Quote:
Originally Posted by s2_slow
The s2000 makes 120 hp/l. The m3 4.0 makes over 100/l. Look I know very few companies actually know how to make a decent NA motor, all im saying is that if honda could do it 11 years ago, then toyota should have at least been able to get to 220 ish with an 8500 redline. This would have made a HUGE difference. Btw, whats wrong with 2 cam profiles? A sports car should be driven as such and low end shouldnt matter if you are driving briskly. This way you can enjoy better fuel economy at lower rpms as well.
|
its just weird to think that just because a company did something under different circumstances, and despite that under current conditions it is rarely met, that it should be easily achievable. toyota probably could do what you are asking of them but that requires ideas, time and development. all of that costs money. to say you want that is fine. when you want all of that and then fail to think about how the s2k had that and was more expensive years ago and your only other example cost triple what the frs costs...just kinda weird.
nothing is wrong with 2 cam profiles except what i mentioned earlier. it costs money
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r
Well, the Porsche 2.7L 6 is 265hp @ 6700rpm which on one hand is lower than 100hp/L, but at 6700 that is impressive. BMW S65 is 105hp/L but it needs 8300 rpm, and the engine's specific torque is shitty overall. However I think emissions is probably more annoying on bigger motors because emissions are measured by pollutants per mile, so I imagine their cats are more restrictive or something.
|
youre probably right. it still stands to reason that all of those cars are pretty expensive and have a certain sort of pedigree behind the motor. this car soaks up the hit of initial development and still delivers imo. im sure there will be years to follow where certain criteria are achieved