@AMc I was planning to revive it anyway though. 😅😂
Here is an another comparison point. And there is a different kind of question here too.
The 100 to 200 times. I have taken a number of video tests that showcase the metric (eight for each car) and calculated the average time it takes both cars to do the thing. Although each Fiesta in these videos was a pre facelift model that is actually what we need to create context for the main question and I will get to it much later. In addition to the times I marked how full was the the fuel tank (where visible) and how well the content creator was shifting the gears (shifting lights based). Not every tester had result correction for slopes and such and there is also a wind problem plus weather and temperature, but since these are more or less same unknowns for both cars it feels okay to just accept that this comparison is obviously not completely scientific, I think it still tells the story. And needless to say that the clear downhills and such were not used for the comparison.
The i20N averaged at 20.65 while it had more extra weight in the amount of fuel and shifting was worse. But I have to add that the tank capacity in the i20N is 5 litres lower so maybe not all that much extra weight. The Fiesta ST averaged at 21.45 while carrying less fuel and with better timed shifts more often. For the sake of fairness it also needs to be said that the i20N results looked kind of nicer across the board but there was one outstanding worse result that obviously hindered the average. But it wasn't all that bad really. Meanwhile the Fiesta ST was able to replicate some of the best times set by the i20N but also posted results around 22 seconds too often that balanced those out. It's overall pretty close as usual. There is an 80 milliseconds difference in the available sample group (small one; take away one good result for the i20 and one average result for the Fiesta and the gap shrinks to 0.30) but this time range is less sensitive for gaps then say 0 to 100 times.
So as we know from the quarter mile videos for example among other things from 1st to 3rd gear due to the gearing itself and you could say the engine setup plus lower traction limitation the i20N gets going quicker (earlier slightly higher peak power, less time to get to it, less time past ~6200 where the stock i20N sees a drop off), but in 4th the Fiesta ST seriously comes back and the shorter gearing is actually helping this time on top of the slight torque difference (slight in the pre facelift). The Fiesta ST is earlier in 4th and is closer to peak power by the time the i20N shifts up and still has to climb up the rev range in a gear that takes considerably more time than even the previous 3rd (for both cars) or so it feels to me. Then there is also the point that the i20N needs to stay in 4th past 6200 and experience the drop off (meanwhile shifting earlier should not be really helpful since you land into lower RPM further from where you want to be) while the Fiesta ST doesn't have Virtual Turbo Speed technology reducing the boost and keeps on pulling. But what is happening in 5th is not clear then because of the average 100 to 200 results. The Fiesta ST jumps into 5th earlier yet again and that seems like it should be an advantage in a higher gear once more but maybe it isn't. I was not paying attention but maybe the RPM they both land at are higher in 5th (favours the i20N), maybe it's the fact that the gearing difference is less drastic (i20 can stay in 3rd until ~138, Fiesta until ~120; i20 stays in 4th until ~180, Fiesta until ~170; the gearing is supposedly getting closer), maybe both or something else too. But the point is that the i20N must be getting something back in 5th because 4th is all Fiesta ST territory. Or am I just missing something? These cars cross the quarter mile line at ~165 if I recall correctly and you can often see the Fiesta ST noticeably catching up to the i20N in 4th, but there aren't any half mile or full mile videos out there unfortunately. If those would even be enough. So it's impossible to see what happens from that ~170 mark when the Fiesta ST shifts into 5th and so does the i20N just a bit later. But I am curious if the reasons for the i20N posting a slightly quicker 100 to 200 average are close to what I've mentioned before about the 5th or what else could it be too. Would you also presume that the 5th is the difference or am I wrong (why if yes)?
And now to the facelift. So we all are aware of the extra 30 NM that are useful but aren't really too helpful in the upper rev range. So in the realm of 0 to 100 times it seems to not do all that much outside of helping keep an average time closer to the claimed 6.50 probably if you adjust to the traction limitation. Because if you don't all that torque will only help to spin the wheels even more than that car already does. But in the 100 to 200 domain there could be a little more for the torque to achieve. Or not? Going from 3rd to 4th you drop into something like 4500 RPM if I am not mistaken and the peak torque in the Fiesta ST runs out at 4000. The drop off is rather quick but that's to be expected I guess. Anyhow it's one thing to be dropping off from 290 and the other from 320. A more gradual decline would be great but we work with what we have. A difference of 30 could be meaningful. Nevertheless I don't think it wouldn't change the average way too dramatically but it could improve upon the results of the original model. Bring it closer or maybe make it more even. Could it possibly pull ahead slightly? I am not sure about anything here hence the question how do you people think the extra torque could influence the 100 to 200 metric (within the comparison or regardless of it) or is it exclusively for even harder low and mid range pulls in gear?
Sheesh, thanks for reading, cheers.
