shame people lease dont embares yourself by making silly goose comments.
shame people lease dont embares yourself by making silly goose comments.
Where to start.. where to start.
The evo and sti are bad examples of engineering. They took a moderatly small engine and boosted the hell out of it:
The same logic which says a car with a large engine is bad should also dictate that a car which needs 19.6 pounds of boost is a pile of crap.
You are also overlooking so many things: Cost being a main one. It costs a lot more to pull 600hp out of a 6.0L N/A engine. It is NOT a feat of engineering, it is merely an indication that McLaren has a lot of money to throw around. Bugatti's 8L W16 probably costs much less to manufacture, even WITH the four turbo chargers. The W16 will also have a more usable torque curve.
A honda s2000 makes 240HP out of a 2.0L engine.
80's Corvettes do the same out of a 5.7L engine.
Which one is more drivable ? The 5.7L, it makes power accross its entire powerband. In order to drive the Honda on the street you have to keep it around 4-5000 RPM just to keep up with the flow of traffic.
There are three ways to make horse power: High displacement, High RPM, and high boost. NONE of the three produces a good USEABLE amount of power on its own.
High RPM means the engine needs to be wound out to far
High boost provides a very uneven power delivery, and is not good for every day use
High displacement generally produces lower power per L than the other two options, BUT the power it does produce is much more usable.
You keep discounting the Bugatti because they just "stuffed" a huge engine into a light car. The fact is that the powerplant it's self is much better than the McLaren's engine.
There are far more important things to consider when building a power plant then just hp/L. When you understand that, you will really understand performance cars.
no i mean really
-------------------------------------
You keep discounting the Bugatti because they just "stuffed" a huge engine into a light car. The fact is that the powerplant it's self is much better than the McLaren's engine.
-------------------------------------
no listen carefully stupid
this is from the guinness book or world records....
come now say it with me g u i n n e s s book of world records.
------------------------------
Most Powerful Car
The most powerful standard production car ever made is the McLaren F1, which develops 627 b.h.p.
------------------------------
you see me copying and pasting that from the guisness book of world records makes you really dumb and ignorant.
I hop after this you will wear a sign that says im ignorant and stupid.
and about the cars with boost... turbo technology has come along way stupid.... but im not going to try explain why cos you to dumb to understand it.
Ok. I'm going to use your logic:Originally posted by guyt_x
no i mean really
-------------------------------------
You keep discounting the Bugatti because they just "stuffed" a huge engine into a light car. The fact is that the powerplant it's self is much better than the McLaren's engine.
-------------------------------------
no listen carefully stupid
this is from the guinness book or world records....
come now say it with me g u i n n e s s book of world records.
------------------------------
Most Powerful Car
The most powerful standard production car ever made is the McLaren F1, which develops 627 b.h.p.
------------------------------
you see me copying and pasting that from the guisness book of world records makes you really dumb and ignorant.
I hop after this you will wear a sign that says im ignorant and stupid.
and about the cars with boost... turbo technology has come along way stupid.... but im not going to try explain why cos you to dumb to understand it.
The Mclaren f1 is a piece of shit. They needed a 6.0L engine to produce 650HP. Geeze. F1 cars produce over 700hp out of a mere 3.0L. They should have put one of those engines in the McLaren because that would make it better.
My synopsis? Your 13. You have the comprehension skills of a 13 year old. You have the arguments of a 13 year old. You use phrases like a 13 year old (Silly goose? wtf is that?). It's past your bed time. Go to school, learn how to be a big boy, and come back here.
That record in the book of records is from 1993 when the F1 first came out. Go buy some european car mags and read up on the Cerbera Speed 12.
It is powered by a 7.9L engine that produces 803 horse power in street trim. The car also weights less than 2500 pounds.
It out performs the F1 in every way. Why isn't it in the book of records? TVR didn't want to tarnish its image, and they also don't produce enough of them to consider them a "production" car.
Turbo tech has come a long way? I know this, I drive a turbocharged car. 19.6pounds of boost is insane on a FACTORY car. Go read the latest Car and Driver, one of the things they mentioned about the new STi is that it has an unsmooth power band. If you can't understand why power delivery being smooth is a good thing, you shouldn't be talking about cars in the first place.
f1 cars use twin rotor engines - like in mazda rx7 and rx8 - they need very small amounts of displacement for high HP outputOriginally posted by MKielbasa
Ok. I'm going to use your logic:
The Mclaren f1 is a piece of shit. They needed a 6.0L engine to produce 650HP. Geeze. F1 cars produce over 700hp out of a mere 3.0L. They should have put one of those engines in the McLaren because that would make it better.
My synopsis? Your 13. You have the comprehension skills of a 13 year old. You have the arguments of a 13 year old. You use phrases like a 13 year old (Silly goose? wtf is that?). It's past your bed time. Go to school, learn how to be a big boy, and come back here.
That record in the book of records is from 1993 when the F1 first came out. Go buy some european car mags and read up on the Cerbera Speed 12.
It is powered by a 7.9L engine that produces 803 horse power in street trim. The car also weights less than 2500 pounds.
It out performs the F1 in every way. Why isn't it in the book of records? TVR didn't want to tarnish its image, and they also don't produce enough of them to consider them a "production" car.
Turbo tech has come a long way? I know this, I drive a turbocharged car. 19.6pounds of boost is insane on a FACTORY car. Go read the latest Car and Driver, one of the things they mentioned about the new STi is that it has an unsmooth power band. If you can't understand why power delivery being smooth is a good thing, you shouldn't be talking about cars in the first place.
BAZOOKA EXHAUST
ok actually not really - they use normal cylinder engines - sorry my mistake
BAZOOKA EXHAUST
the s2000 is more of a track car not like the 80s vettes - and you can't compare a current car to a 80s car - good ponts about power delivery though - s2000 is more for the adreanelin seeking people - like me - so maybe i should go get oneOriginally posted by MKielbasa
Where to start.. where to start.
The evo and sti are bad examples of engineering. They took a moderatly small engine and boosted the hell out of it:
The same logic which says a car with a large engine is bad should also dictate that a car which needs 19.6 pounds of boost is a pile of crap.
You are also overlooking so many things: Cost being a main one. It costs a lot more to pull 600hp out of a 6.0L N/A engine. It is NOT a feat of engineering, it is merely an indication that McLaren has a lot of money to throw around. Bugatti's 8L W16 probably costs much less to manufacture, even WITH the four turbo chargers. The W16 will also have a more usable torque curve.
A honda s2000 makes 240HP out of a 2.0L engine.
80's Corvettes do the same out of a 5.7L engine.
Which one is more drivable ? The 5.7L, it makes power accross its entire powerband. In order to drive the Honda on the street you have to keep it around 4-5000 RPM just to keep up with the flow of traffic.
There are three ways to make horse power: High displacement, High RPM, and high boost. NONE of the three produces a good USEABLE amount of power on its own.
High RPM means the engine needs to be wound out to far
High boost provides a very uneven power delivery, and is not good for every day use
High displacement generally produces lower power per L than the other two options, BUT the power it does produce is much more usable.
You keep discounting the Bugatti because they just "stuffed" a huge engine into a light car. The fact is that the powerplant it's self is much better than the McLaren's engine.
There are far more important things to consider when building a power plant then just hp/L. When you understand that, you will really understand performance cars.
BAZOOKA EXHAUST
I wouldn't say so. An s2000 is for people who go out on the weekend and carve up long windy canyon roads. People who don't need the low end power.Originally posted by motorhead
the s2000 is more of a track car not like the 80s vettes - and you can't compare a current car to a 80s car - good ponts about power delivery though - s2000 is more for the adreanelin seeking people - like me - so maybe i should go get one
Take two cars, make them the same performance wise:
0-60, top speed, cornering etc. Make them the same size and weight.
Have one produce A horsepower, and B torque.
The other produces A-25 HP, and B+75 torque.
The A-25Hp car will give a more exciting ride. More seat of the pants feel.
but b will have more pulling power thus like you and i understand lower revs but the power remains and more weight can be pulled at lower revs and at that same gear -rightOriginally posted by MKielbasa
I wouldn't say so. An s2000 is for people who go out on the weekend and carve up long windy canyon roads. People who don't need the low end power.
Take two cars, make them the same performance wise:
0-60, top speed, cornering etc. Make them the same size and weight.
Have one produce A horsepower, and B torque.
The other produces A-25 HP, and B+75 torque.
The A-25Hp car will give a more exciting ride. More seat of the pants feel.
BAZOOKA EXHAUST
Mkielbasa,
you are right in naming the TVR speed twelve as the most powerful car (for a little while yet....btw, isn't it a 7.7 litre motor?), and also close about the displacement/rpm/boost power production (although that is a little too simple. Bore-stroke ratios etc come into it, for example), but I dont understand how you arrived at the conclusion that the Mc F1 engine was a piece of crap. A few points:
1. Engine was designed in 1992
2. Unlike Formula 1 motors (3 litres 700 hp) the F1 needed to meet emissions laws, lowering potential power output. And does anyone want a car that revs to 16000 rpm? With their low torque/high revs delivery, the vehicle would need to be very light.
3. The engine was actually designed, according to Gordon Murray, solely to produce a peak torque of 450 lb/ft. The fact that, in 1992, the engine not only produced that and more, plus 627 hp was very impressive.
4. 105 hp per litre was very high back then.
5. Even if the motor isn't good enough for you, it was good enough to win Le Mans
Equally, I disagree with your statements about STI and Evo. The point is a small, relatively cheap, light engine (leading to a light car with acceptable handling). Thanks to ball bearing turbo chargers, their boost characteristics need not impede performance too much, particularly in the Evo
You guys fall into two camps. One group loves small jap turbo cars and are probably influenced by Gran Turismo and other computer games not to mention science fiction like Fast and Furious. The others love big V8s and are most likely US citizens. Your predjudice for either of these to the extent that you dump on the others makes for interesting? arguments but in the end is illogical. That both types of cars exist, sell and continue to be developed proves the popularity and relevance of both types. Instead of making comments like "when are the yanks going to wake up and realise you dont need a big engine to produce X output", be grateful that there is the choice. There are fantastic examples of both types. While one type may at this minute be the fastest, most powerful etc etc, there is always someone bigger out there somewhere.
"A string is approximately nine long."
Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM
Nildo, I was merely pointing out for the benifit of the origonal thread starter that there is more to an engine then high HP/L.
I love turbocharged cars and have nothing against them. However as I see it, by his logic no car should need 19 pounds of boost to produce power. The STI and EVO are great vehicles, but they are not superior over say, a corvette, just because they use smaller engines.
The McLaren is/was a great vehicle for its time. I personally feel it is WAY to worshiped by many in the online community in general.
Sure it was an engineering feat, but in many circumstances that just isn't enough. I was more taken aback by the origonal thread poster's worship of the F1 taking place while saying the Veyron has a crap motor because of it's displacement.
The thread was directed (or so it seems to me) at all american vehicles, not just sports cars. Therefore it seems to me that more than just large hp/L needs to be considered. This is where the started fell short. His arguments lack any consideration of the practicality of an engine, in any given respect.
I do realize I dumbed down my explination of displacement/boost/RPM, but from reading some of the posts posted by the thread starter, I felt it would be needed.
funny how only the american members make stupid points completely off the subject while other members actually consider the points posted.
fact: any one can get power out of a huge engine, it takes brains to create that same amout of power from a smaller engine.
The only reason most non americans have even heard of all your crap cars is due to the fact that the movie industry is flooded with american films.
stick to dragging in strait lines or going around your oval track, with your huge motors whichin the end of the day still dont put out as much smaller european motors do.
now dont humiliate american cars again by comparing the mclaren F1 which is a PRODUCTION CAR to some proto-type
seven point eight litre fairy tale car.
p.s I shouldnt even tell you this but if mclaren had to make a car with a 7.8 litre motor NOW! not from 1985 it would proburaly go back in time it would be so fast.
What exactly is your problem with large V8s? What is the big disadvantage of them over other engines?
why build a car with a huge engine?
#1 all it does is add more weight (ok american cars are as heavy as shit anyway so who cares)
#2 your fuel economy goes out the window(only countries who can bully other coutries for cheap oil can afford it)
#3 and while techology every creep into american cars using less cc's and still get the same power (most times more than crappy american v8's)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)