Pros and Cons of American sporties

[GIR]

Originally Posted by makara So what do you think of a midship engine placement such as the viper's where the engine sits behind the front axle?

Why would anybody want todo a thing like that? You'd be better of moving the engine all the way to the rear.

First of all you'd need a very strong structure to carry the engine because the weight of the engine now sits more towards the middle of the car. This would make the car heavier then it needs to be.

Second the car would be suceptable to sudden oversteer or even loss of control, specialy when you're on a bumpy road.

The engine of the Viper is already heavy enough as it is and with the added inability because of these structurale flaws it's going to be very hard to drive.

[makara]

Originally Posted by GIR Originally Posted by makara So what do you think of a midship engine placement such as the viper's where the engine sits behind the front axle? Why would anybody want todo a thing like that? You'd be better of moving the engine all the way to the rear. First of all you'd need a very strong structure to carry the engine because the weight of the engine now sits more towards the middle of the car. This would make the car heavier then it needs to be. Second the car would be suceptable to sudden oversteer or even loss of control, specialy when you're on a bumpy road. The engine of the Viper is already heavy enough as it is and with the added inability because of these structurale flaws it's going to be very hard to drive.

Why would someone want to do it? To reduce polar inertia during a turn and to place more weight on the rear tires.

A midengine car carries it's weight towards the middle of the car too. Are ferrari, and lamborghini flawed in their design? Ferrari actually found the driving experience of a midship design to be more rewarding than a rear-midengine design which explains it's choice to move the engine to the front on the maranello.

[GIR]

Originally Posted by makara Why would someone want to do it? To reduce polar inertia during a turn and to place more weight on the rear tires.

Again moving the engine to the rear midship instead of the front midship, where it has a profound impact on the handling, would be a way better solution. You seem to confirm my statements, I thank you for that.

A midengine car carries it's weight towards the middle of the car too. Are ferrari, and lamborghini flawed in their design? Ferrari actually found the driving experience of a midship design to be more rewarding than a rear-midengine design which explains it's choice to move the engine to the front on the maranello.

The only reason why those cars have their engines in that place is because of the added length of the transmission and differential. If they could I'm sure they would place the engine as far back as possible.

The Ferrari lineup is 2 fold. First you have the 550 and 575 which are for people would like to own a Ferrari which they can drive to work every once in a while. It doesn't need all the noise, vibrating and power regular Ferrari's have. On the other hand there are the 355 and 360 which do have their engine's to the back and are made for racing, they are in every sence road racers. Because of this the 550/575 have a more tame and subtle appearence, which requires the engine to be at the front.

Any way you look at it a read midship engine is better then a front midship engine.

[thepolarfoxqx]

actually, ferrari moved the engine upfront to curb incredible maintanance issues. They found they could make a much more economical, practical, predictable and user freindly car by moving the engine up front.

But since front engine is superior, maybe you should go to maranello and remind them of that, since the forgot and moved back to rear midship for Enzo, maybe you should tell McLaren they screwed up making F1, tell Lambo that they don't know the first thing about car making, maybe you should go tell koenigsegg that his CC would hanlde better if it were front engine, i mean hell, it is only pulling 1.15g on the skidpad, no front engine production car has ever matched that, but clearly handling is better with the engine up front because a viper does it that way and a viper is perfect right?

The issue with how the viper mounts the engine is the fact that they failed to balance the mass on the rear subframe. You see, general motors in making C5 knew that part of the LS1 sat above the front suspension, and thus had mass forward, so to compensate, the rear transaxle places weight rear of the rear axle, similar to that in the front. The result is balance and predictability. Viper is not well balanced, so even though the numbers place it close to 50:50, where the inirtia is in the body is not well balanced, and will act upon the car.

[SRT Mike]

Originally Posted by thepolarfoxqx actually, ferrari moved the engine upfront to curb incredible maintanance issues. They found they could make a much more economical, practical, predictable and user freindly car by moving the engine up front.

Do you work at Ferrari? If not, how do you know the thoughts that went into the decision to put the engine in the middle?

The 12 cylinder cars are more expensive to maintain then the 8 cylinders, and the 8's have mid-mounted engines. When did Ferrari start worrying about maintenance costs? If front engines were worse designs but cheaper to maintain, why did they leave the entry-level Ferrari as mid-engine? Will the new 420 be front engine? What do you think?

But since front engine is superior, maybe you should go to maranello and remind them of that, since the forgot and moved back to rear midship for Enzo, maybe you should tell McLaren they screwed up making F1, tell Lambo that they don't know the first thing about car making, maybe you should go tell koenigsegg that his CC would hanlde better if it were front engine, i mean hell, it is only pulling 1.15g on the skidpad, no front engine production car has ever matched that, but clearly handling is better with the engine up front because a viper does it that way and a viper is perfect right?

Who said the Viper was perfect? Point is you claim the Viper is unbalanced and ill handling due to it's front engine. Well, it outhandles the mid-engine Modena and the mid-engine TR's. How about this - the DESIGN of the car is more important than whether the engine is in front or back.


[quote[The issue with how the viper mounts the engine is the fact that they failed to balance the mass on the rear subframe. You see, general motors in making C5 knew that part of the LS1 sat above the front suspension, and thus had mass forward, so to compensate, the rear transaxle places weight rear of the rear axle, similar to that in the front. The result is balance and predictability. Viper is not well balanced, so even though the numbers place it close to 50:50, where the inirtia is in the body is not well balanced, and will act upon the car.[/quote]

You have no idea what you're talking about. One of the big reasons GM moved the transmission to the rear was packaging - so they could stuff the engine further back and not have a huge driveline "hump" like they did on the C4's. And how come the far-superior C5 with it's wonderful "balance" gets it's ass handed to it by the Viper in any sort of handling test? Don't come back with "Z06" this or that, the C5 had a rear-mounted transmisison since 97. And how come my 3 series BMW has a much better FEEL than any other car I've driven? With it's front engine, front tranny, RWD, it SHOULD feel like crap, no?

This whole argument about "efficiency" of engines is just retarded. It's not like european engines are better because they have a higher hp/L number... the bottom line is that torque is generally a function of bore and stroke. Smaller engine = smaller torque. Anyone that has driven a Viper knows *exactly* why people like big engines. Show me a euro car with a smaller engine that is in the same ballpark in price that performs like a Viper? Oh, there isn't one, I forgot. What's close? M5... with it's V8. Porsche TT - with it's twin turbos. Ferrari 575, with it's V12. Toyota Supra, with it's twin turbos. Hmmm... I dunno, it doesn't look like these super-efficient euro cars can keep up, even when they put big engines in!

What does the F1, Enzo, Zonda, Murcielago, and 575M have for engines again? Wait, they must be small high-revving 6 cylinders right?? right?

[GIR]

Originally Posted by SRT Mike Who said the Viper was perfect? Point is you claim the Viper is unbalanced and ill handling due to it's front engine. Well, it outhandles the mid-engine Modena and the mid-engine TR's. How about this - the DESIGN of the car is more important than whether the engine is in front or back.

You claim this and you still fail to see why the Viper is a bad car? I applaud you.

You have no idea what you're talking about. One of the big reasons GM moved the transmission to the rear was packaging - so they could stuff the engine further back and not have a huge driveline "hump" like they did on the C4's. And how come the far-superior C5 with it's wonderful "balance" gets it's ass handed to it by the Viper in any sort of handling test? Don't come back with "Z06" this or that, the C5 had a rear-mounted transmisison since 97. And how come my 3 series BMW has a much better FEEL than any other car I've driven? With it's front engine, front tranny, RWD, it SHOULD feel like crap, no?

If you had read the thread then you would've seen that we applaud BMW's for their power and handeling abbilities. With servotronic and DSC the BMW's are able to out maneuver any car out there. Is the Viper designed by BMW? No! Does it have all the BMW goodies under it? No!

This whole argument about "efficiency" of engines is just retarded. It's not like european engines are better because they have a higher hp/L number... the bottom line is that torque is generally a function of bore and stroke. Smaller engine = smaller torque. Anyone that has driven a Viper knows *exactly* why people like big engines. Show me a euro car with a smaller engine that is in the same ballpark in price that performs like a Viper? Oh, there isn't one, I forgot. What's close? M5... with it's V8. Porsche TT - with it's twin turbos. Ferrari 575, with it's V12. Toyota Supra, with it's twin turbos. Hmmm... I dunno, it doesn't look like these super-efficient euro cars can keep up, even when they put big engines in! What does the F1, Enzo, Zonda, Murcielago, and 575M have for engines again? Wait, they must be small high-revving 6 cylinders right?? right?

Well I can see you fit the old "There is no replacement for displacement" group. Now listen, the old way of thought for bigger engines = faster is gone, now it's all about who the best tuner is. If you look at the torque curve of a BMW, Porsche or Mercedes you just know that if they ever decided to produce an engine of Viper size they would beat the crap out it, the McLaren F1 proves this oh so well.

Today smaller engines do not mean smaller torque. Just look at the CL65 which has 1001 nm of torque already available at 2000rpms, is the Viper able todo this with it's much bigger engine? Okay the CL65 is a little bit extreme but if you look at what other manufacturers can do, for instance the M3 or M5 which may rev upto 8000rpm but have their torque peak already available at 4000-5000rpm which leaves the whole 4000-8000 rpm band available for fun. Same goes for Ferrari's and Lambo's. They might ev up pretty high but have their torque peak available at low rpm leaving a huge band to play with. Funny thing is even though all those cars rev up high, their torque peak is available before the Viper, even funnier that they have more torque then the Viper and here I was thinking a bigger engines = more torque.

Big bored heavy engines have a too much impact on the handeling, just look at the Veyron, which is the european Viper btw, the car maybe fast but it also handles like a ton of bricks.

Okay, let's call up the bigboys then. How about the McLaren F1, KoenigsEgg, SLR, CL65 or Zonda? They all have smaller engines then the Viper, they respectively have V8's and V12's, smaller bore's but are able to beat the Viper on every point.

The F1 doesn't have a V6, even more so for the Enzo, Zonda and Murcie. They all have V8's and V12's.

What I think is funny is that you Viper lovers start calling people stupid and say they have no idea what they are talking about when the person is pushing their face into the facts. You might continue to ignore these facts but I would advise you to wake up and smell the roses. The Viper is not the badass car you thought it was.

The only reason why other manufacturers do not produce engines of that size is because they do not have the need. Why would they? Their current engines perform better then the Viper and comply with emission and consumption standards all over the world. Funny thing is that the Viper only complies with emission regulations of just 50 states while the European cars comply with emission regulations all over the world and can still outrun the Viper.

[cmill]

Some of the arguments are so grossly stated that they are silly. ex. smaller european engines are more effecient than large, big bore american engines. First, in many cases a lower octane gas can be used in an american car and it have no adverse effect on performance, as compared to european cars. Second, american engines are large because we proud americans Like them that way. If american engines are so ineffecient, then why are so european car makers using them....the mustang cobra engine, and the gm ecotec engine. actually, I would have to say that smaller european engines are less effecient than american ones, because many of them use forced induction to match what we do with cubes. Besides the viper, our engines are really not that big, they have more bore and stroke, but in actual size measurements ours match up pretty well. Don't get me wrong I perfectly like some european cars, when I turn 30 yrs old, I am going to get a bmw m3.....but I would love to also have a z06.

[GIR]

I do agree with you on some points but you've got a few things wrong. First the US isn't as strict when it comes to refinment of fuel, while here in Europe refinaries have to meet very strict standards. The defined fuel of almost all Mercs, Audi's and BMW's is Euro95 unleaded which is a very low octane fuel. Lambo's, Ferrari's, Jags, etc... all require Euro98 unleaded (AKA Super unleaded) which is much richer in octance but if you look at the octance levels in the default fuel for the Viper it's higher then Euro98.

You also have to keep in mind that European cars have to meet much stricter emission and consumption regulations.

European engines have turbo's because of the sentiment here in Europe. While you guyz feel like bigger engines = faster we seem to think turbo's = faster. Ofcourse both are wrong but still if you want to sell you have to produce what the buyer wants, most people don't know as much about cars as you and I do. I have seen alot of people here in Europe claim that the Compressor or Supercharger engine's Merc makes are better then the normal engines BMW makes, ofcourse this comes from the mouths of ignorant people.

Finally we are not bashing on all American cars, ofcourse there are some cars that are able to compete with the European cars, what we are bashing is the Viper.

[thepolarfoxqx]

i'll agree to that, I am a huge fan of the mustang cobra, i like the corvette, i can't argue with the performance and refinement of Z06, I disagree with chevrolet going out of their way to make Z06 vibrate like a motel bed at idle, but that is what sells cars here.

It is a difference in taste. It just bugs me when people go, "bigger is better, viper is biggest, so it is perfect"

i love the logic "viper does it, so it must be good"

maybe you should think logically about what makes a good car, and then look to find cars that match what you just thought of, instead of buy something that looks cool and bend logic to fit it.

[bleh]

Originally Posted by cmill Some of the arguments are so grossly stated that they are silly. ex. smaller european engines are more effecient than large, big bore american engines.

my example and i quote

Originally Posted by cmill First, in many cases a lower octane gas can be used in an american car and it have no adverse effect on performance, as compared to european cars.

do you know what 2 way knock sensors are? get with the times

Originally Posted by cmill Second, american engines are large because we proud americans Like them that way.

speak for your self! large cars are simply part of the american mentality, which some people to not conform to. myself included in that i prefer a smaller car to deal with traffic.

Originally Posted by cmill If american engines are so ineffecient, then why are so european car makers using them....the mustang cobra engine, and the gm ecotec engine.

who does this?

Originally Posted by cmill actually, I would have to say that smaller european engines are less effecient than american ones

you know nothing about artificial displacement which some mustangs tend to have..............