International Engine of the Year 2005 - Page 4

Lawsy · 22-07-2005, 01:33 AM

At last, you came to your senses!
HP/L has a similar relationship to BMEP. Do a bit of number crunching and you'll see why. I was simply cheating a little to avoid confusion (and yes, hoping you woudn't notice :P, well done...).

PS, I've lurked FF for years. Just letting you know...

Steffo · 22-07-2005, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawsy

At last, you came to your senses!
HP/L has a similar relationship to BMEP. Do a bit of number crunching and you'll see why. I was simply cheating a little to avoid confusion (and yes, hoping you woudn't notice :P, well done...).

PS, I've lurked FF for years. Just letting you know...

You should post more often, good convo :P

Lawsy · 22-07-2005, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I'm intriguied as to where you get the idea that I ever thought I could change the laws of physics? *Sigh* right back at you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

in a properly setup turbocharged application, there will be no power loss

You just did it again.

Power = energy. Energy must be spent to turn the turbine. It isn't free, there is ALWAYS a loss...

Get a tank of compressed air large enough to supply 6psi to an XR6T engine running NA headers (to an NA exhaust, no turbine involved, just free boost from the tank) for an entire dyno run and see if it produces more power or not... You'll find that its something like 20kw or so. Its allot harder to compress air than you think... Pressure isn't everything, volume is. Big difference.

[EDIT] In reply to the post following (i don't want to post again, I'll just edit this one).
The people who provide these calculators are taking a different angle. Clearly what they are saying is true, otherwise the gains made wouldn't be worth the cost (loss).
My above example is a different angle, a basic energy cost example. If you didn't have to compress the air; if you could get boost for free, you would make massive numbers. Infact, infinitely large numbers as this is a form of perpetual motion, free energy.
I know this isn't what you are thinking, but I'm taking it to this extreme to clearly get the point accross. That is, energy must come from somewhere...
Also, the power stroke cylinder pressure in a performance engine is over 100psi.... (up to and over 1000 psi infact). Adding another 6psi to the next cylinders intake stroke isn't going to make all that much of a difference in combatting the losses in exhaust efficiency when using a turbo.

Steffo · 22-07-2005, 01:47 AM

http://www.turbocalculator.com/turbo...ercharger.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbocalculator.com

Turbos are often described as exhaust restrictions, though. The argument is that the increased exhaust backpressure presented by the turbo also robs power from the crankshaft (since it is now harder to push the piston up to expell the exhaust gases. This argument, however, is overstated. Because the intake air is also under pressure (typically greater pressure until the maximum horsepower engine speed), it pushes the piston down. For the majority of the power band, these two forces cancel on another out.

BA GT-HO · 23-07-2005, 11:47 AM

And what your arguing about is going to drastically effect your lives in what way?

chief · 24-07-2005, 08:41 PM

What about the Bugatti Veyron engine a W16.

* The engine has four valves per cylinder, for a total of 64 valves.
* It has a dry sump lubrication system borrowed from Formula 1 race cars, along with an intricate internal oil path to ensure proper lubrication and cooling within the 16 cylinders.
* It has electronically controlled, continuously variable cam timing to create optimal performance at different engine rpm settings.
* It has a massive radiator to deal with all of the waste heat that burning 1.33 gallons of gasoline per minute can generate.

Everything about the engine is superlative.

And it is remarkably compact. It measures just 710 mm (27 inches) long, 889 mm (35 inches) wide and 730 mm (28.7 inches) high. This is the beauty of Bugatti's W-16 approach -- the engineers managed to fit 1,000 hp into a reasonably sized package.

Check out these sites:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/bugatti1.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/02/cx_mf_0902vow.html

The MaDDeSTMaN · 24-07-2005, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chief

What about the Bugatti Veyron engine a W16.

* The engine has four valves per cylinder, for a total of 64 valves.
* It has a dry sump lubrication system borrowed from Formula 1 race cars, along with an intricate internal oil path to ensure proper lubrication and cooling within the 16 cylinders.
* It has electronically controlled, continuously variable cam timing to create optimal performance at different engine rpm settings.
* It has a massive radiator to deal with all of the waste heat that burning 1.33 gallons of gasoline per minute can generate.

Everything about the engine is superlative.

And it is remarkably compact. It measures just 710 mm (27 inches) long, 889 mm (35 inches) wide and 730 mm (28.7 inches) high. This is the beauty of Bugatti's W-16 approach -- the engineers managed to fit 1,000 hp into a reasonably sized package.

Check out these sites:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/bugatti1.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/02/cx_mf_0902vow.html

Wow! That thing is AWESOME!

Kirium · 26-07-2005, 01:58 AM

http://rapidshare.de/files/3336628/TG_M5E60.wmv.html - Top Gear reviews the E60 M5

Steffo, I was wondering why a good road test with an AMG and M5 hasn't really happened yet.. I've concluded that it's really due to 2 reasons... That the AMG's are doughy, lardy, over-powered and under engineered average drivers cars... And that M5's aren't really available because they're too busy being compared with precise, purpose-built sportscars like the Porsche 911 Carrera S and Ferrari F430... And beating them...
You're saying that almost every car reviewer, journalist and even Mercedes fans are wrong and you're the only one that's right??? I don't think so son...

Velociraptor · 26-07-2005, 06:10 PM

Steffo , did you miss out on breast feeding?

Steffo · 26-07-2005, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirium

http://rapidshare.de/files/3336628/TG_M5E60.wmv.html - Top Gear reviews the E60 M5

Steffo, I was wondering why a good road test with an AMG and M5 hasn't really happened yet.. I've concluded that it's really due to 2 reasons... That the AMG's are doughy, lardy, over-powered and under engineered average drivers cars... And that M5's aren't really available because they're too busy being compared with precise, purpose-built sportscars like the Porsche 911 Carrera S and Ferrari F430... And beating them...
You're saying that almost every car reviewer, journalist and even Mercedes fans are wrong and you're the only one that's right??? I don't think so son...

You're a bit late to the bat.. but have you been driving in an E55 AMG? I have. Comparing the M5 to a purpose built sports car is idiocy.. they're two totally different vehicles. There will be an E55 AMG vs M5 vs RS6 etc etc review, don't you worry about that. Calling an E55 a doughy, lardy, over powered, under engineered average driver's car would be such an uninformed statement. All you need to do is drive one and see the error of your ways.

MustangNicko · 27-07-2005, 01:06 AM

So you have driven one and pushed its limits? Or just sat in the baby chair on the back seat?

Steffo · 27-07-2005, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MustangNicko

So you have driven one and pushed its limits? Or just sat in the baby chair on the back seat?

Can't exactly push a car's limits on a public road...

However.. you don't need to do to much to realise how awesome the car is.. just pull out to overtake someone and you'll get the picture.

RED_EL_XR8 · 27-07-2005, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Can't exactly push a car's limits on a public road....

How else would one get an econovan near 100Kph??? :nutsycuck

smoo · 27-07-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Can't exactly push a car's limits on a public road...

However.. you don't need to do to much to realise how awesome the car is.. just pull out to overtake someone and you'll get the picture.

My 560 Benz is the same (not as fast), but it handles and steers like complete sh1t. I would put my money down thats the same story with the E55, when compared with an M5 anyway. Hell, an E28 M5 could probably run rings round the latest E55 on a track or twisty road.

Steffo · 27-07-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoo

My 560 Benz is the same (not as fast), but it handles and steers like complete sh1t. I would put my money down thats the same story with the E55, when compared with an M5 anyway. Hell, an E28 M5 could probably run rings round the latest E55 on a track or twisty road.

E55 is a bit different to a bigger, heavier S-Class. It corners quite admirabley for a 1950kg luxury sedan. I'm pretty certain it would spank an E39 M5 around a track, let alone an E28. The E60.. well.. not so sure there.

smoo · 27-07-2005, 02:20 PM

The 560 only weighs 1800kgs, heavy for the late '80s tho. Still, the awesome straight line performance of that car doesn't give one indication that it will handle good, and it doesn't, so its defiantley not a good all round car, unlike an M5, or any 5 series over 3.0L.

I think it was PCOTY 03 where the 235kw CV8 lapped winton quicker than the E55. Not that lap times tell all, what I meant with the E28 was that it would be a drivers choice rather than the E55. The 'Ultimate Driving Machine' motto wasn't pulled outa someones **** for no reason at all, or because of one specific model.

Steffo · 27-07-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoo

The 560 only weighs 1800kgs, heavy for the late '90s tho. Still, the awesome straight line performance of that car doesn't give one indication that it will handle good, and its defiantley not a good all round car, unlike an M5, or any 5 series over 3.0L.

I think it was PCOTY 03 where the 235kw CV8 lapped winton quicker than the E55. Not that lap times tell all, what I meant with the E28 was that it would be a drivers choice rather than the E55. The 'Ultimate Driving Machine' motto wasn't pulled outa someones **** for no reason at all, or because of one specific model.

Wasn't it that same PCOTY that the E55 came fourth or something? PCOTY is supposed to reward based on the overall package.. fourth isn't too bad.

NIGHTHAWK · 27-07-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chucky

Must admit... I've seen some drivel in my time but this thread just about takes the cake!

Takes the cake and just cracks me up.How can you guys go on and on.

NIGHTHAWK · 27-07-2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

How else would one get an econovan near 100Kph??? :nutsycuck

My toyota lite ace work van can nearly do 100kph,and that is a work of art.....

Steffo · 27-07-2005, 04:44 PM

Did anyone watch that Top Gear video? The M5 lapped their track in 1:26.2, the CLS55 AMG did 1:26.9. They're not THAT far apart.. would come down to driver.

What I want to see if the M5's V10 in the M3.. now that would move...

Sox · 27-07-2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Wasn't it that same PCOTY that the E55 came fourth or something? PCOTY is supposed to reward based on the overall package.. fourth isn't too bad.

And how many times has BMW actually won PCOTY....

Quote:

Did anyone watch that Top Gear video? The M5 lapped their track in 1:26.2, the CLS55 AMG did 1:26.9. They're not THAT far apart.. would come down to driver.

0.7 second per lap is 7 seconds in a 10 lap race, that's a country mile.

Rik.

Steffo · 27-07-2005, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sox

And how many times has BMW actually won PCOTY....

With the M5.. never. With the M3, twice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sox

0.7 second per lap is 7 seconds in a 10 lap race, that's a country mile.

Assuming both drivers can drive it as well as 'The Stig' (or whatever it is) from Top Gear drove it... I still think it would come down to driver in most scenarios not involving pro-race drivers.

smoo · 27-07-2005, 05:55 PM

From what I've seen on Top Gear, I wouldn't take their times seriously, especially when some are done when its ****ing down and he can't keep the **** straight. Actually he gets it loose on every test, wet or dry.

Like I said lap times don't tell all. What do yoiu think would be a better, more rewarding drive between an MX5 or Elise v a Viper or CL65 etc. Sure the last two will be faster but I'd bet they're dogs in comparison.

Sox · 27-07-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

With the M5.. never. With the M3, twice.

And Mercedes?

Quote:

Assuming both drivers can drive it as well as 'The Stig' (or whatever it is) from Top Gear drove it... I still think it would come down to driver in most scenarios not involving pro-race drivers.

It doesn't matter what you think, under equal conditions, the BMW is quicker.

Rick.