The site's future - your input is vital!

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Veyronman, May 16, 2016.

  1. Not a head-to-head but

  2. I remember driving a tuned N/A Celica with a 2zz-ge engine. Worst thing ever. Cough cough puff wheeze -> vroam and out of gear. Here's the stock powerband and it's shitty to begin with:

    Toyota GT86 and BRZ have suffered from similar criticism from the press. And in my experience, the GT86 is no where near as bad as the Celica.


    Usually peak power and peak torque figures give indication of an engine's performance but it's far from the whole story.

    Don't get me wrong, I love high-revving petrol engines. Wouldn't buy a diesel bike, for example. But different engines are good for different applications. A low torque high rev engine wouldnt work in an SUV, nor would a locomotive diesel work in a Ferrari. Maybe a decent transmission and a diet of a few hundred kg could have saved that poor Celica.
  3. I'm not sure what point this is making.
  4. I guarantee you an F1 engine could power and SUV and (assuming it was geared properly) it would be fast as hell.

    Theoretically if you could take all the power and torque from the locomotive engine and shrink it down so the size and weight works for a Ferrari, that would be insane.
  5. Well they both criticized the V-12's narrow powerband and agreed that the V8 with smaller torque and power output was by far a better choice.
  6. Yes and yes. Would it be practical, efficient or reliable?

    Theoretically if you could take all the power from the sun and shrink it down so the size and weight works for a Ferrari, that would be insane.

    Yes, insane is the key word here.

  7. Well first of all a 'better choice' doesn't necessarily mean faster, and that's really what we're debating here. Or at least I am.

    Second, it's possible the issue with the narrow power band can be mitigated simply with a more ideal final gear ratio. With that much torque they certainly have a lot of room to go very conservative with the gear ratios, sacrificing torque to artificially expand the power band.
  8. We were merely discussing engine output. You were the one who brought up putting a locomotive engine in a Ferrari. Why would you go down Lala theoretical land and then begrudge me for playing along?

    I agree with you that there are practical considerations when choosing how you go about producing power, be it a large displacement engine, forced induction, or a screaming in-line 4.

    The point I'm making is in the real world, all else being equal peak power is a very good indication of how an engine will perform (but not necessarily behave). For example; you'll be hard-pressed to find a 400 hp engine that outperforms a 500 hp engine if you take all other dynamics out of the equation (the weight of the vehicle, gearing, traction)
  9. I'm only debating that some vehicles with narrow powerbands can be truly frustrating and borderline useless in "normal" use. Nothing....nothing....nothing.... EVERYTHING is not my favourite kind of power delivery.

    *cough* cvt *cough* *cough*
  10. Because I'm a wild hippopotamus

    I also agree with myself on that

    Oh yes. Then again I'd be quite content driving a 400 hp thing that behaves nicely than a 500 hp thing that behaves like a hippo's rear end. Which is several orders of magnitude worse than a horse's ass.
    ETB4U likes this.
  11. I drive a 4200+ lbs hippopotamus. ;)
  12. This is you in traffic then

    thebarron1989 likes this.
  13. Lots of fake accounts own fake cars. But even his fake account probably wouldn't own a fake american car. So, yeah you are right.
  14. If I were to fake a car it would be a GT350r.
    ETB4U likes this.
  15. So do we still have a thread to provide technical input?

    I've been really frustrated with editing posts lately. My last two posts have essentially locked me out of editing or deleting them for some reason. One post I edited twice, and went to edit a third time, to be confused as I could no longer find the Edit button. Then my latest post, I went to attach an image, which I had to do in a round about way as the site's upload limit is just way too small. By the time I was done grabbing a link to my google photos account and getting back to the page, it said that I had reached the time limit for editing my post (? wtf). And now that post as well can no longer be edited or deleted.

    I just don't see any reason behind having an edit limit like that, especially taking away the author's ability to delete it if they want to.

    Also, my mobile experience on the site is kind of shitty. Just too much real estate taken up by large text. Can only view 1 post or thread title at a time on my 4k screen, when I want to type in landscape, the text field is completely lost behind the websites header, so there's no way to view what you're typing unless you type in portrait, which I hate.

    I'm mrrrrghing here, but here's my 2 cents I suppose.
  16. Check your settings - my screen easily fits 3 posts at a time.
  17. I could write/help with technical posts.
    "wakes up from cryogenic sleep"
  18. Oh well

    Last time I saw you was like 10 years ago
  19. Where has veyronman gone?
  20. This is only partially true. As posted in that head to head video. The G65 makes all its power and torque in such a small powerband that the smaller engined G63 outperforms it. That's identical vehicles with identical gearing. The only difference is the engine. And the extra 300 lbs of weight the bigger engine adds.

    A 500hp engine that only makes the power for 500 rpm of its rev range is not going to perform as well as a 400 hp engine that makes the power throughout the entire rev range.
    Tree Fitty likes this.
  21. Holy shit. Didn't expect this for the NFL season
  22. wanna play forza
  23. Did he just get bored of this site or something
  24. link back to forum on bottom of page

Share This Page