New 290 (anyone disappointed)

[Peller]

Our Arona has the same peak torque as our GT86 had, but the 86 would leave it in a cloud of dust. Because the 86 spins to 7000 to make 200hp, while the Arona torque peak is all over at 4000 and makes 115hp. Power is a function of torque and rpm. You can't quote torque figures/performance without referring to peak power.
Another example is Teslas, blindingly quick to around 220 k's, then electric motor torque characteristics (peak at zero revs) cause power/top speed to flatten out giving a fairly average top speed compared to similar IC engines.

We used to have the Subaru badged version and got rid after 6 months as we were so disappointed with the performance. They should've put a 2.
5 straight 6 in there!

 

[LouG]

I thought I'd plot a Cupra 290 power curve, vs a 184 FR/ Golf GTD vs a remapped 184. It's interesting reading...

View attachment 4314

Ignoring engine torque curves, in theory and in practice everything you need to know about engine performance is shown on the power curve, and you don’t need to worry about rpm ranges and gear ratios. In the example above the two standard engines provide very similar performance if the driver is lazy with the gearbox; notice how the low-down power is roughly the same on both standard engines, but from mid-range up to the rev limit the petrol engine has a clear power advantage; as long as the driver keeps the petrol engine in that upper rev range he will be able to out-accelerate the diesel-engined car. The remapped diesel has the advantage over the petrol from very low down to the mid point, but after that...it's petrol for the win!

That's not accurate. A car with a flat torque curve will accelerate quicker than one with a sharply rising curve even if they have the same peak power, especially in roll ons.. It's all about thrust throughout the rev range. The immutable fact is that power equals torque times rpm, divided by 5252 (rpm), the car with the flat torque curve has more torque and power at all points up to peak.