C7 or M4

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

I get what you're saying, but hp/L is still the indicator of an engines ability to create energy and still stay together. If they were at or above the 100hp per liter I would be happy. They also can be holding back due to the heavy aftermarket for these engines that will push them well over the 100hp/L mark.

I disagree that car companies are holding back on engine outputs in order to accommodate aftermarket hobbyists. The issue is simple for the car dealer: if you break your engine due to mods, you void your warranty. If they hold back at all, it is simply to have a built in margin of safety for the engine to run with.

And there is are risks and limitations associated with how much HP/liter you can attain. Yes you can mod a 2.0L Supra (or whatever displacement it is), upgrade the turbos and get insane amounts of HP, but you are also greatly increasing your risk of catastrophic engine failure and greatly decrease the life expectancy/reliability of your car.

Those limits/risks still apply on the factory and R&D floor for compaines like BMW. That's why BMW only modded the N54 engine in the 1m and 335is to get around 330HP and 370lb-ft. The aftermarket can get you much higher than that, but you also assume more risk.

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

I'm also well aware of the difference of old and current tech. My comment is regarding current tech and the buyers of said cars still arguing over wagon axles vs IRS. The buyers are what have held the big three back, but they are just as at fault. No argument that they have made huge strides to add current tech, but the time it has taken is why I moved to across the pond.

Like I said before, I can understand and respect your preference for certain cars over others. But I think you need to differentiate between old technology and simply choosing to pursue another approach to car performance.

Corvette still uses a large displacement Naturally aspirated, push-rod engine. Whereas BMW uses a small displacement turbo-engine. Both car makers produce engine with similar capabilities...they just go about it in different manners.

Yes, there is a bit more complexity to BMW's and other Euro DOHC engines than there is to Corvette's OHV push-rods....but at the end of the day, the corvettes still compete with, if not out-right beat, their european competitors on the track. Corvette engines have all of the features and amenities of its euro counterparts (fuel-saving measures, direct injection, rev-matching, different performance modes, ect.) The corvette uses a different engine type for reasons of cost, reliability, size/dimensions (all the things that make a corvette a corvette).

Neither engine type is necessarily better..just different approaches and different end goals in mind.

The same applies for other US cars that are starting to rival Euro and Japanese competitors in both refinement and technology. The wagon axle on the US muscle cars of yesterday, is just one example of US parochialism in car making...and it was mostly done to save on cost for the muscle car...which is what a muscle car is all about. There are many more examples of the US cars providing comparable refinement and performance to the Euro and Japanese cars for much less money.

[CirrusSR22]

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

I get what you're saying, but hp/L is still the indicator of an engines ability to create energy and still stay together. If they were at or above the 100hp per liter I would be happy. They also can be holding back due to the heavy aftermarket for these engines that will push them well over the 100hp/L mark.

It's because of COST not "lazy American engineering". There's a reason they can sell a 460HP, 3,300 lbs. sports car with an all aluminum frame, with carbon fiber parts, active LSD, etc. for under $60,000. It must be reasonably affordable - that's the whole point of a Corvette or any American Muscle car. That same car built by a European manufacturer would be well over $100,000.

The Ferrari 458 is something like 125 HP/L, naturally aspirated. That's nice, but at $250,000+, what's the point?

[Killer-Bimmer]

Originally Posted by CirrusSR22

It's because of COST not "lazy American engineering". There's a reason they can sell a 460HP, 3,300 lbs. sports car with an all aluminum frame, with carbon fiber parts, active LSD, etc. for under $60,000. It must be reasonably affordable - that's the whole point of a Corvette or any American Muscle car. That same car built by a European manufacturer would be well over $100,000.

The Ferrari 458 is something like 125 HP/L, naturally aspirated. That's nice, but at $250,000+, what's the point?

Did you just say what's the point of a 458.... :

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

Did you just say what's the point of a 458.... :

While I would probably buy a 458 if I had the money to spare, I certainly understand @CirrusSR22's sentiment. I would feel more than a little foolish when a C7 Z06 passed my 458, and all for $160,000 less than what I paid for my notional ferrari.

That's based on the assumption that the new Z06 will be just as much an improvement as the Stingray was over its predecessor.

[Killer-Bimmer]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

While I would probably buy a 458 if I had the money to spare, I certainly understand @CirrusSR22's sentiment. I would feel more than a little foolish when a C7 Z06 passed my 458, and all for $160,000 less than what I paid for my notional ferrari.

That's based on the assumption that the new Z06 will be just as much an improvement as the Stingray was over its predecessor.

You can play that game all day long. A modded diesel truck will eat the Vett in a straight line and a built Ford Pinto will blow by both at any drag night in America.

People buy cars for different reasons and though I agree with some of what you have stated we can kindle agree to disagree.

If it was all about numbers wouldn't we all have a GT3 or a GT-R. Nah me neither, I would like one of these factory prepped drag cars though:

Cheers!

[CirrusSR22]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

While I would probably buy a 458 if I had the money to spare, I certainly understand @CirrusSR22's sentiment. I would feel more than a little foolish when a C7 Z06 passed my 458, and all for $160,000 less than what I paid for my notional ferrari.

It's not even that. My "no point" comment is that we're talking about $75,000 cars here, why get excited ONLY about naturally aspirated specific output, when most of the top 100 Hp/liter+ cars are $200,000+. 458, LFA, Supperleggera, etc.

It's just the wrong approach to take. People don't buy cars like that. You say, I have $75,000, what's the most powerful/best handling /fastest/best looking/ etc. car I can get for my money?

It's like the 918, P1, LaFerrari group. Spectacular machines, but almost no one will ever own or even drive one, so why get too excited over it?

[Killer-Bimmer]

Originally Posted by CirrusSR22

It's not even that. My "no point" comment is that we're talking about $75,000 cars here, why get excited ONLY about naturally aspirated specific output, when most of the top 100 Hp/liter+ cars are $200,000+. 458, LFA, Supperleggera, etc.

It's just the wrong approach to take. People don't buy cars like that. You say, I have $75,000, what's the best/fastest/best looking/ etc. car I can get for my money?

Ummm there's lots of people that do not like FI. I'm one of them both the S65 and S85 are over 100hp/l the N52 in the correct car is approaching 100hp/l. This has always been the mark for proper engineered engine in the performance world. Don't know of a production American car in NA condition that hits that mark. Plenty of Euro examples.

Pleople buy cars for all different reasons. As an engineer FI is the correct means of producing power as its just an air compressor. How you like your power delivered is where people part and many like NA an many like FI and those that are NA fans will be forced to accept FI or be left behind.

Regarding buying a car, well again that's why we have so many options.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

You can play that game all day long. A modded diesel truck will eat the Vett in a straight line and a built Ford Pinto will blow by both at any drag night in America.

People buy cars for different reasons and though I agree with some of what you have stated we can kindle agree to disagree.

If it was all about numbers wouldn't we all have a GT3 or a GT-R. Nah me neither, I would like one of these factory prepped drag cars though:

I wasn't just referring to straight-line speed with the Z06 vs 458 comment. I'm willing to bet that the new Z06 will be faster around a curvy track.

I agree that we could find a drag-race truck that could outrun a vette or even a ferrari. But if we are talking about all-around performance on the track, on the highway, in the weekend canyon drives, for daily driving, the drag racer doesn't compare. That's exactly why I appreciate the GTR, GT3 and ferrari for the awesome cars that they are, even though there are cheaper cars that can go faster.

My point is the C7 can compete quite well with more expensive cars, such as the 911 carrera (see Chris Harris' video) though it is by no means its equal in all regards. And it competes for nearly half the price of a decently packaged 911. That value proposition inherent to the corvette is what makes it so appealing, and in my mind can make it a mental challenge to buy more expensive competitors.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by CirrusSR22

It's not even that. My "no point" comment is that we're talking about $75,000 cars here, why get excited ONLY about naturally aspirated specific output, when most of the top 100 Hp/liter+ cars are $200,000+. 458, LFA, Supperleggera, etc.

It's just the wrong approach to take. People don't buy cars like that. You say, I have $75,000, what's the most powerful/best handling /fastest/best looking/ etc. car I can get for my money?

It's like the 918, P1, LaFerrari group. Spectacular machines, but almost no one will ever own or even drive one, so why get too excited over it?

Apologies for my misinterpretation.

[CirrusSR22]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Apologies for my misinterpretation.

No worries, I didn't explain it at all. I should have expanded on that.

[Killer-Bimmer]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I wasn't just referring to straight-line speed with the Z06 vs 458 comment. I'm willing to bet that the new Z06 will be faster around a curvy track.

I agree that we could find a drag-race truck that could outrun a vette or even a ferrari. But if we are talking about all-around performance on the track, on the highway, in the weekend canyon drives, for daily driving, the drag racer doesn't compare. That's exactly why I appreciate the GTR, GT3 and ferrari for the awesome cars that they are, even though there are cheaper cars that can go faster.

My point is the C7 can compete quite well with more expensive cars, such as the 911 carrera (see Chris Harris' video) though it is by no means its equal in all regards. And it competes for nearly half the price of a decently packaged 911. That value proposition inherent to the corvette is what makes it so appealing, and in my mind can make it a mental challenge to buy more expensive competitors.

It's all good man, I by no means have stated don't buy a Vett. I just happen to despise them and wouldn't care if they were the fastest thing on earth. To me they are nails on a chalk board or the smell of boiled spinach. Regarding straight line curves or no curves production cars will never touch a properly prepped 20 year old car. You can buy race prepped road legal cars for 20k-40k and be faster than any production car.

We are in agreement that the level of car you can buy today is outstanding; my issue is it shouldn't have taken 20 years for American cars. Now if Ford or Mopar could improve the handling and get rid of all the plastic in the interior I just might buy one in the future.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

Ummm there's lots of people that do not like FI. I'm one of them both the S65 and S85 are over 100hp/l the N52 in the correct car is approaching 100hp/l. This has always been the mark for proper engineered engine in the performance world. Don't know of a production American car in NA condition that hits that mark. Plenty of Euro examples.

Again dude, I think you're focusing on the wrong numbers. The S65 engine may get over 100hp/liter but weighing in at 474lb's it gets about 50HP less (and over 160lb-ft less) than the LT1 despite being 10lb's heavier. It also gets horrendous fuel economy compared to the LT1.

Yet according to your logic, the S65 is somehow the superior engine? Because of displacement?

I could care less what the engine displacement is. Different cars have different approaches to attaining power. All I care about is how much HP the engine can reliably produce and at what $ and mpg.

[Killer-Bimmer]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Again dude, I think you're focusing on the wrong numbers. The S65 engine may get over 100hp/liter but weighing in at 474lb's it gets about 50HP less (and over 160lb-ft less) than the LT1 despite being 10lb's heavier. It also gets horrendous fuel economy compared to the LT1.

Yet according to your logic, the S65 is somehow the superior engine? Because of displacement?

I could care less what the engine displacement is. Different cars have different approaches to attaining power. All I care about is how much HP the engine can reliably produce and at what $ and mpg.

You can keep saying it all you want, but weight of an engine has nothing to do with hp output per displacement. It only come into play for #/hp within the platform.

You can keep ignoring it and discounting it, but every engineer and engine builder is looking at reliable HP per displacement and LT1 is matching HP/L from tech that was doing the same with carburetors and points. Not sure where the pride is in that, but whatever.

[Killer-Bimmer]

Tell me where all the GM winners are:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...ne_of_the_Year

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

You can keep saying it all you want, but weight of an engine has nothing to do with hp output per displacement. It only come into play for #/hp within the platform.

You can keep ignoring it and discounting it, but every engineer and engine builder is looking at reliable HP per displacement and LT1 is matching HP/L from tech that was doing the same with carburetors and points. Not sure where the pride is in that, but whatever.

So even though the LT1 is more powerful, has more torque, is smaller and lighter and more fuel efficient than the S65, the S65 is the more advanced engine?

[Killer-Bimmer]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

So even though the LT1 is more powerful, has more torque, is smaller and lighter and more fuel efficient than the S65, the S65 is the more advanced engine?

Jesus man it's not more powerful per liter. Pleas do the simple math it is HP and torque by pure displacement. Fuel efficiency was not the platforms primary concern at the time. High rpm high output with unmatched throttle response. Remember 8/10 throttle bodies to dump fuel. You'll find no better means of throttle response then from an injected throttle body. The downfall is fuel consumption. A sacrifice I'll take for the dynamics of the engine.

The weight is impressive for the size of the engine, but it's still not producing more per liter.

The fuel efficiency is impressive as well for a 6.2L engine, but I would hope being the fuel deliver tech that is available and it was obviously a target during engineering.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

Tell me where all the GM winners are:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...ne_of_the_Year

Corvette actually has a history of doing quite well, not as of late with the C6 generation, but the C7 may change that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette#Awards

Also, check out Corvette Racing and its win record in the ALMS and the LeMans series among others. For being such a horrible car as you say, it does quite well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette#Racing

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

Jesus man it's not more powerful per liter....

Well, I guess we are at a roadblock, because I'm not too concerned with the HP/liter. I care about HP/liter to the extent that I don't want a car displaces something ridiculous like 15L, but that I aside I am more concerned about the end result than I am about the means of achieving said result.

If a OHV push-rod engine gets higher HP and torque, is more reliable and easier to fix, less expensive and gives me better fuel economy at a comparable weight to that of a DOHC Euro engine, I'll take the push-rod...displacement be damned.

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

The fuel efficiency is impressive as well for a 6.2L engine, but I would hope being the fuel deliver tech that is available and it was obviously a target during engineering.

Fuel economy was a target for the high-tech, more expensive S55 as well, and yet the LT1's fuel economy is comparable despite having a much higher displacement.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

The fuel efficiency is impressive as well for a 6.2L engine, but I would hope being the fuel deliver tech that is available and it was obviously a target during engineering.

Also, if you can concede that the LT1's fuel efficiency is impressive to begin with, why the heck do you care about its 6.2L displacement? What is the reasoning for your focus on HP/liter, when a 6.2L LT1 can get better mpg than the 4.0 S65 and comparable mpg to the even smaller displacement 3.0 S55?

Why fuss over displacement if in the end, two different engines give you nearly the same mpg results?

[Killer-Bimmer]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Also, if you can concede that the LT1's fuel efficiency is impressive to begin with, why the heck do you care about its 6.2L displacement? What is the reasoning for your focus on HP/liter, when a 6.2L LT1 can get better mpg than the 4.0 S65 and comparable mpg to the even smaller displacement 3.0 S55?

Why fuss over displacement if in the end, two different engines give you nearly the same mpg results?

All it is is a measurement of engineering ability nothing more. Choose what you want, but for me I've done the 7.2l 600hp game. Fun, but technically boring, I prefer pushing the limits and up to date engineering. As I said before different cars for different strokes.

Getting back to the video is what proves the difference in design. 3.0liters doing the same as what 6.2l is doing. Problem is it's not apples to apples i.e. FI vs NA.

When did the M3/M4 become a sports car?

[CirrusSR22]

Originally Posted by Killer-Bimmer

When did the M3/M4 become a sports car?

Well it is an "M" car; M is for Motorsport. And every picture of the M3 and M4 on the BMWUSA website is at a racetrack. And the video on the website starts out saying that "it's not just a race car..."

BMW sure thinks it's a sports car.

[Killer-Bimmer]

Originally Posted by CirrusSR22

Well it is an "M" car; M is for Motorsport. And every picture of the M3 and M4 on the BMWUSA website is at a racetrack. And the video on the website starts out saying that "it's not just a race car..."

BMW sure thinks it's a sports car.

Oh I agree with that, just haven't read or heard them referred to as such in the auto press. Sport sedan yes, sports car, no.

[M3guy3]

there are people who love these chevy small blocks because they are proven, powerful, easy to mod etc.... I wouldn't call them low tech, just a different style of motor. and i know for dam sure i would rather have a LT1 over a S55 anyday.