Discuss.
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/c9ea8b7c#/c9ea8b7c/18
Discuss.
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/c9ea8b7c#/c9ea8b7c/18
Displacement envy?
I saw the people behind Ward's on a local Car Business show Autoline Detroit, and they came off as not knowing a damn thing about engines.
They also said that the list really does not emphasize anything about the engineering of the engines themselves, but rather focuses on how the engine is to live with on a daily basis, like trips to the grocery store.
So yeah, I don't put much stock in their preferences.
In reply to bastomatic:
Well I knew the discredit reply was coming, I just didn't know how fast.
So who's opinion DO you put stock in? This board has already discredited Consumer Reports, Autoblog, Truth about Cars, Edmund's, Automotive Engineering, Jalopnik, all the rags like C&D, R&T, MT, Autoweek, and I'm sure some I can't think of. And those are just related to my posts! I'm always amazed and astonished that there are so many people here on this board that know so much more than the people that do it for a living. Just amazing (where's that sarcasm emoticon...).
In reply to bravenrace:
I have to agree with basto on this. I'm pretty familiar with one of the engines listed, and it's not that great. Unless power and torque are the only measurements. Which, all things considered, is really easy to 'specify' when there's a turbo.
But, what to actually put stock in? that's a tough answer, since only one of the things I would include is available- which is emissions. Cost, emissions, fuel economy, package space, performance, etc- all of that needs to be part of how good an engine is. Of that, the OEM will give you performance, and you can get emissions from the EPA. In terms of what most people care about - performance, fuel economy, and what the whole thing costs is what you get.
So while I agree with basto, I also understand that the choices to put stock into are pretty limited.
I lost any respect for that article in the part where they're talking about the GT-500's 5.8L vs the Boss 302's 5.0, and they're talking about how the 5.8 is better due to higher hp/L... um, it's BERKELYING SUPERCHARGED. Of course it's going to have a higher specific output.
My guess is that these are just the only 10 vehicles that the manufacturors let them try......
They state right on the first page what the criterion was for their picks, so if you judge engines by some other parameter, you're likely to get a different answer. That in itself doesn't make the article or their picks inaccurate.
You lost me on the first page where the guy states "a 4 cyl can do the work of a 6 cyl", yeah, if it is turbocharged! Guess what a turbocharged 6 cyl can do?
And my favorite, wait until you read this gem "Exhaust manifolds are disappearing, replaced by cost-effective cylinder heads that route hot exhaust gases more swiftly to the catalytic converter." There's soo much wrong with that sentence.
miatame wrote: And my favorite, wait until you read this gem "Exhaust manifolds are disappearing, replaced by cost-effective cylinder heads that route hot exhaust gases more swiftly to the catalytic converter." There's soo much wrong with that sentence.
What is wrong with that sentence? They are in fact doing that, and in part for the reasons he stated. And I'm sure what he meant about the 4 cyl doing the work of a 6 is that one of the emerging trends is 4 cylinders doing what USED to be done by 6 cylinders. I'm sure you knew that, but let's nit pick anyway.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to bastomatic: Well I knew the discredit reply was coming, I just didn't know how fast.
Not sure if you are bashing previous comments or agreeing. But to answer your question, it is probably easier to teach a writer to talk about cars than to teach a car guy to write. Just becase you get paid to do somthing doesn't mean you're good at it. The world is filled with crappy painters...
bravenrace wrote: What is wrong with that sentence?
A lot
miatame wrote:bravenrace wrote: In reply to bastomatic: Well I knew the discredit reply was coming, I just didn't know how fast.Not sure if you are bashing previous comments or agreeing. But to answer your question, it is probably easier to teach a writer to talk about cars than to teach a car guy to write.
I wasn't bashing anyone or anything. I was asking what source for automotive news he DID put stock in. Because without exception, every post I've made here that linked to an automotive article resulted in multiple comments about how the writer didn't know what he was talking about. It happens so consistently that I have to suspect that it's more a syndrome on this board more than it's fact.
miatame wrote:bravenrace wrote: What is wrong with that sentence?A lot
What?
In reply to bravenrace:
I think his reference is mainly directed towards the fact manufacturors are doing away with manifolds to prevent modifications for more power in the aftermarket.....
bravenrace wrote: It happens so consistently that I have to suspect that it's more a syndrome on this board more than it's fact.
Or it could be the, you know, one constant. 
bravenrace wrote: They state right on the first page what the criterion was for their picks, so if you judge engines by some other parameter, you're likely to get a different answer. That in itself doesn't make the article or their picks inaccurate.
How about this- 5 of the engines all use boost and direct injection. While a good technology, it's not new anymore. Now the power/torque of a boosted engine is pretty easy to specify, based on what you want, so thinking that it's something unique is interesting.
3 of them are pretty equal- 2.0. turbo direct injection with twin independant VCT. What makes them better than the 1.6 GTDI's out there? How do you evaluate the "value" when one of them is in basic cars from the Focus to the Explorer, whereas the other end has it in a higher end BMW. Essentially the same engine- technically.
Then- how do you judge how new an engine is? Take the word of the OEM?
Javelin wrote:bravenrace wrote: It happens so consistently that I have to suspect that it's more a syndrome on this board more than it's fact.Or it could be the, you know, one constant.
or you know maybe we're just car folks and we live, eat and breathe cars and engines. While the writers may not as they are paid to write about cars and they have to sometimes narrow their focus and be less specific so as to keep the audience as wide as possible.
Another possibility is that much like the hosts on TopGear UK we all just like to bicker and argue about nearly everything and you shouldn't take it so personally.
No 5.9 Cummins, no care.
There's your boost and direct injection, folks.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to bastomatic: Well I knew the discredit reply was coming, I just didn't know how fast.
I'm a skeptic, and I understand that can get irritating.
I'm more interested in facts, but I'll certainly listen to opinions. I certainly don't read Motor Trend, R and T, Jalopnik, TTAC, or any of those things for their opinions, but the news is interesting. Automotive opinions? I trust the GRM hive mind more than any of these goofballs.
I did link the segment that made them lose credibility for me. You can watch and judge for yourself of course.
ReverendDexter wrote: I lost any respect for that article in the part where they're talking about the GT-500's 5.8L vs the Boss 302's 5.0, and they're talking about how the 5.8 is better due to higher hp/L... um, it's BERKELYING SUPERCHARGED. Of *course* it's going to have a higher specific output.
That's what got me.
I saw the thread title and immediately thought GT/BOSS 302 engine.
It's easier to make POWAH with BOOOOOOOOOSSSTTT.
yamaha wrote: In reply to bravenrace: I think his reference is mainly directed towards the fact manufacturors are doing away with manifolds to prevent modifications for more power in the aftermarket.....
why exactly would that be advantageous for automakers? Because it would reduce the number of "tuners" who want to buy their car? I don't really see why manufacturers would be concerned with what people do with the car after they BUY it. If anything, I would think it a plus to let people make 400hp on a 200hp stock engine.....they'll blow up their engines sooner and need to buy a $$$ new crate engine from the manufacturer..
Some manufacturers almost seem to encourage aftermarket tuning of their cars....Subaru comes to mind....
It'd cut down on their warranty claims.
Fwiw, SoA refused a ringland failure on a local guy's new sti......grounds for it you might ask? It had a Cobb accessport to try to prevent said known issue......so they claimed the owner must have been driving around on the rev limiter all the time. I don't think I'd mention SoA being welcoming to modifications around him.....
miatame wrote:bravenrace wrote: What is wrong with that sentence?A lot
I dont know why people aren't happy about this. It is massively easier to attach a turbo to an engine with a cast-in exhaust manifold.
yamaha wrote: It'd cut down on their warranty claims. Fwiw, SoA refused a ringland failure on a local guy's new sti......grounds for it you might ask? It had a Cobb accessport to try to prevent said known issue......so they claimed the owner must have been driving around on the rev limiter all the time. I don't think I'd mention SoA being welcoming to modifications around him.....
I didn't mean that they welcome modifications and then will cover warranty claims DUE to those modifications. I would expect that ANY car company would deny warranty claims associated with car modifications....that would go without saying.
But most Subie dealers SELL SPT/STi performance parts, and many even sell AccessPorts. Doesn't mean they'll cover warrany claims for damage caused by these things. Just means they know that a good chunk of Subaru owners (particularly WRX/STi) are going to mod their cars, so Subaru might as well get in on the action.
Hell, my WRX is the "SPT" edition which has port-installed options like the STi short-shifter and SPT stainless dual catback.....which ARE warranteed.
btw, SOA replaced my longblock and turbo at 9k miles. And I was in the middle of an autocross when the dreaded rod knock happened.......but it was a known problem. I took the car with a fully modified suspension on it, brake kit, SCCA stickers, and various other things that scream "I drive it hard," and they still took care of me.
Driving it in while wearing my "power suit" and government ID badges probably helped matters too 
You'll need to log in to post.
