:lovies3d:
Yes I know its a fantastic sound, someone near me has a Nova SS that makes the ground shake.
I don't care if it does 2 miles to the gallon.
People should not be so narrow minded, there are fantastic cars from both sides of the pond, and when American engines are combined with British chassis, some great cars have resulted.
Par example, I wouldn't mind driving one of these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUk14bipO20
And the Ford GT40, great collaboration there.
Not forgetting Italian/American cars as well, I do love the De Tomaso Pantera (technically De Tomaso was Argentinian).
Nice, 351 Cleveland.
I do. Just think that sometimes people need to acknowledge that things like that aren't really practical, even if it's for a weekend only usage. I mean I'm all for "V8 enthusiast" and the like but normally they don't think it's the be all and end all, if you see what I mean.
Besides, that video you posted actually has a decent amount of power.
So it's okay to have 572ci (9.4 litres) giving out 650hp (who knows if it's at the flywheel or at the wheels), which is 70hp/litre, and to call it a decent, powerful engine, but the earlier one which was something like 5 litre and ~280hp is rubbish? And in both cases, you still ignore torque, be it peak or the whole curve!
Yes.
I.....guess that's cool?
Epic yes.
lol this thread was pretty much a thread about S2000 motors vs V8 and that was the only S2000 in my fav's list
car is built for time attack wich it does pretty well, fastest cars here are mostly Evo's and a few GTR's, dont see many RWD cars doing well in time attack here, also does 10's and is street driven
I'd have both, plus whoever is behind the wheel of that thang has some impressive car control.
Whats the problem with liking all ICE engines? Must I fit into a certain category of rampant fanboyism?
And smaller Turbo engines will still eat up fuel fairly quickly, if you're going to ram more air into a cylinder, then you need more fuel to go with it otherwise the mixture will be too lean, causing a lack of power and perhaps overheating issues. Why do you think the Turbo Rally and F1 cars of the 80s routinely spat out masses of flame on the overrun?
i thought we established through both the cvt and your gearing website thread that peak torque is about as meaningless a number as it gets
Sorry but on this whole what sounds good argument your all looking at too many wheels and cylinders i think we all know what wins...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRDLBXzy-JA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRDLBXzy-JA
Thank you. All this talk about power is going nowhere because what truly matters is how a car performs on a race track. And also, the driver makes the biggest difference in how fast a car goes around a race track. I thought all of us should know this by now, since we play LFS.
Post of the thread.
Sorry but on this whole what sounds good argument your all looking at too many wheels and cylinders i think we all know what wins...
http://www.dailymotion.com/vid ... s-ducati-hypermotard_auto
Now this is the post of the thread
http://www.dailymotion.com/vid ... s-ducati-hypermotard_auto
Now this is the post of the thread
Yes, that Caterham with the N/A Ford Duratec engine sounds really beatiful.
Tho there has been even better sounding 4-pots.
Your bike couldn't have done better plus, It was done by a car magazine.
Oh really? Lets take a look...
Care to explain?
Because you obviously STILL don't understand the difference, as you show here:
Fact is, genius, if you've been reading, IM PUTTING OUT 70 MORE RWHP THAN A STOCK MUSTANG (70 more whp than what I had at the time of the 14.6 run, in case you have problems remembering). My lord, you are DENSE. This also goes along with the fact that you ARE saying that 70rwhp/~40rwtq doesn't yield any difference. You need to not only READ, but COMPREHEND.
Piston rings don't last forever.
Funny, American obesity wasn't an issue back in the 60s, when American torque was really starting to take hold. More stereotypes.
No because I don't think my car is the best thing out there. In fact, it's still very low on the totem pole every time I go to the dragstrip. However, it will hand a stock S2000 its @$$ on a silver platter. With that said, I have had MY @$$ handed to me a few times by some very stout 4 cylinders, so I know what they're capable of. I've seen them running 9s and trapping 160+ mph in the 1/4 mile. Extremely impressive and fun to watch. I have NOTHING against small engines, I only have a problem with people who think they're the best thing ever and that V8s are crap. Would you like to see what an American 4cyl car can do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPQGO-RFOd0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... DtWoc&feature=related
So yeah...we can play that game too.
If 2 tenths over a relatively slow 20 year old V8 is what helps you sleep at night, so be it. Compare a stock S2000 to something like a brand new 2010 Mustang and it's not even a contest; I'm giving you the benefit of 20 years of technology and the fact that auto manufacturers were JUST starting to recover from the strict emissions regulations of the 70s...and you still only have a couple of tenths, which is hardly a fender.
I've actually been the one showing my dad stuff about my car. He taught me the basics. There is a huge thread on a Mustang forum where I ask guys with REAL WORLD experience what kind of combo would get me my goal. Guess what? It worked.
I never argued with you about it. I never thought of it that way, but you brought it to my attention. Anyway, as I said, I suppose AMERICAN V8s specifically have the attributes you mentioned that create good low end torque. That's really all I said; can't go deeper into it since I don't know much about it.
Agreed...even though I said I was done with the arguing, he left way too many holes and contradictions in his argument for me to just leave alone
.Mmmmmmm, Caterham.... *drool*
Most likely not! Reading is to comprehend. I can, just can't be arsed right now.
[quote]Piston rings don't last forever.[/quote]
Don't magically stop working because of high milage. You can have rings go at 20k or at 200k.
[quote]Funny, American obesity wasn't an issue back in the 60s, when American torque was really starting to take hold. More stereotypes.[/quote]
Certain an issue now isn't it.
[quote]No because I don't think my car is the best thing out there. In fact, it's still very low on the totem pole every time I go to the dragstrip. However, it will hand a stock S2000 its @$$ on a silver platter. With that said, I have had MY @$$ handed to me a few times by some very stout 4 cylinders, so I know what they're capable of. I've seen them running 9s and trapping 160+ mph in the 1/4 mile. Extremely impressive and fun to watch. I have NOTHING against small engines, I only have a problem with people who think they're the best thing ever and that V8s are crap. Would you like to see what an American 4cyl car can do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPQGO-RFOd0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... DtWoc&feature=related
So yeah...we can play that game too.
[/quote]
Spoken like a hot shot.
Oh and don't forget the videos you posted are drag cars with HUGE turbos. When I say huge I mean bigger than the original engine. Nice try comparing fully tuned basically drag cars to "normal" or even racing 4cyls.
[quote]If 2 tenths over a relatively slow 20 year old V8 is what helps you sleep at night, so be it. Compare a stock S2000 to something like a brand new 2010 Mustang and it's not even a contest; I'm giving you the benefit of 20 years of technology and the fact that auto manufacturers were JUST starting to recover from the strict emissions regulations of the 70s...and you still only have a couple of tenths, which is hardly a fender.[/quote]
2010 Mustang is like 13.5 according to some site. Wow 0.4 seconds! The S2000 was like a car made in 2000 don't forget so nearly 10 years by any rate (your excuse!)
[quote]I've actually been the one showing my dad stuff about my car. He taught me the basics. There is a huge thread on a Mustang forum where I ask guys with REAL WORLD experience what kind of combo would get me my goal. Guess what? It worked.[/quote]
E-forum? Real world? Wait wut?
[quote]Agreed...even though I said I was done with the arguing, he left way too many holes and contradictions in his argument for me to just leave alone
.[/QUOTE]
When I can be arsed to "argue" properly I will reasearch things I don't understand, find sources, etc. But you're not worth the time so I just don't bother and keep arguing just so you can argue back.
Still don't get itApparently is worth the time.. or somebody likes to make a fool out of himself 
Wrong.
Look who's the one making excuses...I haven't spent nearly 5 or 10 mins total doing "research" during this argument, and have clearly backed up my points with proof and you just skip around them and twist the argument elsewhere, with no proof in sight. If you can be "arsed" to type these long posts, you can surely spend just 5 mins trying to make yourself not sound like a complete moron.
Don't recall where I said they magically stop working, but over the years, they do slowly deteriorate, causing things such as compression loss and oil blowby.
Good thing because that has A LOT to do with cars :rolleyes:
Riiiiiiiiight
Oh, you wanna know stock? Back in 1988, yeah, 20 years ago, a stock 2.3L Thunderbird Turbo coupe was putting out 190hp.
S2000 is still being made to this day, and uh....they still haven't changed it hardly at all. Talk about not moving forward. At least the Mustang has had quite a few upgrades over the past 10 years. Car and Driver has been quite impressed by it...I was just reading one of their articles on it the other day.
http://www.caranddriver.com/bu ... 010_ford_mustang_gt_video
Guys that have done it in the real world and have proof. Both things that you obviously lack.
Hey look, an excuse. You shouldn't HAVE to do a lot of research to at least put up a decent argument.
The car wars thread!
(139 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG