Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Basic math escapes you, read over the past posts, if it still doesn't sink in, I am not surprised.
|
Show me where you used math or physics in any of your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
You have the concept backwards. I prefer a car built with the best materials available to set the highest standard. I'm not interested in a car that can get by with cheap cast internals just because it has the displacement and revs of a tractor. I'm exaggerating to get my point across, just in case that escapes you.
|
Everyone wants the best quality parts possible. The stronger internal components is analogous to the following question. Why didn't BMW give the M3 an aluminum chassis since it's lighter than steel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Let me make this example clear. The M3 with its 8k+ redline is formidable NA even with its smaller displacement. With a bit of boost, it is ridiculously powerful thanks to its forged internals and wide powerband. Essentially, you can get the best of both worlds. If you want more power or torque, you can get it. You don't need it to compete with what is already out there. BMW shows that they one of the best at building a motor, again and again.
|
Boost? We're talking about the engine in stock form. There are too many factors in aftermarket tuning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Does it not make sense to you to have the highest quality parts in your motor? Not just what will get by because your motor is a large low tech piece of junk that barely spins and makes its power largely as a function of torque instead of high tech engineering (comparatively speaking)?
|
It makes sense to have the highest quality required for the task at hand. If I owned a shovel company and I could built the shovel out of steel for half the cost of a more exotic material and they both performed equally well, I would opt for the cheaper steel. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. BMW's V8 requires those exotic materials because of the extra stress it puts on its components relative to larger displacement, lower revving engines. That is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
You may notice that companies like RUF tend to make their forced induction motors strong not by increasing boost but by making them more efficient, usually in the heads, sometimes going to something higher flowing designed for an NA car like the GT3 heads.
|
Don't kid yourself, they raise the boost along with new headers, software, pistons, cams and more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
BMW could get rid of a lot of things and simplify the car, make it more fuel efficient, and more practical for people like yourself. Those of use that want the highest quality materials, most advanced transmissions, and engines built to the highest standard, are fine with paying for it and paying for the associated costs.
|
Did you forget I own an M5? Why wouldn't you want your M3 to be more efficient? Do you enjoy getting 12 mpg? I guess I'm just more practical than you. I certainly wish my M5 got better gas milage while producing the same amount of power it currently does. Forced induction will result in engines with less fuel consumption while maintaining current power levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Why didn't Ferrari stick an LS1 in the 360 modena? Wouldn't the F430 be cheaper, easier, etc. with an LS7?
|
Ferrari uses high revving tech they develop F1. All of their cars are loaded with F1 tech. If F1 were to switch back to F1, so would Ferrari road cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Formula 1 would be far more entertaining if the cars stuffed in carburated large cubic inch v8's right? I mean, the cars would be cheaper to run. They wouldn't need the same quality of internals, right?
|
If F1 suddenly switched to soap box cars, I'm sure they would find a way to spend millions on development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
You will never understand, some things are just beyond the simple folk.
|
You're an incredibly arrogant prick. Did you know that?