Page 6 of 6
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 4:59 am
by Nightshade
ToxicBug wrote:Nightshade wrote:No, it just means that the engine itself can be smaller. The RS4 is a perfect example, in that it's almost 700lbs heavier than the Z06, so the 'Vette has a better power-to-weight ratio. This is a direct measure of the car's performance.
No shit that its heavier. Its a 4 door all-wheel-drive luxury sedan. A C6 Z06 is just a huge engine and a chassis, not much comfort going on there.
That's ALL you can come up with? It's heavier? Just stop posting, you utter embarrassment of a human being.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:01 am
by Nightshade
ToxicBug wrote:werldhed wrote:So a smaller (e.g... 5.0 L) engine won't effectively weigh less than a larger one (e.g... 7.0 L)?
Huh. Didn't know that.
If that's the case, why not just make all engines massively large?
Because everyone except for the americans try to move the technology forwards. More HP/L means more efficient engines.
My god, what a load of ignorant crap. Yes Toxic, all the American automotive design engineers are a bunch of fucking Luddites that hate technology. Do some research, pull your head out of your ass, and stop being such a fucking retard.
And by any chance can you explain WHY higher hp/l might mean that an engine is more efficient, Mr. Auto Expert?
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:02 am
by andyman
ToxicBug wrote:shadd_ wrote:thats a nice engine in the audi but look at the torque numbers. pretty low.
Of course, it doesn't have displacement to make a lot of torque, not that it matters one bit since it makes so much horsepower. Btw, considering its a 4.2L, its still makes a LOT more torque per liter than a 2005 Mustang GT with a 4.6L, even though its tuned for horsepower.
lol your still going on about that
just give up man, your through
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:38 am
by andyman
Toxic if it makes you feel any better my dad backed it into his denali and dinged it. It will be fixed though, and you're still through
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:19 am
by Don Carlos
losCHUNK wrote:hax103 wrote:werldhed wrote:Yes, but Toxic's point was that the engine can crank out impressive figures from a small displacement. That corvette may be fast, but a TVR could easily match those figures with only 4 L.
Well, the TVRs have their negative points including the engine starting method was prolly designed by an idiot (see below)
Jeremy Clarkson ala Topgear has this to say about them (He has actually driven them unlike most of the peeps on this forum)
"And that brings me neatly on to the new TVR Tuscan 2. This is the first of the cars launched since the company was bought by a 14-year-old Russian business-boy, and is said to be easier to drive, and easier to live with than any TVR ever.
Hmmm. It still doesn't have an airbag, or anti lock brakes, or any kind of traction control. In fact, the only safety feature is the ludicrous starting procedure which is so complicated, I can pretty much guarantee you'll never actually get it going. And a stationary, silent car is damn hard to crash."
and they apparently are not impressive at the topgear race track
in fairness, jeremey clarkson also says this about the corvette
"if you want a plastic left hand drive car with vietnamese suspension, then here it is"
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:45 pm
by Denz
ToxicBug wrote:werldhed wrote:So a smaller (e.g... 5.0 L) engine won't effectively weigh less than a larger one (e.g... 7.0 L)?
Huh. Didn't know that.
If that's the case, why not just make all engines massively large?
Because everyone except for the americans try to move the technology forwards. More HP/L means more efficient engines.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
I used to think you were cool. This thread has made me think otherwise.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:46 pm
by Nightshade
You're just NOW figuring out that ToxicDud is a dumbass? Where the hell have you been?
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:47 pm
by Doombrain
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:52 pm
by Denz
Nightshade wrote:You're just NOW figuring out that ToxicDud is a dumbass? Where the hell have you been?
I just crawled out from under my rock.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:52 pm
by Nightshade
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:52 pm
by AmIdYfReAk
Why will i not be suprised to see that picture on some Crossdressing website?
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:36 pm
by andyman
That is gold. I am emailing the president of it's goldness right now as we speak
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:16 am
by Nightshade
Of note is the fact that Toxic's best reply is: "No shit it's heavier."
^2
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:20 am
by Foo
oh cars yeah, i like cars
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:57 am
by Kills On Site
What is it you have against the SLR?
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:14 pm
by Pantsman
i assume the rs4 is *0HC, whilst the old pushrods are actually lighter engines. for one.
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:44 pm
by Nightshade
Kills On Site wrote:What is it you have against the SLR?
As I said earlier, you missed the joke. They're not talking about the MErcedes SLR, they're talking about ToxicDud's stupidity when it comes to SLR cameras.
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:06 pm
by Kills On Site
Oh, so the joke was on the SLR style of camera, Single Lens Reflex, not on the car. I didn't expect the Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR to be your favorite super car, but I was suprised by the jokes about it, but they are jokes about ToxicBug, which is fine by me 
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:42 am
by andyman
