Originally Posted by AtomHeart
Yes, that is what I'm talking about...and I think they let anyone who can write the check purchase any car they want. All it takes is money to buy a car with a naturally aspirated engine that breaks that barrier...nothing terribly impressive there.
I'm assuming this is a response to people who put N/A engines on a pedestal. My question to you is, if you can get similar power, why not go N/A? You take out the complexity and extra failure points of a turbo or supercharger, as well as the extra weight. Not to mention that you have nonlinear response and a little lag with a turbo.
Originally Posted by AtomHeart
Chevy, being "The Land that Overhead Cam Forgot", is naturally the company that is still investing everything they've got into archaeic technology, when they could so easily achieve the same results by coming into the 21st century.
Puh-leaze. Why fix something if it isn't broken? I don't understand the fascination with HP/Liter, when a better criteria is a car's power/weight ratio, or an engine's power/weight ratio and dimensions. How is a 3.2L DOHC BMW I6 superior to a 6.0L OHV Chevy V8 when the Chevy engine is more powerful, lighter and smaller than the BMW engine? (search around: you'll find people swapping LS1 and LS2 engines into BMWs and REDUCING the total weight of their car because of the swap!). Judging an engine by displacement alone is silly, since its displacement does not reflect its actual total size. So is judging it by the number of cams or valves. The only indicators that should be relevant are it power/torque curves, and its weight and size. That means that if you can make more power in a smaller, lighter package with DOHC, more power to you. But
technology for the sake of technology, without some other purpose, is pointless. Even Subaru acknowledged this with their Impreza 2.5RS (~1999-2000). They moved away from a DOHC design to a SOHC engine that provided the same power and torque and reduced complexity.
Besides, there is one advantage that an N/A engine has over an F/I engine: you can still turbo it!
On a side note, there's something wrong with this picture:
Crossfire SRT-6: 349hp (same engine as SLK32), 3200 lbs, 17/24 city/hwy mpg
Chevy Camaro: 345hp (same engine as C5 Vette), 3600 lbs, 19/28 city/hwy mpg
I know we're talking about two very different cars here, but the fact that two cars make the same power, yet the heavier one gets better mileage, is amazing to me.
Originally Posted by AtomHeart
I guess my point is: why do people have to hate on superchargers? Anyone who doesn't find the Ford GT an impressive vehicle just because its supercharged...well...
The Shelby GT500 mustangs are running mid to low 10's after being out for a vert short time...I've seen one break into the 9 second quartermile. It does it by using a supercharger on a dual overhead cam 5.4 liter engine, and some simple aftermarket upgrades...and I'm impressed. Who thought, back in 1994, when modular engines first came out in the Ford line, and everyday joe was struggling to see that 300hp mark, that we would be seeing mustangs that could pound out 800hp like it was a brisk set of jumping-jacks 10 years later?
To me, the '03-'04 Cobras have already proven this point. I love cars where you can turn a screw and make 200 more hp.
Originally Posted by AtomHeart
There is nothing wrong with forced aspiration...its not cheating...its only the next step in the evolution of technology, and I'm sure, once forced aspiration is considered commonplace, whatever comes next will be considered cheating too..."Electric motors have all their torque available at all RPM...that's cheating. I'm not impressed. Anyone can run a 7 second quartermile with an electric motor...but lets see you do that with a steam driven engine!"
I wholeheartedly agree... I see nothing wrong with F/I or nitrous, or any tricks you can pull out of your sleeve, whether that's ultra-sticky tire compounds or running meth. I honestly cannot wait for electric sports cars to become mainstream, because that massive torque is better used to burn rubber than save the environment.