On 03/21/2013 05:26 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production
vehicles at
120. non-turbo.
fact check required
No shit!
The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production
vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.
Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are
the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.
you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".
I didn't forget anything.
oh, but you did!
I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.
prelude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude
Type S
One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with
the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.
Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.
so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the
217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too
spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]
Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you
get
that one.
i didn't "get" anything - you simply shot your mouth off without any
attempt at basic fact checking. as per usual.