Originally Posted by
Matra et Alpine
"racing" ... in competition then engines pretty much return the same consumption whether it's racing or rallying.
No.. not really it all depends on the track and driving style. I don't think you could get any of the cars you mentioned to give comparable mileage when raced on say a flat tarmac track and a mountain rally with lots of elevation change. If it's compared on the same track then thats all good... almost
Originally Posted by
Matra
The engineering in the "ancient Mini" is copied TODAY
So what? it isn't nearly as efficient as the majority of modern engines and it is in an incomparable car (too small and light)
Originally Posted by
Matra
And the Escort Twin CAm engine is not a million miles away from again modern efficiencies
Again so what? not being a million miles away does not equal close enough to make a fair comparison.
Originally Posted by
Matra
So the "Logic" is fine .. just the "practical experience" you still have to pick up.
The logic of your comparison is not even close... How about the two examples I posted showing the the RX-8 actually has the fuel consumption of a 3.9L+ engine? Anything wrong with that comparison?
Originally Posted by
Matra
I've not flip-flopped. YOU only said f'ing "displacement" and only when challenged/explored do you now claim always knowing the other 2. Thank you google
What do you mean "Thank you google"? The 1.3L value is common knowledge as that is what Mazda rates it at and the 2.6L is the equivalency factor used in racing (and sometimes for tax purposes). The question was never if I knew about the other two displacements, the question was did you know about the largest one, and it turns out that you didn't as your initial remark stated... that the R26B was NOT a 7.9L engine at all.
Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
Engine torque is an illusion.