|
Cream_Filling posted:I love how this dumb metric has been around for so long: Why is specific output a useless metric?
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
drgitlin posted:Why is specific output a useless metric? Because it has nothing to do directly with anything a driver cares about unless you live in a country where the taxation system arbitrarily chose engine displacement to calculate vehicle taxes. Engine displacement doesn't accurately predict power to weight, fuel efficiency, cost, physical size, or anything else you could care about, especially when forced induction gets involved or when you're comparing finished engines and can directly measure all of that stuff. It doesn't even directly relate to the size of the number badge on the back of the car anymore. Even back then, the writers knew that it's the last fall-back argument you make when your preferred engine is completely outperformed on every normal metric like total output and power/weight. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:Why is specific output a useless metric? Let's turn the question around: how ISN'T it useless? What is the actual use? The LT1 engine is light, compact and delivers very good fuel efficiency for its high power output. Why should I care what its internal displacement is? e: The 6.2L LT1 engine in the C7 weighs 465 pounds. The 4.0L S65 in the BMW M3 weighs 445 pounds. The latter has 414 HP and gets 20 MPG on the highway, while the former has >450 HP and gets 30 MPG on the highway. And don't be stunned if the LT1 can go twice as long between services as the S65. I mean, I'm a big BMW whore (it's what I drive IRL), but come the gently caress on, "European sophistication" can suck all the dicks on this one. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:e: The 6.2L LT1 engine in the C7 weighs 465 pounds. The 4.0L S65 in the BMW M3 weighs 445 pounds. The latter has 414 HP and gets 20 MPG on the highway, while the former has >450 HP and gets 30 MPG on the highway. And don't be stunned if the LT1 can go twice as long between services as the S65. The amount of power generated for the size of the actual engine is an interesting point, but things like MPG and bhp/ton are just as much a function of gearing and drivetrains and aerodynamics and chassis construction and tyre compound as they are the engine, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
This may not be the best place to ask this question so feel free to bounce me the hell out of here... I've been giving some serious thought towards a new (2013) WRX, but some cursory research leads me to believe that the 2014 will be a significant re-design (new engine, better fuel economy, new body?, etc.) but my google-fu is weak and I can't seem to get any real information on when the 2014 cars will be out. Considering it's getting close to the end of the model year I feel like it would be a bad call to just go ahead and buy the 2013 with the 2014 holding the potential for some nice updates. Can anyone point me in the right direction for this info or is there some quirk specific to Subaru as to when they launch new model years (ie. staggered)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:The amount of power generated for the size of the actual engine is an interesting point, but things like MPG and bhp/ton are just as much a function of gearing and drivetrains and aerodynamics and chassis construction and tyre compound as they are the engine, no? Gearing or chassis construction wouldn't significantly affect the weight of the actual engine, though, which was the comparison he made. And while overall output and various characteristics of how power is delivered can change based on car-specific things like intake/exhaust and accessory design due to packaging, specific output does nothing to clarify this at all. It is a meaningless metric for any purpose including trying to compare engines independent of the cars they're designed for. Especially since common things like forced induction completely throws off the measurement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Right, but you'd never compare specific outputs between forced induction and naturally aspirated engines anyway, unless you were being horribly disingenuous. Anyway, enough of my derail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Because it has nothing to do directly with anything a driver cares about unless you live in a country where the taxation system arbitrarily chose engine displacement to calculate vehicle taxes. Engine displacement doesn't accurately predict power to weight, fuel efficiency, cost, physical size, or anything else you could care about, especially when forced induction gets involved or when you're comparing finished engines and can directly measure all of that stuff. It doesn't even directly relate to the size of the number badge on the back of the car anymore. On the subject of questionign performance metrics, I also find in-gear acceleration numbers a lot more useful than standing-start ones. I don't really do many 0-60 sprints, but I do do a lot of womping on the pedal out of a 30 limit and so on. I'd rather have a car that's got sledgehammer performance from 30/40 up to 70/80 than something that leaves the line like a scalded cat and promptly runs out of puff before you've hit the national limit. Though I do quite like some of the old adverts where they note a zero to fifty time and hope no-one twigs. InitialDave fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:The amount of power generated for the size of the actual engine is an interesting point, but things like MPG and bhp/ton are just as much a function of gearing and drivetrains and aerodynamics and chassis construction and tyre compound as they are the engine, no? What you're missing is that the pushrod V8's positive characteristics come into play with a lot of that. The LT1 isn't a shitbox engine saved by other characteristics of the car, its design ALLOWS some of those positive characteristics. Because it produces such a comically high amount of torque, you can deactivate half the cylinders in economy mode and still have enough torque to basically idle at highway speeds with an insanely tall 7th gear without stalling and get 30 MPG. A BMW M3 CAN'T use the same techniques to get high MPG that the C7 does because it doesn't have enough low RPM torque, because it's NOT a high-displacement pushrod V8. Because it's so compact compared to a DOHC engine of comparable power output, it's easier to package it lower in the car for better weight distribution, and potentially even better aerodynamics since you can make the hood lower without big DOHC cylinder heads in the way. It's the same way with the LOL LEAF SPRINGS - they're lightweight, lower the center of gravity and act as "supplementary" anti-roll bars, letting you use smaller ARBs and save even more weight. There are tradeoffs pro and con with any of these things, but Chevrolet's Corvette engineers aren't just dumb rednecks, they have positive reasons for their design decisions, especially with the C7. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Watch Bob Lutz stick it in a fisker karma and get better gas mileage than the 4 cylinder hybrid piece of poo poo fisker shat out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Watch Bob Lutz stick it in a fisker karma and get better gas mileage than the 4 cylinder hybrid piece of poo poo fisker shat out. Isn't a huge amount of that thing's weight batteries? The thing weighs 5,300 lbs, and per the EPA has a 32 mile range on all-electric and gets 20 MPG in gas-only mode - almost makes you think it's a pretentious shitpile. That doesn't even count the recalls, fires, and how the car Consumer Reports bought died before they could even test it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Isn't a huge amount of that thing's weight batteries? The thing weighs 5,300 lbs, and per the EPA has a 32 mile range on all-electric and gets 20 MPG in gas-only mode - almost makes you think it's a pretentious shitpile. That doesn't even count the recalls, fires, and how the car Consumer Reports bought died before they could even test it. Look at it this way: in hybrid mode, it gets worse fuel economy than the 6 liter V8 chevy tahoe hybrid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
SpaceBanditos posted:Can anyone point me in the right direction for this info or is there some quirk specific to Subaru as to when they launch new model years (ie. staggered)? I think the new WRX is all still speculation at this point. I've seen videos of the rumored 2014 WRX, AFAIK, nobody but Subaru has any concrete information regarding engine/transmission specifications. My personal opinion is that the old WRX still dominates its class. The EJ25 is a hell of a motor, it is strong and has one of the best aftermarkets of any new import you can buy. The chassis never was nimble, but the drive-train puts power down so well that the car is still faster than the Focus ST on a track, though, not by much. If you're in the market for a serious sports sedan, you can't go wrong with the WRX. If you feel that the new model is quantitatively better when it is release, the resale value is such that you shouldn't take a big hit. Subaru's tendency towards polarized new models should keep the resale value of your old model solid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Speaking of Subaru, they've just introduced their own version of adaptive cruise control, one which uses a stereoscopic camera system instead of radar. The big advantage there is that there's no minimum speed - in a traffic jam, the system will automatically slow you down to a stop, then move you forward with the car in front of you. That and it also does cross-traffic alerts. Plus they've bumped up the gas mileage on the 2014 Forester, and given it a CVT.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:What you're missing is that the pushrod V8's positive characteristics come into play with a lot of that. The LT1 isn't a shitbox engine saved by other characteristics of the car, its design ALLOWS some of those positive characteristics. I'm trying hard not to reply to this in a way that comes off as rude, but thanks, I do actually understand all of that already. But when speaking to GM's engine designers, they were pretty up front about not wanting to have go down a whole new road of smaller displacement DOHC turbo DI engines and so developed things like cylinder deactivation instead. And it doesn't look like anyone else is designing new large-capacity pushrod V8s right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
The new wrx concept looks pretty good. I'm just wondering the hatch version looks like. I was going to buy the new Mazda 3 but I think I'll wait a little longer. http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/subaru-reveals-wrx-concept-2013-07-26 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
lostleaf posted:The new wrx concept looks pretty good. I'm just wondering the hatch version looks like. I was going to buy the new Mazda 3 but I think I'll wait a little longer. Not so fast.   edit: as for the hatch, take this:   and throw it in the trash, because it's gonna look like this with a hood scoop and fender flares. 
Powershift fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
All of the WRX/STI spyshots have been clearly different cars. That shot's a few months old... it's all pretty weird. Subaru, as the Lego company, sure seems to like playing that up to their advantage and having their engineers jam poo poo into whatever shell is lying around then slop camo on it. This week's rumour (from a Japanese car mag) is that the STI is going to be a 5-door, at least in Japan:  I hope actual solid news comes out soon. Keep the faith! And hope it's still an ugly car so the sideways hat crowd goes back to driving some other rear end in a top hat car. Seat Safety Switch fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Powershift, you are treading on my dreams
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Powershift, you are treading on my dreams Hey now, buck up, partner. Look at the bright side. Subaru has a large stable of desirable, profitable vehicles that can fund the development of neat things like the WRX and STI, so ugly as they may be, there is no doubt they will be really, really good. Mitsubishi on the other hand.... look, it's the 2014 mitsubishi mirage, also known as the 2003 kia rio.  With amazing features like a multi-cylinder engine producing a tire shredding 74hp/74ft/lbs and a price tag around $13,000, it's sure to be a hit and save mitsubishi. edit: quote:The Mirage was met with negative reviews in Europe and Australia. Matt Jones of Top Gear magazine rated the car 2 out of 10, commenting that "it's truly, profoundly terrible. The steering is slow and vague. It rolls extensively. Grip levels are non-existent. Every lump and ruffle in the road is transmitted directly to your backside. It's inexcusably noisy. Hell, there's so much slack in the steering that you can't tell which way the wheels are pointing..." 2014, mitsubishi. edit 2: stock tires are 165/65r14 and the spare tire is still a "space saver". The stock tires are smaller than the space saver spare for a honda civic, the space saver spare must be a lawnmower wheel. Powershift fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
I don't think its any worse than any other car at that segment of the market - a Micra or Sirion isn't exactly exciting either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
dissss posted:I don't think its any worse than any other car at that segment of the market - a Micra or Sirion isn't exactly exciting either. neither of those are sold in north america. Mitsubishi is bringing this thing in at nearly the price of a fiesta.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Powershift posted:neither of those are sold in north america. Mitsubishi is bringing this thing in at nearly the price of a fiesta. The Spark is though right? That'd be its direct competitor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
dissss posted:The Spark is though right? That'd be its direct competitor. In the overpriced-sardine-can category the Spark is supposed to be a pretty good car, certainly far superior to the Mirage. All the Daewoo loaners are pretty good for their class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:I'm trying hard not to reply to this in a way that comes off as rude, but thanks, I do actually understand all of that already. But when speaking to GM's engine designers, they were pretty up front about not wanting to have go down a whole new road of smaller displacement DOHC turbo DI engines and so developed things like cylinder deactivation instead. And it doesn't look like anyone else is designing new large-capacity pushrod V8s right now. Actually for the Corvette GM looked at smaller displacement turbo engines and ended up with worse mileage because they couldn't match the torque of the V8 even when it's running on half the cylinders and the smaller engines would strain more to keep up. I'm sure you can get a better technical explanation from someone here. Furthermore, they have small displacement turbo engines for their smaller cars so I'm not sure what you're talking about nor am I sure what point you're trying to make. The derail was started by asking why power vs. displacement is a useless metric. It's very simple: all that matters is results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Powershift posted:look, it's the 2014 mitsubishi mirage, also known as the 2003 kia rio. Lordy, what's the gas mileage on it? That might be the only metric where it's better than the 1997s I used to drive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Lordy, what's the gas mileage on it? That might be the only metric where it's better than the 1997s I used to drive. mitsubishi claims 37 city/44 highway for the CVT model which is going to be more expensive which coincidentally is the exact same as the 1997 geo metro. The 1 liter ecoboost fiesta with double the torque and nearly double the horsepower is expected to end up at 34 city/43 highway. In the uk, the 124hp ecoboost fiesta is rated at 53.3 ukmpg urban, 76.3 ukmpg extra-urban, the 74hp mirage is rated 58.9/76.3 with a stick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Hey now, buck up, partner. Look at the bright side. Subaru has a large stable of desirable, profitable vehicles that can fund the development of neat things like the WRX and STI, so ugly as they may be, there is no doubt they will be really, really good. Holy poo poo, someone managed to make a subcompact less desirable than the current Smart Fortwo. Kind of impressive in an odd way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
That's actually its best angle, too. It looks like a half baked iMIEV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Holy poo poo, someone managed to make a subcompact less desirable than the current Smart Fortwo. Kind of impressive in an odd way. Since it's got a CVT, it might be less frightening than the Fortwo, and it does seat four. The Fortwo's automatic takes over a second to shift from first to second, it's "I've only been driving stick for two hours" slow at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
How much should it cost in the US? It's the same price here in Australia with options up to $16k, which makes it about the same price as a base model, but much better looking Suzuki Swift, and about $1k more than a Ford Fiesta. But I guess not every manufacturer fan borrow it's looks from Aston Martin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:In the overpriced-sardine-can category the Spark is supposed to be a pretty good car, certainly far superior to the Mirage. All the Daewoo loaners are pretty good for their class. I dunno, having driven both I think they're equally awful. Really though they both fulfill their market segment - an economical car with a good safety rating car an old person might buy to toodle down to the shops in - I doubt anything else comes into it. Measly Twerp posted:How much should it cost in the US? It's the same price here in Australia with options up to $16k, which makes it about the same price as a base model, but much better looking Suzuki Swift, and about $1k more than a Ford Fiesta. But I guess not every manufacturer fan borrow it's looks from Aston Martin. The very small car class is always dubious value compared to something a size up unless you really do want the smaller size - its not like a Splash is any cheaper than a Swift either
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Actually for the Corvette GM looked at smaller displacement turbo engines and ended up with worse mileage because they couldn't match the torque of the V8 even when it's running on half the cylinders and the smaller engines would strain more to keep up. I'm sure you can get a better technical explanation from someone here. Furthermore, they have small displacement turbo engines for their smaller cars so I'm not sure what you're talking about nor am I sure what point you're trying to make. I'm not even sure what he's trying to say anymore. It's not like he's been able to say a single thing in favor of his original argument, and he hasn't made a new one either?  Chevy sticking with pushrod engines for the Corvette is kind of like Porsche sticking with the rear-engine layout for the 911. You can say it's "wrong" all you want, but the results speak for themselves. Nobody drives a theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Frankly, unless it is forbidden/made unattractive by laws or rules, if some 400-500 hp is needed in a car it is very difficult to come up with rational argument not to use a LS series GM V8.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
DoLittle posted:Frankly, unless it is forbidden/made unattractive by laws or rules, if some 400-500 hp is needed in a car it is very difficult to come up with rational argument not to use a LS series GM V8. It's LT1 now, 5th generation engine family that has all the bells and whistles. I can't imagine which laws or rules that would outlaw the GM small-block V8. It's quite fuel-efficient for the amount of power it makes, particularly with cylinder deactivation, direct injection and the massive torque that lets you force a 1st-4th shift when you're just cruising along. It's compact, not all that heavy and spare/go-fast parts and common as dirt everywhere a V8-powered GM vehicle is sold. Doesn't really matter that it's only 2 valves per cylinder, not all engines are supposed to be high-revving screamers. I should know, I just bought a 660cc single-cylinder motorcycle. Low-down grunt is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Doesn't really matter that it's only 2 valves per cylinder, not all engines are supposed to be high-revving screamers. Of course there's the LS7 with all the down low grunt you could want and a 7000RPM redline for rev-heads like me.  The GM V8s really are great motors.Edit: Wikipedia says 7100 redline and "capable" of 8 grand but it doesn't breathe well enough to make power that high. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jul 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I can't imagine which laws or rules that would outlaw the GM small-block V8. It's quite fuel-efficient for the amount of power it makes, particularly with cylinder deactivation, direct injection and the massive torque that lets you force a 1st-4th shift when you're just cruising along. It's compact, not all that heavy and spare/go-fast parts and common as dirt everywhere a V8-powered GM vehicle is sold. There a lot of rules (racing) and laws (road traffic) that forbid for example large increases in displacement. Say if you want to put a LS7 in a RX7. Or in racing you may end up with a class or minimum weight that makes the option unattractive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
DoLittle posted:There a lot of rules (racing) and laws (road traffic) that forbid for example large increases in displacement. Say if you want to put a LS7 in a RX7. Or in racing you may end up with a class or minimum weight that makes the option unattractive. Oh right, I didn't think along the lines of racing regulations, good point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Of course there's the LS7 with all the down low grunt you could want and a 7000RPM redline for rev-heads like me. LS7 is the best Chevy V8 because of all the Le Mans wins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
drgitlin posted:LS7 is the best Chevy V8 because of all the Le Mans wins. The LS7 drops valves at random. It's not the best LS series engine. The LS7.R made by Katech however is a great engine as evidenced by its le mans wins and race reliability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 20:50
|
|
