Tell that to:
1.Robby Gordon
2.Mickey Thopson
3.Scott Douglas
4.Jeremy Runyen
and the list goes on and on.
Well, last time I checked, this:
http://www.gorancho.com/flash/rancho.html
race bred monster is way MANLIER than a hairdresser's mx-5.
Maybe it's tristan who's not MANLY enough to drive such vehicles?
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Handbrakes are related to service brakes, since they use the same rear brakes as the service brakes do. Some cars have special drum in disk systems that use the discs for normal braking and the drums for the handbrake though. Anyway, they are related in the sense that their braking power is very much attributed to the friction coefficient between the brake pad and disc/drum. The only difference is the actuation, which is still a mechanical cable in many cases IRL. There are those annoying electronic e-brake systems in some cars too, but that's not the chief point here. For your mechanical cable actuated handbrake, the limits to power are:
1. Friction coefficent between the brake pads and disc/drum
2. Maximum cable tension the system can take without damage
3. Strength of the human operator.
Assuming of course the brakes aren't already overheated, worn, etc.
Like Niromethane?
Methanol power? BIG spark advance + BIG compression = MORE POWER!!!
Anyway, LFS could use some dcent off-road special stages too, like those sand/gravel stages they have in WRC events. About time they maked LFS enjoyable for those who are fully aware that the earth is not flat (aka mostly UNPAVED), whilst seriously expanding our fanbase/palyer base/ market.
Those long travel systems are actually quite a marvel of engineering. With 3 springs, you can get as much as 36 inches of travel from Baja racers. There are all sorts of strategies to set them up, but here's just ONE way to set it up:
The 1st stage is a helper spring, designed to allow the suspension to droop as far as it could. The second is to support the car whilst normally level and provide moderate stiffness to absorb bumps without knocking your kidneys out. The final stiffest stage is meant for platform control and dynamic stability, whilst also reducing or cushioning suspension bottoming.
Just 1 possible strategy.
Oh, the current Pajero EVOs and all cars of its class in the dakar rally are all limited to WRC levels of travel (250mm), enforced with metla bump stops. The fact that such a huge portion of them survived the whole event was pretty amazing. With such "little" ravel, soft and soggy settimgs simply won't do, as they'll handle horribly and bottom out HARD way too often.
I remember top gear did a little test on a dakar rally style Landrover. It actually performed better than anticipated, especially after considering theat it was done on the same top gear course (by the stig of course) with OFF-road tires.
Those long travel systems are actually quite a marvel of engineering. With 3 springs, you can get as much as 36 inches of travel from Baja racers. There are all sorts of strategies to set them up, but here's just ONE way to set it up:
The 1st stage is a helper spring, designed to allow the suspension to droop as far as it could. The second is to support the car whilst normally level and provide moderate stiffness to absorb bumps without knocking your kidneys out. The final stiffest stage is meant for platform control and dynamic stability, whilst also reducing or cushioning suspension bottoming.
Just 1 possible strategy.
Oh, the current Pajero EVOs and all cars of its class in the dakar rally are all limited to WRC levels of travel (250mm), enforced with metla bump stops. The fact that such a huge portion of them survived the whole event was pretty amazing. With such "little" ravel, soft and soggy settimgs simply won't do, as they'll handle horribly and bottom out HARD way too often.
I remember top gear did a little test on a dakar rally style Landrover. It actually performed better than anticipated, especially after considering theat it was done on the same top gear course (by the stig of course) with OFF-road tires.
When was the last time a high downforce car with no ground clearance survive bumpy and jumpy rallycross circuits intact?
Of course they're not tarmac rippers! But that's missing the point. Imagine the ability to survive all those bumps and jumps from LFS rallicross circuits unscathed. And please stop quoting absolute crap about 4x4. They DO NOT have 2m ground clearance. haven't seen aything like that.
Soft suspension? Goes to show how little you know about them. If you drive toyota 4x4s only, then yes, that is true. They've just LOWERED the latest prado and SOFTENED the suspenion even further! And of course let all the electronic monkey motion sort it out...
A lot of current production SUVs and pickup trucks actually perform BETTER both on and OFF road with stiffer suspension packages. OEMs do have a nasty tendency to use the CHEAPEST springs and dampers they can though, but this means big business for aftermarket suspension speciallists.
Those race trucks you showed have some of the most sophisticated passive suspension in existance. To achieve excellent travel AND dynamic performance, they end up with dual or even TRIPPPLE rate spring/damper setups, not to mention bypasss shocks. So, not quite as simple as just making things as soggy and soft as possible, eh?
Only feasable if the normal FXO was retained but a special WRC version was made of it. Otherwise the TBO class would be missing the FWD car.
Good idea though.
Well, I never said that your car is absolutely crap, so?
And yes, I fully respect your love for your car, believe it or not. I have no personal vendettas against anyone here too. It is also refreshing to see someone who knows the to value their cars and get the most of it too. Well, diesel fuel quality has improved over the years. ULSD (Ultra low sulphur diesel) is getting more widespread, and BP is already giving a special higher than usual cetane version of diesel. The "magic" additive? High quality biodiesel.
I'm quite aware that quite a few people already run 108 Octane fuel for their daily drivers. For petrolheads who tune the shit out of their engines. Would any of those high performance engines work as well as designed without at least PULP (PREMIUM Unleaded Petrol)? Of course not. Just that I've not seen anyone tune diesel engines for high cetane use yet. The results would be interesting to say the least. Fact is, I'm as some of you already know am quite familiar with the 4D56. I can guarantee that they CAN rev all the way to 6000rpm without internal damage. The only problem is that normal 40-45 cetane diesel they're designed to run on simply doesn't burn quickly and efficiently enough to make good power at say 5000rpm. Would be fun to have some 55-60 cetane fuel to experiment with and of course a good 4D56 as a testbed. As for problems such as high EGTs (exhaust gas temperatures), a freer flowing exhaust and improved cooling would fix that. BTW, they already come with heavy duty oil coolers in OEM form too, since they were originally from trucks meant to be worked LONG and HARD. Potential powerbands of say 2000-5800rpm is no joke.
In case you're all wondering:
Bore: 91.1mm
Stroke: 95mm
So in terms of mean piston speed, it's still well under control at 6000rpm.
Well, the usual cetane in europe these days is now 51 cetane, so it's way better than it was.
Look forward to running a fair race between the 2 of us someday, EeekiE!
Last edited by Jamexing, .
It clearly says "ONLINE RACING SIMULATOR". NOT "TARMAC AND RALLICROSS ONLY SIMULATOR". Nor is there anything in the fine print to say so. False advertising?
Of course they should stay unchangable! Just that they should be better set in the 1st place. Could be done in the next patch too.
If we get to race anything that looks like THIS:
http://www.fastlane.com.au/Mot ... ickering_triple150803.htm
or
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.c ... ts/99ccr_e/img/pajero.jpg
Then
!!!
http://www.fastlane.com.au/Mot ... ickering_triple150803.htm
or
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.c ... ts/99ccr_e/img/pajero.jpg
Then
!!!Good point. Same suggestion as I've said EXCEPT we use Bob's easy road setups as the basis. BTW, oversteery FWDs are amazingly fun.
Everyone Happy? If so, please post +1 or greater.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
More than 60% mass on driven wheels + powerful engine + more weight on driven wheels thanks to favourable weight transfer + super sticky slicks = excellent traction and acceleration.
Case closed.
Case closed.
Guy's here's an interesting read:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q= ... t=clnk&cd=1&gl=au
Just download the pdf file to read it properly.
Note that distilled and oxidized methyl esters have a cetane number practically identical to BP Diesel Ultimate...
Also note that Rapeseed Ethyl ester had been measured to as high as as 64.9 cetane on one test paper too. None of them are worse than petrodiesel if cetane is of the essence.
Of course there's a large variance simply because the production of biodiesel is still a relatively underdeveloped, thanks to neglect forced upon by you know whom. the current production methods for biodiesel still favour small scale producers such as farmers. Malaysia has a severe overproduction of palm oil, which coincodentally is great for making quality biodiesel with significantly better cetane than any petrodiesel. Power to developing nations is definitely no good for plans of world domination...
Wonder what happens if the normal diesel cetane reaches 60 (basically when you can't get anything worse than that from the pumps) AND diesel engines get optimized for such high cetane fuel...
Lots of untapped potential. Maybe the poor Dr. was right all along?
http://72.14.253.104/search?q= ... t=clnk&cd=1&gl=au
Just download the pdf file to read it properly.
Note that distilled and oxidized methyl esters have a cetane number practically identical to BP Diesel Ultimate...
Also note that Rapeseed Ethyl ester had been measured to as high as as 64.9 cetane on one test paper too. None of them are worse than petrodiesel if cetane is of the essence.
Of course there's a large variance simply because the production of biodiesel is still a relatively underdeveloped, thanks to neglect forced upon by you know whom. the current production methods for biodiesel still favour small scale producers such as farmers. Malaysia has a severe overproduction of palm oil, which coincodentally is great for making quality biodiesel with significantly better cetane than any petrodiesel. Power to developing nations is definitely no good for plans of world domination...
Wonder what happens if the normal diesel cetane reaches 60 (basically when you can't get anything worse than that from the pumps) AND diesel engines get optimized for such high cetane fuel...
Lots of untapped potential. Maybe the poor Dr. was right all along?
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Good point. I still remember the 70s when any kind of decent turbo response and powerband was nothing but a dream. With advancements such as reduced bearing friction, reduced inertia via superstrong and lightweight materials such as titanium, twin scroll turbos, variable geometry vanes, EBC, etc, so much has changed. My message has always been about letting all potentially good technologies develop properly so we can really know how good/bad they are, not just suppress all alternatives to petrol 4 cycles.
Supercharging is a great way to get more power if you want to maintain the characteristic of an engine that already has a broad powerband and don't really need to seriously work on thge top end. This is true for all positive displacement superchargers, but centrifugal types work the same way as turbos too, so that's a different story. But end of the day, if you want as big a peak high rpm power number as possible, a BIG turbo is still the answer. of course you could do a supercharger/turbo dual system, but that just gets horribly complicated. What really limits supercharges is the same reason for their instant response: their direct belt connection to the crankshaft. This adds quite a bit of parasitic drag and there's a limit to how much rpm the belts could take before the get in trouble. More complicated mechanical monkey motion does mean more mechanical parts to worry about. You could control boost pressure with pressure release valves as well like turbos, though you'll still need horribly complicated gearing/clutcihng mechanisms if you really want to control the supercharger speeds properly. With turbos, just vent the right amount of pressure and overspeeding problems are cured. Simple yet very effective, with better mechanical reliability simply because of its simplicity.
BTW, the latest mini cooper s has just changed from supercharging to turbocharging to get better fuel economy while getting more power.
An interesting thing about the 2 fuel types is the parameters that define them. In terms of safety, diesel always win hands down due to lowered likelihood to spontanoulsy ignite in atmospheric conditions. Their quality is defined as cetane (of course there's stuff like unwanted algea, particulate matter, sulphur, etc but lets not dwell on those details for now
), basically how quickly it ignites in high compression conditions of diesel engines. If it wasn't for the current surge in diesel passenger car use, the fuel type would have been really neglected. Did we have diesel fuel like the 55 cetane BP Diesel Ultimate on the mass market we have these days just 15 years ago? Guess not. The point is, the real reason why iesel engines still can't rev effectively to as high an rpm yet as petrols has a LOT to do with fuel quality. The real limit is the ability for diesel fuel to ignite ASAP and burn as quickly as possible. With increasing cetane, the diesel can't rev argument really starts to go down the drain. Again, it only goes to show my point that diesels aren't inferior to petrols imply because of their fundamental design. Another case of severely unfair disparities in development. 100 cetane diesel...
POWERRR!!!!With petrol, it's about octane. Basically the inability to spontanously ignite. Basically you want the fuel to survive as high a compression ratio as possible before donating on its own. So in this way, the desirable properties are very much opposite. With the ban on leaded perol, a simple shotcut to ridiculously high ocatne (100+MON!) was eliminated, but then they went on to develop new ways to achieve higher octane. All the modern high performance petrol wonders would simply be impossible if the octane of current petrol wasn't so high. Ever tried running the RB26T with 89 MON fuel? A CRIPPLING experience, eh?
Just some interesting things to think about.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Maybe you could make a few sets that are along the lines of your easy race sets, just tweaked so that they show the basic nature of the cars without being a complete joke to drive. Hey, maybe we should discuss this with the devs seriously. To have the default sets handle nothing like what a real car would is a BIG turn off for people who want to just show up, test LFS and see if LFS cars handle anywhere close to what real cars of a given design design. Still remember I had to redo all the sets on all LFS cars just to get them to feel anywhere close to say, what a real road driven XR GTT would.
True. It didn't absolutely NEED quad turbos to get 1001ps. But that's not my real point. My point is after exhasutive testing they discovered that a quad small turbo system was required for a nice and flat torque curve they set out to achieve. It could theoretically do it with one BIG turbo, but packaging and other issues make that a silly option. They tried twin turboes, only to end up with undersirable torque crurves.
Stangle everything that's NOT 4-cycle petrol piston engines? Great idea if you're obsessed with removing all possible alternatives. Also makes racing a technically boring experience. Slowing it down OR removing some other advantage is OK if it evens the odds a bit. To absolutely KILL IT just reaks. At this rate, no alternatie to petrol piston engines will ever show up, no matter how much undeveloped potential there is. Or would we all rather play straight into toyotas marketting hype and make do with the prius?
Ah, WTH, most rather watch a bunch of monkeys on flintstone spec vehicles trying to get each other killed...
Next thing we know the greenies will be even MORE empowered and would finally ge their wish: sliminate all motorsports. Why are people so obsessed with playing into their trap?
Another point is that getting large engines such as 7.3L V8s to rev like Honda's high rpm engines isn't as easy as getting a 2L 4-pot to rev its guts out. The shear difference in rotational inertia makes this comparison impossible.
As for the NA porsches, they've grown proggressively larger in capacity and rpm. Explains both increases in peak power and torque. Sure, their powerbands are quite good, though they're no rally engines. They had the benefit of variable cam timing and lift that's been upgraded and refined over time too. Not to mention decades of tuning and technological experience.
And when did I say turbo tuning is cheating? Of course, it all goes down to getting air and fuel burned as efficiently and effectively as possible. So are the 2 any different in this sense? No. Of course I'm aware of all the mechanical monkey motion they employ with valve timing, lift, etc. And of course, the less the restriction on the airflow paths, the better.
Why turbos? To force more air into the same space, that's why! If airflow rate is thought of as current in an electric circuit, resistance as the engine's inherent airflow restrictions and voltage as the pressure differences, turboes simply get more "current" in via ramping up the voltage. It's a simple but VERY effective method to achieve great power. Well, 4G63s have been reliably generating beautiful power and torque curves WAY before any NA tricks like valve monkey motion, etc were employed. I'm just saying that turbos allow the generation of excellent powerbands relatively more easily, with nothing more than a quick spooling turbo(s) and excellent boost control.
BTW, that polo sounds very non-stock. More like an overtuned monster. Never heard of stock vehicles needing detuning to portect drivelines. I wonder if you removed the cats too. Lag? Of course not. The blower's DIRECTLY connected to the driveshaft! How can there be any lag? Silly comparison vs. turbos. And I'll be more concerned about its durability if I were ou, unless you've gone all the way with internals too. Nothing insideous, just genuine concern for the poor thing. Just that in my experience, I've seen too many such projects end in disaster.
Thank god you're smart enough to at least try preserve the car by retarding ignition. I'll be happy if you don't and if I happen to be your clutch supplier too.
In case you're wondering why there are no performance NA diesels, the reason is quite simple, really. They are already seriously overbuilt, and the extra turbo inducted air is great for everything form boosting power to keeping internals clean, pure synergy. it's simply the simplest way to boost airflow ASAP. Also, no one's ever tried to apply NA only tuning to diesels, so honestly, no one really has an answer to that. All we can be sure of is with today's fuel injection tech, it'll be be MUCH better than the old days.
Just in case you're all wondering, exhaust tuning works great on diesels too. The increase in power and torque from a change of 1.5inch diameter to 2.25 inch exhaust diamtere liberated as much as 10-15% out of both parameters.
So, do you all REALLY believe that the current boosts in turbodiesel power is all because of increasing turbo boost? Thats where its all wrong. TDI, common-rail, idrect injection, all work on the principle of injecting finely atomized fuel at high pressures. Fuel atomization is the key to efficient burn and getting better energy efficiency and less overall pollution.
Stangle everything that's NOT 4-cycle petrol piston engines? Great idea if you're obsessed with removing all possible alternatives. Also makes racing a technically boring experience. Slowing it down OR removing some other advantage is OK if it evens the odds a bit. To absolutely KILL IT just reaks. At this rate, no alternatie to petrol piston engines will ever show up, no matter how much undeveloped potential there is. Or would we all rather play straight into toyotas marketting hype and make do with the prius?
Ah, WTH, most rather watch a bunch of monkeys on flintstone spec vehicles trying to get each other killed...
Next thing we know the greenies will be even MORE empowered and would finally ge their wish: sliminate all motorsports. Why are people so obsessed with playing into their trap?
Another point is that getting large engines such as 7.3L V8s to rev like Honda's high rpm engines isn't as easy as getting a 2L 4-pot to rev its guts out. The shear difference in rotational inertia makes this comparison impossible.
As for the NA porsches, they've grown proggressively larger in capacity and rpm. Explains both increases in peak power and torque. Sure, their powerbands are quite good, though they're no rally engines. They had the benefit of variable cam timing and lift that's been upgraded and refined over time too. Not to mention decades of tuning and technological experience.
And when did I say turbo tuning is cheating? Of course, it all goes down to getting air and fuel burned as efficiently and effectively as possible. So are the 2 any different in this sense? No. Of course I'm aware of all the mechanical monkey motion they employ with valve timing, lift, etc. And of course, the less the restriction on the airflow paths, the better.
Why turbos? To force more air into the same space, that's why! If airflow rate is thought of as current in an electric circuit, resistance as the engine's inherent airflow restrictions and voltage as the pressure differences, turboes simply get more "current" in via ramping up the voltage. It's a simple but VERY effective method to achieve great power. Well, 4G63s have been reliably generating beautiful power and torque curves WAY before any NA tricks like valve monkey motion, etc were employed. I'm just saying that turbos allow the generation of excellent powerbands relatively more easily, with nothing more than a quick spooling turbo(s) and excellent boost control.
BTW, that polo sounds very non-stock. More like an overtuned monster. Never heard of stock vehicles needing detuning to portect drivelines. I wonder if you removed the cats too. Lag? Of course not. The blower's DIRECTLY connected to the driveshaft! How can there be any lag? Silly comparison vs. turbos. And I'll be more concerned about its durability if I were ou, unless you've gone all the way with internals too. Nothing insideous, just genuine concern for the poor thing. Just that in my experience, I've seen too many such projects end in disaster.
Thank god you're smart enough to at least try preserve the car by retarding ignition. I'll be happy if you don't and if I happen to be your clutch supplier too. In case you're wondering why there are no performance NA diesels, the reason is quite simple, really. They are already seriously overbuilt, and the extra turbo inducted air is great for everything form boosting power to keeping internals clean, pure synergy. it's simply the simplest way to boost airflow ASAP. Also, no one's ever tried to apply NA only tuning to diesels, so honestly, no one really has an answer to that. All we can be sure of is with today's fuel injection tech, it'll be be MUCH better than the old days.
Just in case you're all wondering, exhaust tuning works great on diesels too. The increase in power and torque from a change of 1.5inch diameter to 2.25 inch exhaust diamtere liberated as much as 10-15% out of both parameters.
So, do you all REALLY believe that the current boosts in turbodiesel power is all because of increasing turbo boost? Thats where its all wrong. TDI, common-rail, idrect injection, all work on the principle of injecting finely atomized fuel at high pressures. Fuel atomization is the key to efficient burn and getting better energy efficiency and less overall pollution.
Of course, you can double the power of the OEM miata engines. After say, slapping on a big turbocharger (intercooled of course), forged psitons, billet/forged steel/titanium conrods, ...... And hopefully the OEM gearbox doesn't blow up after 500kms of hard use..... Reinforcing the block (if possible) would be a great idea too. I've seen rotaries and even V8s in miatas, but that's another story.
As for the latest 996 turbo, variable geometry turbo does wonders for any engine. And I've seen a fair share of 750hp 996 turboes too. Twin turbocharging and practically rebuilt/redesigned engines. All very impressive. But then, such powerbands were achieved with... drum roll... turbo technology.
BTW, if that polo is going to be discussed, please provide full details (size, peak power/ torque and rpms, redline, powerbands, etc). To compare power per liter with say a 2.0L turbo with something like say a W-16 is plain silly. That silly W-16 from the veyron needed QUAD turbos to generate the required powerband. See what happens when some old corporate fart comes up with arbitrary goals?
If maximum specific power is all that matters here, just get a rotary. 350hp form 1.3L(approx.260hp/L)! Along with a quart of oil every 5000kms, temperamental apex seals, fuel consumption that make SUVs look like econoboxes, ......
As for racing, for better parity between petrol and diesel, use the dakar rally as an example. 2.5L turbo vs. 4.0L petrol. Both finished really well. In fact, it's an achievement just to finish. BTW, the diesel touregs were actually FASTER than the petrol Pajeros over single stages.
Honestly, no one really knows how to setup absolutely fair rules for diesels and petrols, so drop the rule excues. Both engines have their merits and problems, and only time and experience will teach us how to regulate them in a fair manner. As technology is allowed to progress naturally, both engines will only get more equal in terms of performance for a given capacity, induction pressure, etc.
I still rememeber how the mazda rotaries were effectively banned after their winning race. They simply used the rules to cripple it beyond any hope. Wonder what would have happened if they allowed it to develop properly by tweaking the rules over time to allow gradually increased parity among different engines instead of effectively killing it after a single win. I'm perfectly happy with improving parity, but to cripple any new engine to non-competitiveness goes a long way to explaining why all alternatives to petrol engines for performance use were effectively suppressed for a long time. It's like condenming children to slavery before they even had a chance to learn some useful skill/science.
The real question is, do we REALLY want to eliminate all possible rivals to 4 cycle petrol engines for race use, or do we want to allow more engines to develop so all will benefit while justifying motorsports beyond the sheer waste of resources of a gluttonous few?
Please, get back on topic.
As for the latest 996 turbo, variable geometry turbo does wonders for any engine. And I've seen a fair share of 750hp 996 turboes too. Twin turbocharging and practically rebuilt/redesigned engines. All very impressive. But then, such powerbands were achieved with... drum roll... turbo technology.
BTW, if that polo is going to be discussed, please provide full details (size, peak power/ torque and rpms, redline, powerbands, etc). To compare power per liter with say a 2.0L turbo with something like say a W-16 is plain silly. That silly W-16 from the veyron needed QUAD turbos to generate the required powerband. See what happens when some old corporate fart comes up with arbitrary goals?
If maximum specific power is all that matters here, just get a rotary. 350hp form 1.3L(approx.260hp/L)! Along with a quart of oil every 5000kms, temperamental apex seals, fuel consumption that make SUVs look like econoboxes, ......
As for racing, for better parity between petrol and diesel, use the dakar rally as an example. 2.5L turbo vs. 4.0L petrol. Both finished really well. In fact, it's an achievement just to finish. BTW, the diesel touregs were actually FASTER than the petrol Pajeros over single stages.
Honestly, no one really knows how to setup absolutely fair rules for diesels and petrols, so drop the rule excues. Both engines have their merits and problems, and only time and experience will teach us how to regulate them in a fair manner. As technology is allowed to progress naturally, both engines will only get more equal in terms of performance for a given capacity, induction pressure, etc.
I still rememeber how the mazda rotaries were effectively banned after their winning race. They simply used the rules to cripple it beyond any hope. Wonder what would have happened if they allowed it to develop properly by tweaking the rules over time to allow gradually increased parity among different engines instead of effectively killing it after a single win. I'm perfectly happy with improving parity, but to cripple any new engine to non-competitiveness goes a long way to explaining why all alternatives to petrol engines for performance use were effectively suppressed for a long time. It's like condenming children to slavery before they even had a chance to learn some useful skill/science.
The real question is, do we REALLY want to eliminate all possible rivals to 4 cycle petrol engines for race use, or do we want to allow more engines to develop so all will benefit while justifying motorsports beyond the sheer waste of resources of a gluttonous few?
Please, get back on topic.
I'm all too familiar with Mitsubishi Lancer Evoltuions compared to most here, and I do agree they are amazing pertrol engines, but people are really missing my point here. FYI, the FQ360 is a much better car overall, with excellent power but none of the severe turbo lag issues coupled with a much WIDER powerband. In layman terms, it's faster when the path gets tight and twisty. 4G63s are hardcore rally engines with the benefits of a development life that's lasted about 2 decades.
Just look back 5 years and all this was unachieveable. BTW, when was the last time you find a turbocharged petrol Mazda MX-5 with 100hp/L?
I'm familiar with those 2.0L engines from Honda with amaing specific power. Looks great on paper, but when you take a good look at their torque bands, they are horrible. Absolutely gutless at low revs, requring copious clutch slip or at least 3000rpm (and a lead foot) if there is any positive gradient.
http://autos.msn.com/research/ ... p;model=RSX&trimid=-1
Hmm.....
Max power at 7800rpm, max torque at 7000rpm? If you rev like a nutter 99% of the time that's great.
The classic example is the toyota engine I mentioned earlier: max torque at 6800rpm, max power at 7800rpm. Stalling and knocking are its middle names.
BTW, this makes for an interesting read:
http://www.grandpapencil.com/projects/concepts/diesel.htm
The more one delves into history, the more motives one finds for why NOT to develop diesel as far as it could have. Has a lot to do with bottom lines, etc but the important thing is that anything that has any potential to cut profits shall be suppressed or eliminated with extreme prejudice.
Back on topic, please. So, if anyone wants a diesel car in LFS, please bring forth some interesting vehicles/engines for discussion. We wasted enough time and server space on matters not directly related to the essence of the issue in question.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
This thread is supposed to be about diesels, so let's have a look at some diesels. Unless there's something ineteresting about diesels to say, I'll rather have this thread permanantly closed.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/ne ... /audi-q7-v12-tdi-revealed
Not bad by both diesel and petrol standards. 80+bhp per liter isn't exactly underpowered. With 500bhp and 1000Nm from just 1750rpm to 3000rpm, flexibilty would never be an issue. That kind of peak power it achieves would be impossible if the torque band was absolutely terrible.
Let me remind everyone here that this is an SUV that goes to 100km/h in under 6 seconds. Not slow by any standard. All while meeting Euro V regualtions, sipping 11.9L/100km and generating relatively little noise.
Thi one's even more interesting:
http://automen.blogspot.com/search/label/engines
100hp/L is good even by turbocharged turbo standards. With this kind of power/ torque curve:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_CVOr0T ... h/BMW_diesel_engine_3.jpg
I don't see why modern turbodiesel powerbands are any worse than their turbo petrol counterparts. These days, many turbodiesels have powerbands that make them useful from maximum torque to redline or almost redline.
Note: Don't even look at toyota diesels. They do a great job of reinforcing old diesel stereotypes of great torque but TINY powerbands and complete inability to rev usefully to redline. NO toyota diesel I've driven so far is of any use beyond 3500rpm. Their latest turbodiesel prado carries on this horrible tradtion too:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/11 ... sel-gx-gxl-vx-and-grande/
http://prado.toyota.com.au/toy ... n/0,4668,1712_582,00.html
If you drive toyotas only, you'll be stuck in this "diesels can't rev properly to redline" paradigm forever.
WTH, they make HORRIBLE petrol engines too. Tiny and useless powerbands seem to be a toyota trademark (max torque at 6800rpm and 191ps, anyone?). They've installed a 6 speed manual/5 speed auto for their latest turbodiesel prado, but that won't compensate for a fundamnetally bad power curve.
BTW, I've recently seen a Lexus petrol powered car that has EIGHT gears! Speaking of pure sillyness. With cars like that, it's more vanity (aka me got bigger more than you muhahahaha) than genuine performance/economy. If I remember correctly, only the first 6 gears are actually of any real use. The top 3 are only useful if you drive at constant speed over absolutely flat terrain and No headwind or some taliwind.
Just an interesting car/engined to look at. May Dr Rudolf Diesel finally rest in peace. The irony of all this was that he invented CI (compression ignition) to empower farmers against the oil companies, allowing them to use their own products to generate mechanical power. It's amazing how history has this tendency to come around...
The poor guy was robbed and left for dead in his final days, his corpse found a few days after his supposed death.
Wonder what would turbodiesels be like given another 5 years of development.
If only we have a V-12 6L 600hp, 1100Nm dieselturbo in LFS in a mid-engined 4wd rally monster. Max power at 4800rpm, 5000rpm redline. Maxiumum torque at 2500rpm, with an optimum powerband from 2500rpm to redline. Maximum mass with driver and full load of 1200kg, 45/55 F/R mass distribution, 4 wheel independant double wishbone suspension with 300mm of maximum travel. Progressive springs and frequency selective bypass (position sensitive) dampers. Spinning all 4 wheels at 100km/h on tarmac (with wet tires).
This thread was about the inclusion of diesel cars in LFS, right? Let's keep on topic and bring some positive life to this thread. No point bickering when we could all discuss some interesing automotive stuff for a change.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/ne ... /audi-q7-v12-tdi-revealed
Not bad by both diesel and petrol standards. 80+bhp per liter isn't exactly underpowered. With 500bhp and 1000Nm from just 1750rpm to 3000rpm, flexibilty would never be an issue. That kind of peak power it achieves would be impossible if the torque band was absolutely terrible.
Let me remind everyone here that this is an SUV that goes to 100km/h in under 6 seconds. Not slow by any standard. All while meeting Euro V regualtions, sipping 11.9L/100km and generating relatively little noise.
Thi one's even more interesting:
http://automen.blogspot.com/search/label/engines
100hp/L is good even by turbocharged turbo standards. With this kind of power/ torque curve:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_CVOr0T ... h/BMW_diesel_engine_3.jpg
I don't see why modern turbodiesel powerbands are any worse than their turbo petrol counterparts. These days, many turbodiesels have powerbands that make them useful from maximum torque to redline or almost redline.
Note: Don't even look at toyota diesels. They do a great job of reinforcing old diesel stereotypes of great torque but TINY powerbands and complete inability to rev usefully to redline. NO toyota diesel I've driven so far is of any use beyond 3500rpm. Their latest turbodiesel prado carries on this horrible tradtion too:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/11 ... sel-gx-gxl-vx-and-grande/
http://prado.toyota.com.au/toy ... n/0,4668,1712_582,00.html
If you drive toyotas only, you'll be stuck in this "diesels can't rev properly to redline" paradigm forever.
WTH, they make HORRIBLE petrol engines too. Tiny and useless powerbands seem to be a toyota trademark (max torque at 6800rpm and 191ps, anyone?). They've installed a 6 speed manual/5 speed auto for their latest turbodiesel prado, but that won't compensate for a fundamnetally bad power curve.
BTW, I've recently seen a Lexus petrol powered car that has EIGHT gears! Speaking of pure sillyness. With cars like that, it's more vanity (aka me got bigger more than you muhahahaha) than genuine performance/economy. If I remember correctly, only the first 6 gears are actually of any real use. The top 3 are only useful if you drive at constant speed over absolutely flat terrain and No headwind or some taliwind.
Just an interesting car/engined to look at. May Dr Rudolf Diesel finally rest in peace. The irony of all this was that he invented CI (compression ignition) to empower farmers against the oil companies, allowing them to use their own products to generate mechanical power. It's amazing how history has this tendency to come around...
The poor guy was robbed and left for dead in his final days, his corpse found a few days after his supposed death.
Wonder what would turbodiesels be like given another 5 years of development.
If only we have a V-12 6L 600hp, 1100Nm dieselturbo in LFS in a mid-engined 4wd rally monster. Max power at 4800rpm, 5000rpm redline. Maxiumum torque at 2500rpm, with an optimum powerband from 2500rpm to redline. Maximum mass with driver and full load of 1200kg, 45/55 F/R mass distribution, 4 wheel independant double wishbone suspension with 300mm of maximum travel. Progressive springs and frequency selective bypass (position sensitive) dampers. Spinning all 4 wheels at 100km/h on tarmac (with wet tires).
This thread was about the inclusion of diesel cars in LFS, right? Let's keep on topic and bring some positive life to this thread. No point bickering when we could all discuss some interesing automotive stuff for a change.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Did I say slow break ins ONLY happen with turbodiesels? I'm just mentioned that it does happen remarkably often for turbodiesels. Not to mention 300,000km overhaul intervals for some hard working units (towing, off road racing, etc). Tristan and his wild assumptions...
I'm not saying gears change power levels. I'm saying narrow power bands need tight ratios to keep them in their usable rpm range. Maybe tristan is simply too mentally lazy to think about what I mean...
With wide powerbands, you can achieve similiar or superior overall performance with less gears. This is very obvious on the exits of tight turns. No need to shift so often and loose time to gearsifts.
I was just saying for a given peak power, wider powerband is superior overall, irrspective of engine type. BTW, most quantify the width of a powerband via absolute rpm numbers alone. This is VERY wrong.
Lets say a 7000rpm redline engine has a 3000rpm powerband (4000-7000rpm). An engine with a 5000 rpm redline has a 2800rpm powerband (2000-4800rpm), peak power at say 4600rpm and peak torque at 2000rpm, all the while keeping a relatively flat torque curve. Given they both produce the same peak power, the 2nd unit actually has a superiory powerband. Why? Because a larger proportion of the usable revs (idle to redline, assuming both engines have enough torque to idle of in a smooth start) is usable for good acceleration. The 2nd unit could also make do with say 5 instead of the other's 6 gears and still perform similiarly or even better. Of course, I'm saying this is true for all engine types, though tristan might just come up with some wild excuse or assumption just to try to piss off someone he doesn't personally like. And of course, this is rather simplistic, though of course to really understand this needs numerical and graphical data.
This all assumes that aall else is closely matched, of course. Or tristan is again too mnetally lazy to deduce such an obvious assumption.
Multitasking a "new" buzzword? Wow, didn't know that. That word has existed since computer geeks and the idea of concurrency in computers existed, so how?!? If I'm just another join anything new bandwagon guy, then why do hate Windows vitsa so much? It's new, right? Well, it's basically nothing more than a resource hog with no real benefit to date, that's why. I tried and found nothing particluar good about it. Does a great job of turning your multicore Ferrari into a stegosaurus. Again, tristan and his fanboy accusations...
I'll let you in on something about me. I used to be somewhat like you, believing RWD and petrol engines are the only way to go for race and general perfomane applications. Petrol engines eem the best not because they are truely fundamnetally superior to all other enigines. It's the result of having enjoyed a seriusly overprivaledged level of development. The more one delves into technological history and scinece, the more apparent it gets. Remmeber flame, ignition, killer exhaust fumes that spew out sulphur clouds, etc? Then again, tristan might not be a student of technological history...
But when alternatives are allowed to develop as well as that particular narrow category of vehicles, any reasonable and logical person is forced to reevaluate things. There's more than one way to achieve a given requirement.
Wind power is good for the environment? What made you think I'll say such a thing? Fact is, they could cause all sorts of trouble, from spoiling the scenery to disrupting wind patterns in undesirable ways. Conservation of energy is always applicable as far as physics can knows, so power form the wind is NOT free.
Solar power? Hmmm, Unreliable, inefficient (best cells typically used are just over 10% efficient!) and HIDEOUSLY expensive. Solution? Not until solar cell efficency goes WAY up. Could take quite a while...
Besides, those reflective surfaces could cause major problems for types that use concave reflectors to concentrate liht onto a tube of fluid...
Geothermal, a great idea if you live in say, Iceland? Your not going to cause much extra change. It's just the use of heat that the earth already spews out itself. Reliable too, since the earths core won't cool down any soon...
All this based on engineering/scientific literature, personal experience of working with them and field expereince from field experiments and real life users.
Anyway, gotta go for now. Work, work, work...
I'm just mentioned that it does happen remarkably often for turbodiesels. Not to mention 300,000km overhaul intervals for some hard working units (towing, off road racing, etc). Tristan and his wild assumptions...I'm not saying gears change power levels. I'm saying narrow power bands need tight ratios to keep them in their usable rpm range. Maybe tristan is simply too mentally lazy to think about what I mean...
With wide powerbands, you can achieve similiar or superior overall performance with less gears. This is very obvious on the exits of tight turns. No need to shift so often and loose time to gearsifts.
I was just saying for a given peak power, wider powerband is superior overall, irrspective of engine type. BTW, most quantify the width of a powerband via absolute rpm numbers alone. This is VERY wrong.
Lets say a 7000rpm redline engine has a 3000rpm powerband (4000-7000rpm). An engine with a 5000 rpm redline has a 2800rpm powerband (2000-4800rpm), peak power at say 4600rpm and peak torque at 2000rpm, all the while keeping a relatively flat torque curve. Given they both produce the same peak power, the 2nd unit actually has a superiory powerband. Why? Because a larger proportion of the usable revs (idle to redline, assuming both engines have enough torque to idle of in a smooth start) is usable for good acceleration. The 2nd unit could also make do with say 5 instead of the other's 6 gears and still perform similiarly or even better. Of course, I'm saying this is true for all engine types, though tristan might just come up with some wild excuse or assumption just to try to piss off someone he doesn't personally like. And of course, this is rather simplistic, though of course to really understand this needs numerical and graphical data.
This all assumes that aall else is closely matched, of course. Or tristan is again too mnetally lazy to deduce such an obvious assumption.
Multitasking a "new" buzzword? Wow, didn't know that. That word has existed since computer geeks and the idea of concurrency in computers existed, so how?!? If I'm just another join anything new bandwagon guy, then why do hate Windows vitsa so much? It's new, right? Well, it's basically nothing more than a resource hog with no real benefit to date, that's why. I tried and found nothing particluar good about it. Does a great job of turning your multicore Ferrari into a stegosaurus. Again, tristan and his fanboy accusations...
I'll let you in on something about me. I used to be somewhat like you, believing RWD and petrol engines are the only way to go for race and general perfomane applications. Petrol engines eem the best not because they are truely fundamnetally superior to all other enigines. It's the result of having enjoyed a seriusly overprivaledged level of development. The more one delves into technological history and scinece, the more apparent it gets. Remmeber flame, ignition, killer exhaust fumes that spew out sulphur clouds, etc? Then again, tristan might not be a student of technological history...
But when alternatives are allowed to develop as well as that particular narrow category of vehicles, any reasonable and logical person is forced to reevaluate things. There's more than one way to achieve a given requirement.
Wind power is good for the environment? What made you think I'll say such a thing? Fact is, they could cause all sorts of trouble, from spoiling the scenery to disrupting wind patterns in undesirable ways. Conservation of energy is always applicable as far as physics can knows, so power form the wind is NOT free.
Solar power? Hmmm, Unreliable, inefficient (best cells typically used are just over 10% efficient!) and HIDEOUSLY expensive. Solution? Not until solar cell efficency goes WAY up. Could take quite a while...
Besides, those reflective surfaces could cause major problems for types that use concave reflectors to concentrate liht onto a tube of fluid...
Geothermal, a great idea if you live in say, Iceland? Your not going to cause much extra change. It's just the use of heat that the earth already spews out itself. Reliable too, since the earths core won't cool down any soon...
All this based on engineering/scientific literature, personal experience of working with them and field expereince from field experiments and real life users.
Anyway, gotta go for now. Work, work, work...
Anyone heard of diesel pilot injection? Fine, high perssure atomized sprays of fuel ignite relatively easliy. Pilot injection is mostly to reduce knock and clatter, but as revs go up it could also be used as a sort of pre-advance. BTW, I've not seen or worked on any diesels that inject fuel at TDC or latter. All have somewhere between 6 - 15 degrees (case dependant of course. Variable for today's eklectronicly controlled disels) advance. How else do you get the fuel to burn in time?
Fine atomization is of course always good for all ICEs. Maximizes power per unit mass of fuel. Current F-1 engines and latest FSIs and GDIs all run high pressure injection to more finely atomize fuel. Hence the trend fo higher pressures and even finer holes...
With modern piezoelectric injectors, control is better than ever. BTW, imagine all the nifty stuf one could achieve by manipulating fuel spray patterns too.
Well, at least some here admit they don't know diesels much, and I'm glad that some here might be happy to know more rather than just bashing one engine type over and over and over..... (gets old)
BTW, when the torque output band to the wheeels simply isn't there, large peak power values do no good, not without super-close ratios or CVT. Given 2 cars with very similiar specs and similiar peak power levels and a given track, the one with the flatter torque band wins, even if its something like say 245hp(peaky) vs 250hp(broad).
There are 3 ways to obtain power, both equally valid. One is via high rpm but small torque levels coupled with high revs. The other is via moderate to low revs but MASSSIVE torque. Ideally, it's with massive troque band AND relatively high revs, though yet to see that happen on too many reasonably priced cars. The torque engine might be heavier, but the torque band would easliy compensate for the fewer but stronger gears. The high rev, narrow powerband engine needs more close ratio but smaller, lighter and weaker gears. The final result is very dependant on the nature of corners encountered.
Durability wise, let's just say some people have trouble trying to break them (turbodiesels) in prooperly. They just don't rev and use them hard enough. In the hands of a short shifter (whilst avoiding knocking, of course), some thake up to 100,000km just to break in.
BTW tristan, some of us got more things to do than louninging around in this forum. Multitasking, anyone? When was the last time I started personally insulting this nutacase first anyway?
Fine atomization is of course always good for all ICEs. Maximizes power per unit mass of fuel. Current F-1 engines and latest FSIs and GDIs all run high pressure injection to more finely atomize fuel. Hence the trend fo higher pressures and even finer holes...
With modern piezoelectric injectors, control is better than ever. BTW, imagine all the nifty stuf one could achieve by manipulating fuel spray patterns too.
Well, at least some here admit they don't know diesels much, and I'm glad that some here might be happy to know more rather than just bashing one engine type over and over and over..... (gets old)
BTW, when the torque output band to the wheeels simply isn't there, large peak power values do no good, not without super-close ratios or CVT. Given 2 cars with very similiar specs and similiar peak power levels and a given track, the one with the flatter torque band wins, even if its something like say 245hp(peaky) vs 250hp(broad).
There are 3 ways to obtain power, both equally valid. One is via high rpm but small torque levels coupled with high revs. The other is via moderate to low revs but MASSSIVE torque. Ideally, it's with massive troque band AND relatively high revs, though yet to see that happen on too many reasonably priced cars. The torque engine might be heavier, but the torque band would easliy compensate for the fewer but stronger gears. The high rev, narrow powerband engine needs more close ratio but smaller, lighter and weaker gears. The final result is very dependant on the nature of corners encountered.
Durability wise, let's just say some people have trouble trying to break them (turbodiesels) in prooperly. They just don't rev and use them hard enough. In the hands of a short shifter (whilst avoiding knocking, of course), some thake up to 100,000km just to break in.
BTW tristan, some of us got more things to do than louninging around in this forum. Multitasking, anyone? When was the last time I started personally insulting this nutacase first anyway?
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/test1.htm
Interesting test on 2 similiarly weighed and identically powered (245hp, about what the TBO classes are close to). Done by people who could actually drive, of course, which makes it even more interesting.
Note the FWD was setup JUST like the FXO. BIG tires front and rear. The RWD was setup in classic FR fashion, with relatively narrow fronts and wider rears (typical RWD staggered set). Basically optimized for each drivetrain. The results are REALLY interesting and may not be what many RWDers might think. (I pretty much expected exactly the same results as they came up with) The way LFS tracks are, no wonder the FXO is dominating.
Just one factor as to why I absolutely refuse to oversegregate and overclassify, simply condenming something just because of some personal preferences and opinions.
Fancy words? I was just trying to ensure precision for as well as the english language could provide. And it's one thing to simply tell the simple conclusion and another to understand what happens exactly. Like how roll bar induced roll stiffness isn't absolutely the same as that derived form stiff springs.
Anyway, anyone else got more on topic stuff to say? Actually, I'm kind of surprised that this thread has somehow revived itself after so many eons of LFS time. (Note: time counted in miliseconds.)
Interesting test on 2 similiarly weighed and identically powered (245hp, about what the TBO classes are close to). Done by people who could actually drive, of course, which makes it even more interesting.
Note the FWD was setup JUST like the FXO. BIG tires front and rear. The RWD was setup in classic FR fashion, with relatively narrow fronts and wider rears (typical RWD staggered set). Basically optimized for each drivetrain. The results are REALLY interesting and may not be what many RWDers might think. (I pretty much expected exactly the same results as they came up with
) The way LFS tracks are, no wonder the FXO is dominating. Just one factor as to why I absolutely refuse to oversegregate and overclassify, simply condenming something just because of some personal preferences and opinions.
Fancy words? I was just trying to ensure precision for as well as the english language could provide.
And it's one thing to simply tell the simple conclusion and another to understand what happens exactly. Like how roll bar induced roll stiffness isn't absolutely the same as that derived form stiff springs. Anyway, anyone else got more on topic stuff to say? Actually, I'm kind of surprised that this thread has somehow revived itself after so many eons of LFS time. (Note: time counted in miliseconds.
)
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Me, sing praises to Imprezas? Hmmm..... I thought I told you I didn't like them.
Here's the BMW diesel racecars I was talking about:
http://www.racecarsdirect.com/viewlisting.php?view=5506
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/spo ... /seat/nosplit/btcceco.xml
http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s491/st108449.htm
You accuse me of diesel fanboyism. Now you're acting like a complete petrolheaded dogmatist/propogandist? Beats me. More like ou refuse to accept anthing but petrol even if competitive and possibly superior overall alternative pops up. And a driving style that copes with nothing but RWD.
When was the last time I said FWD was superior overall? It's superior for packaging, economy, and some speciallized competitions, or is it just too hard to accept that RWDs are fallible?
And why would you compae the V10 Toureg to an mx-5? A sensible guy would have compared it to something more like a Range Rover/RR sport. What were you smoking? So I'm supposed to be the unsensible one....
And was i trying to confuse anyone? Didn't know my "jargon" that confusing.
Here's the BMW diesel racecars I was talking about:
http://www.racecarsdirect.com/viewlisting.php?view=5506
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/spo ... /seat/nosplit/btcceco.xml
http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s491/st108449.htm
You accuse me of diesel fanboyism.
Now you're acting like a complete petrolheaded dogmatist/propogandist? Beats me. More like ou refuse to accept anthing but petrol even if competitive and possibly superior overall alternative pops up. And a driving style that copes with nothing but RWD. When was the last time I said FWD was superior overall? It's superior for packaging, economy, and some speciallized competitions, or is it just too hard to accept that RWDs are fallible?
And why would you compae the V10 Toureg to an mx-5? A sensible guy would have compared it to something more like a Range Rover/RR sport. What were you smoking? So I'm supposed to be the unsensible one....
And was i trying to confuse anyone? Didn't know my "jargon" that confusing.
There were a few race only models of diesel BMWs based off road car chassis and engines, though I just can't seem to remember the codes right now... Just check it out.
Who said anything about special knowledge what? And dude, you still have some really weird issues with silly drivetrain and engine type irrational hatreds. I appreciate diesels, so do petrols, LPGs, gas turbines, etc. All drivetrains have their place, though 2wd cars are such a known quantity, with 4wWD being a relative latecomer that they've just begun to reap its full potential, especially for performance road car apps.. I'll still like them if they achieve their design goals though.
Silly suggestions? Hmmm..... Didn't know the AUDI QUATTRO was a silly suggestion..... No wonder tristan hates 4WDs so much. A bunch of macho men beaten by a... gasp... woman driver! No wonder you're pissed. BTW, I think I've just performeed some simple but remarkably good psychoanalysis.
Still remember that in the early 20th centuries that MANY other power plants were vastly superior to petrol otto cycle units we're dogmatically forced to acept as the only way to high performance. heck, there was an electric car that went 160mph in a land speed record! Way before computers and hybrids. (Silicon chip? What silicon chip?)
Conclusion? Any drivetrain and powerplant with fundamentally sound design could thrive and dominate given a chance to develop and reach their potential. As for FWDs whopping RWD asses on quite a few moderate to lower powered race series, it just goes to show that hating certain drivetrains is pure stupidity. BTW, FWDs rule gymkhanas, no contest.
The problem isn't me talking about 4WDs. On the other hand, it's all about your impossibly to reasonably justify hatred of certain types drivetrain and engine.
Who said anything about special knowledge what? And dude, you still have some really weird issues with silly drivetrain and engine type irrational hatreds. I appreciate diesels, so do petrols, LPGs, gas turbines, etc. All drivetrains have their place, though 2wd cars are such a known quantity, with 4wWD being a relative latecomer that they've just begun to reap its full potential, especially for performance road car apps.. I'll still like them if they achieve their design goals though.
Silly suggestions? Hmmm..... Didn't know the AUDI QUATTRO was a silly suggestion.....
No wonder tristan hates 4WDs so much. A bunch of macho men beaten by a... gasp... woman driver! No wonder you're pissed. BTW, I think I've just performeed some simple but remarkably good psychoanalysis. Still remember that in the early 20th centuries that MANY other power plants were vastly superior to petrol otto cycle units we're dogmatically forced to acept as the only way to high performance. heck, there was an electric car that went 160mph in a land speed record! Way before computers and hybrids. (Silicon chip? What silicon chip?
)Conclusion? Any drivetrain and powerplant with fundamentally sound design could thrive and dominate given a chance to develop and reach their potential. As for FWDs whopping RWD asses on quite a few moderate to lower powered race series, it just goes to show that hating certain drivetrains is pure stupidity. BTW, FWDs rule gymkhanas, no contest.
The problem isn't me talking about 4WDs. On the other hand, it's all about your impossibly to reasonably justify hatred of certain types drivetrain and engine.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG