to HP.

so, what do these peak torque numbers mean? well, they only give an indication of the shape of the HP curve. the more the numerical torque value compared to the Hp number, the higher the probablity that you will have a flatter HP curve. a lower number or flat torque curve will indicate a peaky HP curve. This can be made up easily with a close ratio gear box.

i remember when i made my part euro 4.7 liter, my max torque didnt change one bit, but i gained 40 more hp. ( 200hp/236ft-lbs vs 243hp/236ft-lbs) this 40 more hp determines the gain in rear wheel torque multiplied to the rear wheels through the gear box, in direct proportions and over the racing operational range. however, lugging around town at 3000-4000rpm, there was no difference, as the HP in that range was identical.

acceleration = power/(mass x velocity)

MK

mark kibort

Ive taken a 1979 with wheels and DOT tire mods (with cat, but eibachs and koni street suspension) and run 2:10 at thunderhill. compare that to a car near you !

generally, all great cars will run similar lap times with same tires and weight as long as the hp to weight ratio is close. But, with the better balance of the 928 and higher potential for cheap power increase, better handling and suspension geometry, the 928 towers over the, 911 of the same decades.

MK

PorKen

If you have a old fashion mechanical coupling. With a superior fluid coupling, it's how strongly you can spin the converter and at what rpm!

Think of all the time you're not accelerating with all that balky shifting!

With more horsepower you may be traveling at a higher speed at the top of the hill, but with more torque, you will get to the top in fewer seconds...

Big Poppa T

Thanks guys the info is much appreciated. if anyone has a timeslip for a similar car it would be cool

tommytomaso

HP may rule....but your not going anywere with out TQ!!!!!!! HP dosnt move an object..TQ dos HP is what keeps it going... damm TQ haters

mark kibort

HP does rule, becuase it DETERMINES the torque at the wheels at any vehicle speed. torque is a factor of HP. just like rpms is a factor. no rpm or torque, no HP. BUT, HP does move the object and determines how fast it gets there.
HP is the rate of doing work, and work is made up of force (torque ) and a distance moved. So work is made up of two factors both which are equally important.

HP is easier to look at for amost all of our concerns, as it incorporates the things we are looking at, that being an indication of what the FINAL torque at the rear wheels at any speed will be. otherwise, you have to multiply the engine torque x the gear ratios at any particular vehicle speed.

Need to look no farther than the viper vs GT3RS comparison both with similar HP, but grossly different torque values. 440hp but the GT3 with 250ft-lbs and the viper with 450ft-lbs. who acceleratates faster if they are same weight and have same gearing proportional? neither, they would be exactly the same!
if the shape of the hp curve for the viper was flatter, the GT3 could make up for that entirely with closer gearing to have the same HP over any speed range.
calculate all this with just knowing the 250ft-lbs vs the 450ftlbs and then you will be punching a calculator for a while and need more data to work with.

hey, i know and LOVE torque, but i just am concerned about what it amounts to at the rear tires, THROUGH the gear box (ie HP)

Mk