looks good but 400 hp to front wheels is just plain stupid IMO
looks good but 400 hp to front wheels is just plain stupid IMO
(Dj-Aeri)
DELETED
by Dj-Aeri
Still abosolutely stupid. It may have alot of power, and be fast in a straight line, but the understeer that car produce's is horrific. Plus, alfa's are unreliable anyway
Now 400 HP to the rear wheels would be something else. Is there a reason hot hatches are usually FWD?
Cheaper to produce, probably. In addition to being more foolproof for A to B drivers.
Easier to construct, lower cost, safer on the road?
I think the short wheelbases could lead to snap oversteer, and FWD's are better for everyday driving, since they don't loose control so easily. 
XFG with rotary engine 
an XFTT would be much more fun, with twin turbo 600 hp AWD
AWD version would be good, but 200+ hp on front wheels- no, i dont want that car. Something like rally car would be much better. But, we also need more rallycross/rally stages 
XFG V6, with central engine and rwd 
Just like the old Renault Clio V6? Sounds good to me...
XFT? Just something like the Golf GTI, 2.0 litre with 200 hp.
I would'nt want a mid engine, V6 XFG. The car is too small for this, and handling would prove poor, as it did with the clio V6. Not exactly the best handling car in the world. I think a 1.8, 4 cylinder FWD car, with about 160/170 hp would be ideal, also turbocharged. Would be interesting if it got supercharged though, i wonder how well LFS could simulate a supercharger.
That's almost perfectly redundant too. There just isn't much possible in the XFG class. The UF's another one that's not likely to get anything else than a Fiat500/old Beetle sort of RR competitor.
why don't we just put a hayabusa enige in the UF1 and some fat wheels and slicks under it,
END OF DISCUSSION!!!
END OF DISCUSSION!!!
WTCC BMW 320 would be just fine..
*cough*Scawen*cough*
*cough*Scawen*cough*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4HdsDZX6c
contrary to what the title says, its actually a GSX-R engine
just slap a 3.5L V6 into the middle of the XFG, wider track, better suspection, upgrade seats, body = Clio V6 sort of fun.
Hayabusa IS -> GSX1300R
I usually agree with most of what you say as you know your stuff Tristan. However, I have to disagree with you here.
Now I can't speak for other countries and their diesel engines so I'll just use what we have here. There are a lot of people getting 500 - 1100hp / 900 - 2200ft/lbs out of 5.9L Cummins engines. That goes for the 6.6L Duramax and the 6.0L Powerstroke available here as well. Your idea of similar cars with like capacities doesn't hold water either. Take this for instance http://www.dieselpowermag.com/ ... evelle_duramax/index.html A 1970 Chevelle with a 6.6L Duramax transplant making over 1000hp and 2000ft/lbs. That same model year car came with a 7.4L petrol only making 450hp. That doesn't mean they are all like that, it was the easiest example I could find.
I was actually reading the other day that with our way-too-strict emissions over here that diesel engines are putting out approximately 10% of the emissions that a petrol engine puts out.
I respect your knowledge on many things and I agree that diesels really are an unfair advantage in racing. But they do deserve a place somewhere. Having owned, repaired, and built from the bottom up high performance engines both petrol and diesel I can honestly say that gaining HP and torque is so much easier with a diesel than it is with a gas engine. That's probably why they are so misunderstood.
EDIT: Sorry for the off topic.
Now I can't speak for other countries and their diesel engines so I'll just use what we have here. There are a lot of people getting 500 - 1100hp / 900 - 2200ft/lbs out of 5.9L Cummins engines. That goes for the 6.6L Duramax and the 6.0L Powerstroke available here as well. Your idea of similar cars with like capacities doesn't hold water either. Take this for instance http://www.dieselpowermag.com/ ... evelle_duramax/index.html A 1970 Chevelle with a 6.6L Duramax transplant making over 1000hp and 2000ft/lbs. That same model year car came with a 7.4L petrol only making 450hp. That doesn't mean they are all like that, it was the easiest example I could find.
I was actually reading the other day that with our way-too-strict emissions over here that diesel engines are putting out approximately 10% of the emissions that a petrol engine puts out.
I respect your knowledge on many things and I agree that diesels really are an unfair advantage in racing. But they do deserve a place somewhere. Having owned, repaired, and built from the bottom up high performance engines both petrol and diesel I can honestly say that gaining HP and torque is so much easier with a diesel than it is with a gas engine. That's probably why they are so misunderstood.
EDIT: Sorry for the off topic.
7.4 litres of Detroit iron is equivalent to about 2 litres of proper engine. If you want to talk about specific power output (not a diesels strong point)
then the diesel looks pretty rubbish, the CanAm Porsche 917/30 produced well in excess of 1000bhp in race trim with a 5.4 litre engine.
If you're going for specific output though the diesel is fairly hopeless at 151 bhp/litre, most big bikes (and bike engined cars) will beat that easily and standard road cars are getting ever closer to it. True high power for capacity comes from petrol engines, the BRM V16 was producing over 300 bhp/litre 50 years ago and the BMW F1 cars produced over 650 bhp/litre.
While what you are saying is true, I was going more for everyday drivable street cars in my post. My point is that diesels are easier and cheaper to get the Hp.
This is a game. Cars don't cost money (unless you are on a cruise server), so it doesn't come in to play.
Thx, but NO thx, Frank
Don`t touch the xfg !
XFT, turbo version of XFG
(70 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG