Quote:
Originally Posted by zetableh  I always notice that it's the Europeans saying this... |
Because we have taxes on displacement, and we watch Formula 1 not NASCAR.
... and F1 rules, and our tax sucking politicians rule even more
...
Quote:
|
but then again, it's the ones that don't look at the torque numbers that very closely match the horsepower, or the ones who realize that 75/hp per liter is amazing for a naturally aspirated engine.
|
In the 1970s, yes.
Quote:
|
Yes, Honda did 125/hp per liter in the original S2000, but where was the torque? And then look at where all the torque in this engine is located. I get it probably gets peak torque a couple ticks off idle.
|
Honda forgot the fancy superfast clutch.
How low can you rev that engine ?!
And how much fun is to strugle with the gearbox against the torque ?!
Why do I need all that torque, it's not like I'm towing a 747 ?!
And why a pushroad ?!
There were only absolete about 100 years ago.
I'll take F1 "with greater RPM comes greater performance" aproach against the "there's no replacement for displacement" aproach.
... it's called engineering.