Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaps
Allch, IMO it would be pointless if Toyota made a 'new' version of the AE86 that was just as fast as the 25 year old one... That's technology almost going backwards. The whole point is to make a car faster, and more efficient at the same time, while retaining or adding extra amenities.
One example I can think of is the RX7 vs. RX8. The RX7 is arguably faster in most situations, if not all, so I'm not sure why Mazda brought out the RX8 in the first place, it was supposed to be the succesor to the RX7 and they couldn't even make it faster with more techonoly and research.
It would be like Ferrari bringing out the 458 and it ends up being slower than the previous 430.... Just doesn't make sense.
|
You didn't get what I said at all...yes I want it to be faster I only listed what I thought it would take to make it faster as a minimum guideline. It doesn't take 200BHP to make a 2800lbs car go faster than a 110BHP 2200lb car.
LoL, you don't get why Mazda built the Renesis yet you used it as an example, and those are
my points in bold.
Increasing the displacement or even bolting on a turbocharger when they could increase the power with better technology is not advancement it is called "Progress" a word applied many times to things that do not signify advancement. It has also been considered a technological advancement by auto journalists but that doesn't make it true.
The Mazda Rotary HP did peak when they turbocharged it but it was for a $30k car over 10 years ago. The RX-8 motor is naturally aspirated, lighter, and almost matches the HP but it takes RPM to do what it does and sells for the same $30k base price 10 years later. Success it is/was. It also handles better I hear.
"The whole point is to make a car faster, and more efficient at the same time, while retaining or adding extra amenities."
The whole point of what? Many cars are faster than they used to be and they are not even close to as fuel efficient as they were. You can blame safety regulations or you can blame emissions, but that doesn't change the facts that most cars are simply built to be larger than they used to be and no advantage is gained other than space. If we wanted larger cars we would buy them right?
I am just suggesting that it doesn't take a bigger engine to make the car faster than the old one when the only difference is more weight. That's what engine technology is good at doing, worse case there is always turbo/supercharging.
The heavier Subaru engined car isn't going to be more fuel efficient than the original Hachi-Roku's, not by a long shot. And the engine will not just be more powerful but it will also be larger and yet still lighter(aluminum block). For a $20k entry level RWD car you can't ask for everything and get it.
Ferrari is a very bad example, yes they are a "Progressive" company in regards to HP. But they have to resort to hybrid technology like Electric motors and batteries to keep cylinder count up due to
Gov't regulations. No applicable points to be made there.
A better example of the effect is the bigger block engines of the US 60's. Engine power was increasing with the OHV engine becoming mainstream after the "Rocket" was introduced in the 50's but after the technology stopped paying off as quickly they resorted to increasing the bores/stroke to keep increasing power. Eventually they had to use leaded gasoline and high compression to get more HP from the then huge displacement engines. Good times those 60s were Gas was cheap
and emissions regulations were low. But the increase in power wasn't just technology it was increases in displacement and used higher octane leaded gasoline to keep increasing the compression ratio. And that's my point.