Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
if you think engine designers are victims of poor jargon use by the enthusiast community then there is little hope for you....
|
They absolutely are, it is marketing that pulls the strings, marketing are suits and ties, not engineers....and they listen to suits and ties that buy M5's, M3's etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
In a theoretical sense no the turbo does not specifically limit rpms, however, in a practical sense nearly all (MP4-12C is an exception...if you count exotics as "exceptions") production turbo engines have lower redlines than corresponding NA engines.
|
Wrong, take a gander at Subaru (Sti vs NA 2.5), Mitsubishi (EVO engine vs. NA shit box variety), Toyata Supra (2JZ vs. NA version), Nissan R32-R34 GTR (RB26 vs. RB25 NA), need I go on, all the above examples are turbo charged versions of a same displacement NA engine. ALL of these have the same OR HIGHER rev limits. Note that they are all Japanese!!! Yep the Japs accept the shortcomings of boost threshold but love the turbo hit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
Again a very misleading way to look at the turbo vs. non turbo case.
This specific case is exactly the kind of apples to oranges case that does not really make a point. A much better comparison is a real world one where one compares engines of roughly equal peak power. There is no other apples to apples way to make a comparison. You never find an OEM who takes an existing engine and simply adds a turbo system (i.e. maintaining architecture and displacement). The displacement always goes down, typically a lot and with that torque is significantly reduced. You can't have the fuel efficiency benefits any other way.
|
Not misleading in the slightest, answer lies in my last answer.
One more example is Subaru, they wanted a normally aspirated engine that produced similar power to the EJ20 (2 liter horizontally opposed 4 cylinder turbo), what did they come up with??? The 3.0 liter Spec B engine (added 2 cylinders to the EJ20 and of course 50% more cubes). And what the got was a thirstier, lower power, lower torque, lower revving engine than the EJ20 Turbo. Inferior in EVERY way, but yes it has a lovely linear power delivery...WoooHooooo!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
I highly doubt this. There are many variables more important than block length in crashworthiness. The strategy with all modern vehicles to deal with extreme frontal crash scenarios is to force the engine and transmission to move in a downward fashion in addition to rearward. The 2010 335 gets 4/5 stars from Motortrend (their source probably NHTSA) for frontal crash with its I6.
|
I won't even argue this, it is a fact. It was well publicised by many of the manufacturers (and there are many) that dropped I6 for shorter V engines.
Surprisingly to you there were many enthusiasts that thought going V was selling out. V's are more expensive to make especially in Euro/Jap Twin cam form, 2 heads, more expensive boring machine lay outs, more parts to assemble, the list goes on. And V engines offer nothing in terms of performance, just compact (as in wide and short not overall volume)). If you know better please enlighten me as to why Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes, etc all dropped I6 engines within years of each other for more expensive V configurations?
I so want you to answer this as you claim BMW are cheaping out going I6.
