Steady wrote:brake horse power doesn't mean "at the brakes"
krisisdog wrote: probably thinks the same as you used to.
Troutman wrote:Just FYI the Veyron has merely 16 cylinders.
nstg8a wrote:lol, im thinking teabagging has a different meaning here in oz compared to nz? cos thats the last thing id be thinking of doing to someone that sideswiped my car...
nstg8a wrote:lol, im thinking teabagging has a different meaning here in oz compared to nz? cos thats the last thing id be thinking of doing to someone that sideswiped my car...
Aston Martin wrote:6 speed Automated Manual Transmission with Auto Shift Manual /
Select Shift Manual (ASM/SSM) electro-hydraulic control system
Steady wrote:kw/l is a wank.
nstg8a wrote:lol, im thinking teabagging has a different meaning here in oz compared to nz? cos thats the last thing id be thinking of doing to someone that sideswiped my car...
sdoylie wrote:Steady wrote:kw/l is a wank.
why?
its damn impressive.
try working out your own cars' power/litre.
most falcons would be dismal.
nstg8a wrote:lol, im thinking teabagging has a different meaning here in oz compared to nz? cos thats the last thing id be thinking of doing to someone that sideswiped my car...
Troutman wrote:sdoylie wrote:Steady wrote:kw/l is a wank.
why?
its damn impressive.
try working out your own cars' power/litre.
most falcons would be dismal.
I'm obliged to side with Steady on this one, especially as a GM LS series driver.If a motor has good power output, reasonable efficiency, low weight, relatively small external dimensions and easy upgradability, why would anyone care if its engine capacity is a bit higher than average? A given engine might also be dismal in kW-per-cylinder, or kW-per-valve, or kW-to-oil-sump-ratio, but a good motor is a good motor to my mind.
Argument #2, there is a thing called torque, and it isn't the S2000's specialty. I regard the Falcon six as a better motor than the Commodore 3.0 for this very reason, even if the latter is far superior in 'kW/L'.
That said, I admire those kW/L figures from an engineering perspective, even if the big 'BHP' numbers often come at the expense of real-world drivability.
Cheers.
Commando wrote:seriously, this thread is now a complete cyber skip bin filled with all kinds of waste from the internet...
axeman83 wrote:you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?
bentls wrote:axeman83 wrote:you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?
lol.
it amazes me how many people have misguided views on torque and hp.
Commando wrote:seriously, this thread is now a complete cyber skip bin filled with all kinds of waste from the internet...
axeman83 wrote:you people do realise that when you say "torque" or "hp" your really talking about the same thing right?
Commando wrote:seriously, this thread is now a complete cyber skip bin filled with all kinds of waste from the internet...
NUT347 wrote:you people realise this thread is almost a year old?
Looks like old mate got banned for bumping it also.
AaronEF8 wrote:He's just showing that random facts don't mean shit in the real world.
rhys375 wrote:AaronEF8 wrote:He's just showing that random facts don't mean shit in the real world.
Im glad someone is able to interpret a basic argument on the internet.
Yes I was comparing them - directly. Because the obscene comparison shows that the statement of 'torque winning races' is not at all correct. But in saying that with cars in the mid 60's being very low revving hence having high torque compared with HP, that statement was pretty darn spot on at the time.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users