Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimman
I disagree.
What I'm getting at, is I'm calling BS that the motor's torque peak is 151 lb-ft @ 6600 rpm. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make 151 lb-ft @ 6600 rpm. Get what I'm saying?
|
Ok, so you think the spec sheet is erroneous? What grounds do you have that the torque peak is more or less than that? Are you just going off a hunch, or hope, that the peak BMEP is in the 190's "just cuz", or some assumption that there simply "must" be a noticeable delta between peak torque and peak power BMEP? I'm willing to believe you, but you're going to have to lay down something more concrete than "they did it back then with something else".
New engines are released all the time with lackluster specs despite new technology...just look at basically anything Honda has done lately. Also, discounting the ever-changing emissions regulations is at your peril, as it does make an impact to performance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rmagic
but when you trying to build the true sport car weight distribution is one of the most important part of DNA of that car
|
Seriously? Stop repeating what some advertisement told you. Are you saying that Ferrari, Lotus, and Porsche aren't "true sports cars"? They all have noticeably rear-biased weight distributions. That doesn't mean their polar moments aren't better [or worse] than a bloated new BMW that has a "magical" 50/50 distribution. Blurting out one spec isn't anywhere near the whole picture; go back and combine polar moments along with corner weights, CoG, fuel tank distribution, driver location, instant centers, and suspension geometries [i.e. camber curves, bump-steer, and anti-dive] to start to get a competent picture of how each car behaves. Any half-wit can get a car to balance out 50/50 static, it takes skill to make it actually handle and be communicative to the driver.