The MRFQ400 is a track orientated car and they generally have large turning circles.
The MRFQ400 is a track orientated car and they generally have large turning circles.
Those V8s rev low because the people who made them stupid. Give those engines to Europeans and they put them in supercars and make them rev to 8k rpm and produce at least 90bhp/liter na.Originally Posted by h00t_h00t
Real cars are not FWD.
FWD at it's best -
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/6FBCAADF-B7CB-432C-B938-01EB06BD83CE.htm
A 540ci goin 8k rpm, hahahha.Originally Posted by QBridge
But those europeans do that to the engines so they get "mad money" for racing right?
"We went to Wnedy's. I had chicken nuggest." ~ Quiggs
Nice collcetion of stereotypes there...Originally Posted by QBridge
Lack of charisma can be fatal.
Visca Catalunya!
the turning radius is a function of wheelbase, and steering rack geometry, the evo's steering ratio is 13.0:1 with 2.1 turns lock to lock, this translates to 30 degrees of steering in either direction, not much when compared to other cars, this just makes it worse when factoring in it's above average wheelbaseOriginally Posted by spi-ti-tout
the designers of the evo had steering response and speed in mind, not turning radius, i dont even considerer the large turning radius a tradeoff in my mind, parking has never been a problem for me
But they are fitted in rear wheel drive cars which lets them 'keep it real' unlike the europeans who make more fwd fake cars.Originally Posted by QBridge
I never said anything about no 540ci.Originally Posted by johnnynumfiv
The Europeans do that because rich people buy them. There is quite a few European supercars with Chevy V8s that make good power.
American car makers don't keep it real because they fit those V8s in big ugly heavy cars with automatic trannys making 50bhp/liter. Europeans keep it real because they can take a small block Chevy V8 and put it in a supercar and make twice the power out of that engine.Originally Posted by h00t_h00t
Real cars are not FWD.
FWD at it's best -
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/6FBCAADF-B7CB-432C-B938-01EB06BD83CE.htm
So a European version makes twice the power at ten times the cost, I fail to see the "wow" factor.Originally Posted by QBridge
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
the car is ten times the cost but the engine isnt, it is amazingly simple to gain power from american engines which have huge displacement but the efficiency of a coal/steam powered trainOriginally Posted by Alastor
You generically said american v8's. A 540ci bb is an american v8, so yes, you did say something like that. Friggin stereotypes.Originally Posted by QBridge
"We went to Wnedy's. I had chicken nuggest." ~ Quiggs
I don’t hear about too many people buying supercar engines without the supercar, but may be that is a moot point.Originally Posted by KnifeEdge_2K1
I am not arguing that there is not more power to be made, this is true for any engine. So we are clear I am talking about power output alone, I do not see what that has to do with efficiency.
What I cannot understand is why the engine is automatically better when it is European tuned and the design constraints are no longer the same.
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
bhp per litre is a measure of efficiency, and on average american engines get only a fraction of equivilantly sized jap or euro enginesOriginally Posted by Alastor
it isnt automatically better, it's just life experience has taught us that in almost all cases this is the truth
and regarding the previous post about being 10 times more expensive a less significant increase in power, 1 more point i wanna bring up, price is only marginally related to cost, just cuz it's price is 10 times higher doesnt mean it took 10x the money to tune it
another point i wanna bring up about american engines, not only are they as efficient as doing calculas with your fingers, they're slower then similarly speced imports
for example, my dad's mercury mystique which has a 2.5 or 3.0 (cant remember) V6 which supposedly outputs 160-170hp feels slower then my sister's corolla which has a 1.8 125hp engine, when i step on the throttle on my friend's 1.8T A4 the thing takes off, when i step on the gas on the mystique, the engine just gets louder, without a noticible increase in acceleration
this is not an isolated incident, my family's previous chrysler intrepid was the same, my friend's mustang feels as slow as a base civic, and the list continues
I wouldn’t call it efficiency, but a perfomance metric yes. It is even a useful one, but hardly definitive.Originally Posted by KnifeEdge_2K1
Exactly, as a consumer why would I be impressed by this?Originally Posted by KnifeEdge_2K1
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
bhp/l is one of the best measures of efficiencyOriginally Posted by Alastor
gasoline has a set amount of energy per litre, the engine is designed to harness this, if it cant harness as much energy per litre of engine displacement it means one of or both these things, 1 it is loosing more energy (comparitavely speaking) during combustion, or it isnt getting as high volumetric efficiency
however you look at it, the lower bhp/liter the less efficient the engine
you're just trying to find random arguments now, so off topic you it's not funny. the whole point was american engines are inefficient, and that given the same engine a european company would easily be able to tune it to give more performance. you then brought up the fact the cars those engines are placed in cost 10x as much as the base cars, i merely stated that the price difference is not attributed to the extra tuning of the engine, but rather set by demand and supply forces.
next time you decide to voice your opinion, straiten out your facts and argument
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)