Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryephile
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.
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.
|
I'm supporting it a bit with "they are doing it now with something similar (2GR)" as well as the fact that we're getting two different 'semi-official' numbers, and the fact that there are basically NO modern production engines that have that tiny spread. Of the two specs thrown out one is ~170 lb-ft the other is this 151 lb-ft, working with a semi-official CR of 12.5:1. With the LFA, they tossed around the 90% of peak torque from X to Y rpm.
What I'm trying to piece together is how these figures came about, in the sense that C&D probably didn't pick 170 lb-ft out of their ass. But neither is TMC/FHI going to be 100% up-front with info until release. But they are probably not going to out-right lie to the journalists. Maybe they said "Around 170 lb-ft peak torque." Maybe someone working on the brochure asked about torque and some smart-ass engineer said 151 lb-ft @ 6600 rpm. Not lying, but not the whole truth. So maybe peak is 168 lb-ft and it still makes 90% of peak at 6600 rpm (151 lb-ft).
These are hype-driven leaks, but to remain somewhat secret, the facts have to be obscured. But they can't outright lie.