I am not sure if I agree or disagree any argument allsop has. But I just love the mental landscape here. There simply is no better way to discuss about critical life supporting issues like: is a twin turbo better than single bigger turbo, or should we have 3 turbos or 4 or .... The fact remains that there is no substitute for cubic inches, period. Ps. anyone who quotes and questions any of the "final truths" I may posted here or anywhere on Earth, is eighter an idiot or easily fooled person, and deserves all the ammo allsop is willing to waste on him I will even provide crossfire. Pps. I dont concider zembla as an idiot, but as a reasonable person.
Crossfire is cool, Like the Chrysler Crossfire? 150mph from the factory! But to much for what you get....Or maybe the crossfire where you are yelling at someone in your home and your wife is like "how could you do this!?" then you look at her and are like "You arnt part of this!". Hahahah. People either love me, or they hate me......or they think im alright....Lets get a picture of that crossfire in here!
Hey Allsop, for all I know you got all your knowledge through website X, and from local garagist Y. I don't give a fuck, because you might understand how an engine works, but clearly (juding by how you post) you're absolutely clueless when it comes to the physics/thermodynamics/chemistry involved with engines. Chemically speaking a turbo will do much more to aid your combustion efficiency than increasing the displacement. And because you're oh so fond of semi-arguments, here's a quickie, the record for 0-60mph time for road legal cars isssss: Dauer 962 LeMans, 2.6s to 60mph. This car has a 3L flat six, of which you probably never heard. Guess what, it's got twin turbo's. <Z>
I belive I said that a turbo would help more with effiecency, but IF YOU OPENED YOUR SCORNED DEAF EARS youd hear my saying that effieciency is nice, but you will never have perfect conditions in a combustion engine, its impossible. So instead of making bullshit arguements out of nowhere, explain to me, please, before you let one more idiotic word roll out of your crude and hurt soul......Why, for the love of god why, is the fastest 1/4 mile times for 4 cylinder powered vehicles still in the 8's "maybe 6's but i doubt it" while cars with rat race 680 and bigger cubic inch engines are scoreing sub 5's? BECAUSE THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. No turbo will do what stroking your engine another decimal of an inch will do, or boring the cylinders a little bigger, or even adding a few more cylinders! Add a turbo, hell even your bi-sexual turbo to a 4 cyl honda, it makes "Im being generious" 300hp. But a 383 v8 crate motor will make over 400 horses as is with bad part choices and POOR effiecency.....Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. please, dazle me with some more of your ignorance....because no matter how long you look, or how many books you read, displacement of the engine is the easiest way to get more power and torque and on top of it all, its more reliable than a turbo.... Maybe you like your bi-turbo RS, but we dont have to, so please go cry elsewhere as we were having a nice conversation without your bull. But since youve blessed us all with your 2 cents, feel free to be quiet, because your wrong. I never argued effieciency, I said power, torque, regardless of how it gets there... By the way, your whole Idea between chemics and stuff, is bull, its different for every situation. You could built identicle motors with identicle timing and parts, but they wouldnt get the same numbers.....Its stuff you have to learn over time, like what im tyring to do, not pull out of your ass like you seem to.
You posed a question, I answered what I would do. Now don't get back and say I'm saying bull when I'm expressing which I'd prefer. Also, don't twist my words please, because you're doing that again. And one more thing, you really can't get into an argument without calling somebody names eh? They say wisdom in age don't they? Another explanation for your language could be to cover up you're talking empty talk. It's the first time you say a turbo is more efficient, and that's all I was arguing about. I wasn't talking about 4 cylinder cars in the quarter of a mile you said there. And a turbo can replace displacement, but not the whole way. You can't get a 2L turbocharged to get it the full potential a V10 8L can get (however horsepower wise this has been proven false, the torque doesn't differ much actually, an Audi S2 had been tuned by some Finns to reach some 700 (or was it 800) hp). However, a turbo is alot more high tech, and requires specification, a guy in a garage can't come up with the perfect turbo, you need an engineer to figure out such a thing. Displacement is an easier solution and doesn't require all the speciality and difficulty. It's got it's advantages, and it's got it's disadvantages, both do. I've got my preference, you got yours, fine, good, now WHY the fuck can't you give it a rest? Why the FUCK do you need to prove your preference is the better solution? Because it ISN'T. You can claim to have all the knowledge you want, but again, you don't know the principles on which engines were designed. Sure two engines will never be identical, but haven't you fucking figured out engineers keep that in account? That still doesn't make up for you not knowing the exact processes. I don't know them either (but given my current education I might get to that), you clearly don't know them either, in the meanwhile you keep pretending you do. Why the fuck am I even wasting my time replying to you? BTW, yes displacement is the most likely and most direct road to get torque. <Z>
I never said I had a preference between one or the other, but when I was saying that displacement has more of an effect than a turbo, you argued and claimed a turbo was more effiecent, which drug us into a topic of effiecency, but then to soil any backing you have left you say that "displacement is the easier solution" when I dont think you realize that as much tuning as turbo takes, its no walk in the park to space your cylinder heads, get custum rings and pistons plus longer rods "depends for boring or stroking" and then make sure everything is running well. I know of 2 extremes of engines, you have short stroke high RPM, and big stroke low RPM, high is for top speed, low is for monster power, and on either a forced induction AIDS the process by giving a good amount of what would be hopefully cool air....But the turbo itself is just like a human on life support, forcing the engine to breath deep, but the actaully size of its lungs "cylinders" and its acutuall naturally asperated intake and exhaust matter alot more. You are the only one that is displaying any "preferences", I just say things for what they are. Now if we could please stop making this a "im older than you and you dont tell me" conversation.....does anyone else got some cars?
Here is a Classic. This should be a standard issue for every Lightning driver. Nice Vstab don't you think? http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6416&stc=1 FTDtail.jpg http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6417&stc=1 FTDVstabs.jpg
@-kari- --> Ooooooh, nice one *drools* http://www.kajjan.com/images/dodge_03.jpg Thats also a nice set of stabs. Dodge 1960.
Man, America still leads in curves too, check some of these out... Plus review some of the other classics Ive posted previously such as the Superbird, and AAR Cuda, Even the 58 Vette and such, dont forget that 49 merc. Here I have as follows 1967 Corvette Stingray, 58Impala,41 willys, and a 1932 ford coupe.
Obviously I was not crystal clear in my post - or then you guys have incomplete education about how the stabs were born. Hershey is the guy who designed '48 Caddy: "One day in the late Thirties, Earl received government permission through a friend to take some of his best designers to Michigan's Selfridge Field to see a secret military aircraft. Designers Bill Mitchell and Frank Hershey were among the group. Though no one knew it then, this field trip was destined to become legendary in the history of automotive design. There on the runway, sat the thirteenth Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the twin-boomed aeronautical marvel that after some further development was going to set combat records in the coming war. Its radical design opened Mitchell's, and especially Hershey's, eyes to possibilities unthought of before -- they were transfixed by the elegance of the plane's design. When the story of the '48 Cadillac is told, the influence of the plane's tailfins is usually the predominant theme. However the effect of the plane's design encompassed much more than that. Mitchell said, "You have to understand the value of what we saw in that plane's design. We saw that you could take one line and continue it from the cowl all the way back to the tip of the tail -- that you could have one unbroken, flowing line." Hershey was also impressed with the plane's aerodynamic flow, but when he got back to his studio he began experimenting with the line of the tailfin he had seen. He worked with that idea, but both he and Mitchell moved on to other design projects before they left GM to serve in the Navy during World War II. Even so, meeting up with the P-38 Lightning had cast a spell over all the designers who had seen it. This spell would carry through the long war to the introduction of the 1948 Cadillac almost a decade later -- and beyond that into defining the design "flavor" of Cadillacs for years thereafter."
Im not the best speller, but give me credit. We aint here like city faulk with yer fancy engaliosh and whert noot.
