Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by BMW Fan 356, Aug 10, 2002.
the Razor is a turbo so doesnt count
Honda Rulez, whether or not, the S2000 is the only "9000-rpm redline, 240-horsepower, 2.0-liter, N-A 120hp/liter" vehicle or not, that doesn't change the fact that specific output means exactly squat.
Personally, Honda can have the only 2.0-liter, 240-Horsepower vehicle - not that many manufacturers are into engines with that little displacement. Not that it's bad, or even even slow (it's not) - I just don't find it that special compared to more powerful, larger engines.
u are a joke if u can ever say something like (this car sucks, or that cars slow, or that things ugly."
people like that show why they deserve to be the followers, the people running their mouths of in the stands at the dirt track or 50 hp car drag races.
and most importantly fullfilling the slot of e-thugs and phsyics masters.
I try not to disrespect other cars, no matter the nationality. A car is a car is a car.
It's good that Americans are finally catching on to the cheaper horespower techniques first unveiled by Honda back in the early 80's while they were still using carbeurators ( dunno if I spelled that right.... oh well ^_^ ). At any rate, now American manuf.'s have comperable cars and that makes me happy. I still won't BUY an American car ( as reliability is still foreign), but it's interesting to watch the evolution of American cars. I'd like to see them outdo the Foreign cars, personally... the rivalry will keep internal-combustion technology driving hard towards the peak... but then (Murphy's law) we'll run out of gas (THANKS YOU STOOPID $50 BUCKS AT THE PUMP PAYIN', SINGLE-PASSENGER TOTIN', 2 FREAKING MILES TO THE GALLON CHUGGIN', SUBURBAN ASSAULT VEHILCE DRIVIN' MORONS!!! THANKS FOR TAKING ALL THE GAS!). In case none of you noticed, (by FAR) my biggest beef with American cars is they only want to get bigger! WHO NEEDS TO SEAT 124 PEOPLE??? WHO NEEDS 359ft^3 OF HEAD SPACE??? Get an Accord, or a Pontiac Anything-but-an-Asstek, it doesn't MATTER what nation you buy it from, and that should do you juuust fine! And we MIGHT have gas for another 50 years! Hell, a GMC Jim-Jim is reasonable if you have to move a lot of people!
OK, so that last part was WAAAYYYY off the subject, but it had to be said, and I had fun writing it. ^_^
More efficient American cars, more women, and more good times!
Peace out, all! Keep up with intelligent conversation!
Personally, I respect all of them, other than the Viper for a number of reasons:
1: Why does it take 8.7 litres to come up with 500HP? That's just ridiculous
2: They're mid-life-crisis-mobiles
3: After a mere 3 laps, the engine is so hot, it'll start to melt ythe soles of your shoes through the firewall.
4: After a mere 3 laps, the engine is so heat-soaked it destroys performance IMMENSLY (500 HP could win a LOT of races, but the Viper hasn't.... this is why... well.. that and it can't turn for crap)
5: MY biggest reason for not liking the Viper: A friend of mine got a ride in one on a 2-mile neck-track (where you won't find anything but left turns and straightaways). The Viper was BRAND F__KING NEW!!! 164 miles on the odometer. Halfway through the 1st lap (ok, so it was 165 miles), the ECU fries (heat... duh). End of race. Have a nice day. Enjoy REPAIRING UR BRAND NEW CAR!
In the end: It just produces FAR too much heat for it's own good! On the plus side, you'll have HOURS of hot air coming from the vents while waiting for the tow-truck!
1: You didn't answer the question asked: How many of these have 2-L engines? NONE!
2: Honda had a race engine in the 1980's that was 1.8L turbo worth 900HP. And JUST NOW Dodge gets a hint? Way to 'point out the facts'.
3: Good job for Dodge, DSM did THAT back in 1990.. ONLY 12 years ago? Dodge is closing the gap, and the Viper ISN'T a tribute to that! Way to go Dodge!
4: This car IS a roadster... who gives a crap whether America makes one or not? We're in the S2000 forums, talking about the S2000, which is a roadster. Classifications are one thing, bringing Vectors into a 250HP class-vehicle forum is idiocy.
5: I've got a list MUCH longer than what you've listed, as I'm sure you do as well, but none of the cars on my list have 2 litres of less.
btw: Your use of foul language and immediate resort to insults is a show of your immaturity. Grow up, level your head, come back, and hold intelligent conversation. Until then, get hit by a bus for all I care as I'm SURE you won't hesitate to fire back at me with a barage of insults that have NOTHING to do with the conversation at hand.
Becuz a real car enthusiatic (I think I spelled this word wrong, sorry) should care about the handling of a car. When I talk about handling, it's not just cornering ability and how much G a car when pull, it's including the overall driving feel, how accurate the steering the car is, teh communication between teh car and the driver, easy to drive, etc. And ride comfort is also very important. And the cars in my bad car lists don't have these aspects. Basically, fast isn't everthing to a great car.
The S2000 is able to beat a Boxster and Z3 and TT virtually any category except "prestige," but driving a S2000 is enough to make people notice u.
The benefit of a small engine is npt that significant to North Americans, but it's in Europe and Asia, becuz u pay taxes according to a car's engine displacement.
I'm still curious as to why they chose to go with a 2.0L engine....why not make it 2.6, 2.7, or even 2.9?
Nissan had an N/A 2.6L making 280 hp as early as '91! I'm sure if they cared...or had put in the effort they'd easily have added an additional 12hp/l to match the S2000 in a decade...and it would have more power for the same displacement tax!
which '91 N/A nissan was a 2.6-litre with 280hp?....the one u just made up?
sounds worryingly like an R32 Skyline, which of course is TT
uhhh actually honda made F1 turbocharged engines that were 1.5 litre engines that pumped out about 1300-1500hp in qualifying trim in the late 80s.
actually honda made f1 engines in the late 80s that were 1.5 litre engines that pumped out 1300-1500hp in qualifying trim.
I justted said becuz of tax problem.
When did Nissan ever made a 2.6L NA engine making out 280hp?
Quote from SakabatoSuka:
"1: Why does it take 8.7 litres come up with 500HP? That's just ridiculous to"
Why do you assume it "takes 8.7 liters" to come up with 500 hp? Obviously, you have no CLUE as to why the Viper's engine is that size (8.3L and under, actually). That's just ridiculous.
"3: After a mere 3 laps, the engine is so hot, it'll start to melt ythe soles of your shoes through the firewall."
That's probably the Cobra you're thinking about.
"4: After a mere 3 laps, the engine is so heat-soaked it destroys performance IMMENSLY (500 HP could win a LOT of races, but the Viper hasn't.... this is why... well.. that and it can't turn for crap)"
Viper hasn't won any races? What about these?:
FIA GT: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002
FFSA GT (French GT series): 2001
12 Hours of Sebring: 2000
24 Hours of Le Mans: 1998, 1999, 2000
24 Hours of Daytona: 2000 (outright winner)
24 Hours of Nurburgring: 1999, 2001, 2002
24 Hours of Spa: 2001, 2002
One Lap of America: 2000, 2001, 2002
Open Track Challenge: 2002
Speedvision World Challenge GT: 1999
How many races has the S2000 won? If the Viper can't turn, how do you explain the results below?
"5: MY biggest reason for not liking the Viper: A friend of mine got a ride in one on a 2-mile neck-track (where you won't find anything but left turns and straightaways). The Viper was BRAND F__KING NEW!!! 164 miles on the odometer. Halfway through the 1st lap (ok, so it was 165 miles), the ECU fries (heat... duh). End of race. Have a nice day. Enjoy REPAIRING UR BRAND NEW CAR!"
Nice story. It might be better if it were true. What kind of idiot races a car with only 164 miles on the odometer? Moron.
Guibo, one does actually wonder y the Viper needs all 8.3-litres to make 500hp/525lbft. Could u explain to me the reasoning behind the 9.6:1 compression ratio?...why so low?...a sensible 10.5:1 would easily and reliably achieve 600lbft
absolutely stupid comment about Vipers not winning races, i have to say. Triple LM24 GT2 winner says it all really.
The Viper's mission (beginning with the original RT/10):
1) Then-chairman of Chrysler, Bob Lutz, wanted a modern-day, street-legal Shelby Cobra (he was driving his in the company parking lot when the thought crossed his mind)
2) It had a performance goal of at least matching the original Cobra's 0-100-0, something in under 15 seconds from what I recall.
3) It would showcase a V10 which would soon be seen in their production Ram trucks (although with an iron block and considerably less hp).
4) The Viper project would demonstrate a revitalized Dodge, showing that the pet project of a few die-hard gearheads just *might* get approval from corporate bean counters that would probably rather just turn out more K-cars and LeBarons. This way of thinking gave birth to the much improved Chrysler lineup, including the PT Cruiser, LH sedans, Neon, Prowler, etc. A far cry from the dismal lineup of the '80s.
5) Lutz was utterly disappointed with the direction the Corvette had gone. It was too soft, too much of a boulevardier. He wanted something more raw, more performance-oriented. As "luxurious" as the Corvette? Forget it. The Viper would have to destroy the Corvette in terms of performance. It had to have bragging rights to not only more #'s of cylinders, but also had to have bragging rights in terms of displacement. Herein lies the birth of the 8.0-liter V10. Dodge didn't *need* it to make the original 400hp. They just wanted it, to one-up their rivals at GM. To demoralize them. Even with the advent of the top Corvette, the ZR-1, that still wasn't enough to dethrone the original RT/10, except in top speed.
6) The Viper would not be a money-maker, being labor and time intensive to make. But, it would draw crowds into the showroom. Even if they couldn't afford the Viper (or couldn't justify such an impractical two-seater) they would see the garden variety cars and trucks they *could* afford on the way out.
Now of course, those points aren't in that exact order. And there were probably other concerns and priorities within Dodge to make the Viper. But that is pretty much the gist of it. Someone in another thread questioned this, and asked: "so what you're trying to tell me is that the dodge guys sat down one day and said 'hmm, we need to build a supercar. the corvette has 8 cylinders. we need more than that. lets put 10 in the car.' bullshit they did"
To which I replied "Yeah, that's pretty much the way it happened," with the snippet below (from the same book referenced in the Lingenfelter Corvette thread).
Don't forget that Bob Lutz isn't just a big-block, low-hp/l guy. He served in executive positions at BMW and the European branches of Ford and GM. He's no stranger to the European way of making and selling cars. With the Viper, merely matching the Corvette's cylinder count and displacement simply wasn't an option. Nor would it have been exactly responsible, from a product liability point of view, to offer an 800-hp car for the street without ABS (which it later got), traction control system, etc.
I think 8.3L is still to big, I'm sure it could save some pounds if it's only 6L, I dun't think gettinig 80 - 90hp per litre isn't that hard, u may have less torque, but ur car will be lighter for sure, which helps handling and performance.
According to car and driver's test drivers, the cabin of the Viper is quite hot, and it's pretty hard to drive it too, they said it's twice as difficult to drive the Viper than the Corvette.
Right, but 6L is only, what, .3 liter larger than the Corvette's engine? Not very intimidating. Besides, through the years, Dodge has gradually whittled away some weight from the original engine. The Gen II engines were some 65 lbs lighter than Gen I's, on top of having 50-60 more horses. And the Gen III engines are lighter still. I think they're now within 100-125 lbs of the LS6 (which also means the Viper's V10 is right around the weight of Porsche's 996 Turbo engine).
Regarding the heat, the C&D article doesn't mention melting shoes. Yes, the side sills were hot and the A/C wasn't up to snuff, but seeing how C&D didn't complain about this during tests of the old Viper, there's no reason to assume Dodge won't fix this problem by the time the first customer cars are delivered. We will have to wait and see what the finalized production versions yield.
The Viper has always lost to the Z06 in terms of overall ratings by the major motoring magazines. That's nothing new. Most major motoring magazines generally will not pick unrefined, extreme machines like the Viper when more refined, more likable (and considerably cheaper) alternatives exist which will deliver almost all of the performance. What's new this time, however, is that the Viper can actually outbrake the Z06 (no small feat), and stands a good chance of matching one on a racetrack, something past Viper RT/10's have not been able to do. You'd normally need a GTS or ACR for that.
Firstly, pushrod engines displace less volume than DOHC/SOHC ones, so they should theoretically weigh less.
Secondly, just as HP/L means NOTHING, so does TORQUE> It means NOTHING, by itself.
It's Torque/Weight that matters. After all, you could have 1000Nm of torque and it would mean nothing if your car is 100 000kg. As for the getting "only" 500Hp out of >8L, well, I can't explain this, but at least in motorcycles, the "street" versions of motorcycles often are detuned for horsepower, "in order" to increase midrange torque. No idea why this is but reputed companies do it, so there must be a reason for this. The VIper is the same way it appears.
Lastly, the Viper is a good car. It handles well, accelerates well, as for reliability, I don't know. I do know that in the Car and Driver "Car vs. Bike" challenge of 1997, in which a Viper GTS faced a Yamaha YZF1000R motorcycle, the Viper eventually stopped working. That's only anecdotal evidence of course, and perhaps any other sports car would also have stopped working by that point, I don't know.
And HondaRulez (I think), you said earlier that the Mustang, Viper I think, and Camaro were cars you didn't like. That may be true, certainly they are not as sophisticated as their rivals perhaps, they may not be very "sensitive" driving instruments compared to BMWs, and Porsches, however powerslide any of those above-mentioned cars and tell me that it's not fun.
I just don't understand how people can restrict themselves to cars only of a certain country. Plus, those old US cars, even w/ thin tires, still handle more than well enuff for the street I think.
PS: It may have been said above, but the S2K is not a "motorcycle engine." For more read the R&T technical info section in their road test of the Honda S2K.
so americans think that displacement matters above anything else?
i wonder whether americans laugh at Porsches with their dinky little 3.6-litre engines before they get beaten by them at the stop lights
a 6.5-litre 500hp/525lbft (easily done) engine has just as much to brag about as an 8.3-litre 500hp/525lbft engine, does it not?
Quite right. I do remember that test, it was conducted by Car & Driver with their sister publication, Cycle World. In the straight-line stuff, the Viper lost. Hands down. They tested both the Viper and the Yamaha at Willow Springs Raceway, where the Viper bested the bike by some 3 seconds before throwing a rod. (It also beat the bike on the closed-off section of the Angeles Crest Highway, by some 9-12 seconds if I recall correctly.) Of the numerous tests I've seen of the Viper this is the one lone time that its engine went kaput. Not bad considering this particular specimen was a preproduction unit handed to the press for thrashing after thrashing. Later production units sent for testing not only beat that car's quarter mile time (12.4 seconds), but suffered only minor faults (balky shifter in C&D's RT/10 test, water pump gasket in MT's 1998 test on an 11K-mile GTS that had gone through roughly the equivalent of 44K quarter mile runs), if at all.
Quote from ch1c4n3:
"so americans think that displacement matters above anything else?"
Nope, that's just one way of doing things. It's also probably the most cost-effective and (at the same time) demoralizing to the competition. Remember, the Corvette had enjoyed its top-dog status among American sports cars for many decades before the Viper came along. FWIW, GM went to work on a V10 of their own. Why it hasn't seen the light of day is anyone's guess. Maybe they don't want to be seen as a Johnny Come Lately. Who knows.
Don't forget that the lessons of displacement aren't lost on the Europeans and Japanese, either. When was the last time the M3 came equipped with a 2.3-liter inline 4? (Remember that the car that put BMW on the map in the States was the 2002, which was basically a 1600 with a larger engine that not only provided more power and torque, but was able to pass the more stringent emissions requirements the 1600 was doomed to fail here.) When was the last time Porsche used a 2.0-liter engine, like in the original 911? Gone are the days of a 2.4-liter Z car also, I guess. And witness Ferrari's flagship, the Enzo, jumping more than an entire liter over its F50 predecessor. It appears there is something to complain about the F50 (from F50 owners) after all. And in the 308/328/348/355/360 lineup of cars, does the trend show increasing displacement, or merely the reliance on technology to get the most from what they've already got?
"i wonder whether americans laugh at Porsches with their dinky little 3.6-litre engines before they get beaten by them at the stop lights"
Right, but the only 3.6-liter engines that stand a chance of beating them are forcibly inducted. In many racing series, supercharged engines are rated at a factor of 1.4-1.5 in terms of displacement. Does the same exist for turbocharged cars?
Anyway, in head to head comparos, the 996 Turbo has difficulty pulling away from the Viper after the initial launch. The instances of "Americans laughing at Porsches with their dinky little 3.6-liter engines before they get beaten by them at the stop lights" are few and far between. It's more likely the other way around. To 60, the Turbo is ahead. But by 100 mph, not only has the Viper erased its deficit, it's put itself ahead of the Turbo by a fair margin. By the quarter mile, the Viper is stil ahead by a few carlengths, and by the standing mile, forget it. The Viper is gone. It takes a Turbo equipped with the $18K X50 package, or the damn near $200K GT2, to pull ahead of the Viper through all intervals up to and including the standing mile.
And even then, it's not so apparent that the Porsche wins on the merits of its engine alone. From Sports Car International's track test of the GT2 and Viper ACR:
"After Johannes [van Overbeek; ALMS M3 GTR and Porsche 911 Supercup pilot] had another session with each of the cars, he shared his findings. First up, the Viper ACR: 'The Viper has a tremendous amount of torque. By the seat of the pants, the Viper feels much faster. In a straight drag race, the Viper is very impressive. There are very few cars that when you're going 110-120 mph and shift a gear you feel it. The shift into fourth definitely pushed you back in your seat more than the GT2.'"
Maybe displacement isn't so bad then. Those BMW guys certainly saw its value when they swept the GT class (under much protest by Porsche) when they adopted larger V8 engines for their M3 GTR. And since Honda can get 120 hp/l from its S2000, I guess that explains why Porsche is using a 4.65-liter V8 in its upcoming Carrera GT. Right?
But then again, in the grand scheme of things, 3.6 liters (with forced induction, intercoolers, and DOHC) isn't exacly "dinky" for a 6-cylinder, now is it?
changing the arguments slightly? (as always i suppose)
Europe is replacing current cars with bigger engined cars, yes, but that does not mean that displacement is the primary goal. It seems like you're saying that the Viper has an 8.3-litre because not only does it have to be more powerful than a Z06, but BIGGER.
The M3 is a 3.2, thats all it needs to have more power than a 5.7-litre Z28, the Enzo is a 6.0-litre, thats all it needs to have MASSIVELY more power than an 8.3-litre Viper. Displacement is important in terms of performance, but it most certainly does NOT give bragging rights to a car, Europe realises this, american does not, we'll let u build your tank-sized engines and we'll stick to our smaller faster ones. Bringing in the factor of price is admitting that you are slower because you're looking for excuses.
r u saying a 320hp non-turbo 911 is slow?...it'll rape a Z28, it'll beat a C5 no problem, it'll beat a SUPERCHARGED '03 Cobra - price is irrelevant here, we're comparing displacement only
A 911t will do 12.3 in the 1/4 (autocar)...a GTS can beat that can it?
A GT2 can do 11.9, it IS faster than any Viper, be it GTS, ACR or anything. 0-150mph in 19.9 - find me an ACR time to compare
the Carrera GT (5.5-litre actually) has a huge amount more power than ANY american production car. A 360M can get the same power as a Z06 from 2100cc less, and a Z06 is "apparently" as cutting-edge as american performance engines get. A Spyker can match the power of a GTS from an engine exactly HALF the size, a naturally aspirated TVR Speed 12 will DEMOLISH any american cars power AND torque.
I know ive been talking a lot about power and not much about torque, but a TVR T440R gets the same torque out of 4-litres that a Z28 does out of 5.7-litres, a Cerbera gets the same torque out of 4.5-litres as a 6-litre Escalade.
Find me an american engine that gets NEAR an M3, a TVR T440R or an Enzo, i dare u
What tax problem? 2L are taxed at the same weight as 2.9L in Japan....IE 2.0L Silvia K had the same taxes on it as the 2.6L GTR.
In 1991, Nissan showcased the Autech GTR, a 2.6L RB26DE putting out 280HP. No turbos...it was also an automatic...
Quote from ch1c4n3:
"changing the arguments slightly? (as always i suppose)
How is that changing the argument? I addressed your questions, and merely tacked on some other issues. ThatÂs all.
ÂEurope is replacing current cars with bigger engined cars, yes, but that does not mean that displacement is the primary goal.Â
Congratulations. And if you re-read my post, youÂd see that I NEVER said it was a primary goal, genius. Curiously, if displacement were the primary goal of American cars, wouldn't you expect the Viper to be surpassed by now? It's been, what, over a decade? How much has the Camaro, Mustang, or Corvette increased in displacement over the past three DECADES? And then look at the Europeans.
ÂIt seems like you're saying that the Viper has an 8.3-litre because not only does it have to be more powerful than a Z06, but BIGGER.Â
Oh, yeah, itÂs going to cost DaimlerChrylser about $10K less to build (per unit) than the outgoing Viper. When questioned about what they wanted in the new Viper, current Viper owners certainly didnÂt want to pay much more than they already were. If you have a beef, you can take it up with them.
ÂThe M3 is a 3.2, thats all it needs to have more power than a 5.7-litre Z28, the Enzo is a 6.0-litre, thats all it needs to have MASSIVELY more power than an 8.3-litre Viper.Â
The way youÂre wording it, it almost seems as if youÂre saying the BMW engineers had the Z28 in mind as a specific goal, as if the Ferrari engineers even had the Viper in their sights when it went to designing the Enzo. Is this the case? IÂm in need of some clarification, since I thought Mercedes (for BMW) and Lamborghini and Porsche and the McLaren F1's legendary status might more likely fit the target roles, in terms of market place and similarity of vehicles.
Hmmm...an M-massaged, largely handcrafted engine vs. a mass-produced, mostly middle-of-the-line engine. Why compare BMW's top-tier 3-Series to a Z28? Why not the SS (where any peak power advantage is quickly erased by the torque and torque/power curve figures; remember, BMW's decision to go to the V8 in ALMS wasn't for outright peak power, it was for the much broader powerband that the larger V8 offered).
ÂDisplacement is important in terms of performance, but it most certainly does NOT give bragging rights to a car, Europe realises this, american does not, we'll let u build your tank-sized engines and we'll stick to our smaller faster ones. Bringing in the factor of price is admitting that you are slower because you're looking for excuses.Â
Until money grows on trees, price is always going to be a factor.
Âr u saying a 320hp non-turbo 911 is slow?Â
did I say it is slow?
Âit'll rape a Z28, it'll beat a C5 no problem, it'll beat a SUPERCHARGED '03 Cobra - price is irrelevant here, we're comparing displacement onlyÂ
Well, of COURSE youÂre going to say price is irrelevant. ItÂs hardly in your favor here, and I suppose if it were youÂd not make mention of it? Hardly.
What is the quarter mile time of a 320-hp non-turbo 911 anyway? When you speak of ÂrapingÂ, whatÂs the margin of difference?Â
ÂA 911t will do 12.3 in the 1/4 (autocar)...a GTS can beat that can it?Â
Yes, here are but two examples. Let me know if you want more. ThereÂs about 5-6 more I have on file.
ÂA GT2 can do 11.9, it IS faster than any Viper, be it GTS, ACR or anything. 0-150mph in 19.9 - find me an ACR time to compare.Â
What are you, fvcking blind? DidnÂt I just specifically say a GT2 will beat the Viper at any measured interval up to and including the standing mile? Surely, you canÂt be so daft. Your perception of the obvious is commendable! LOL.
Âthe Carrera GT (5.5-litre actually) has a huge amount more power than ANY american production car.Â
558 hp is a huge amoung over 500? WhatÂs the Saleen S7 make again?
5.5 liter actually, no shit Sherlock. I was being sarcastic. Even a goddamn monkeyÂ
oh waitaminute. ThatÂs your line.
Now onto this subject, if Honda can make 120 hp/l out of a 2.0-liter engine, why canÂt Porsche do the same? Why does it ÂneedÂ (LOL) a 5.5-liter V10?
ÂA 360M can get the same power as a Z06 from 2100cc less, and a Z06 is "apparently" as cutting-edge as american performance engines get.Â
And yet, it wonÂt pull on a Z06, nor will it necessarily outrun one on a twisty track. And the 360M puts out even more pollution than the 8.0-liter Viper while at the same time getting worse fuel economy than the Z06. Pretty cutting edge, yup.
Âa naturally aspirated TVR Speed 12 will DEMOLISH any american cars power AND torque.Â
Prove it. (Actually, try to prove that the TVR Speed 12 is even a production roadcar that you can buy for public road use, LOL. This will be fun.)
ÂI know ive been talking a lot about power and not much about torque, but a TVR T440R gets the same torque out of 4-litres that a Z28 does out of 5.7-litres, a Cerbera gets the same torque out of 4.5-litres as a 6-litre Escalade.Â
LOL, you donÂt know too much about TVR power claims, do you. Rolling road tests indicate Cerbera 4.2Âs make the claimed power, but 4.5Âs have been rather anemic
ÂFind me an american engine that gets NEAR an M3, a TVR T440R or an Enzo, i dare uÂ
Again, you assume that American cars are somehow built with European or Japanese tastes and driving conditions in mind. Why is that? All I do is explain why the Viper has 8.0+ liters (hint: it has nothing to do with Ferrari and Porsche), and you go on yet another diatribe against American engineering. Brilliant. In the land of logic (ENGLAND!), is this always the natural course for discussions like this?