Does anyone think the true sports cars or Supercars will ever die?

[exdeath]

No it won't

Yes, it will.

Anything you can do to a 1L engine can also be done to a 7L engine where it will be 7 times as effective.

 

[Howard]

Yes, it will.

Anything you can do to a 1L engine can also be done to a 7L engine where it will be 7 times as effective.

Would be a hell of a sight watching a 7L V12 spin to 30k RPM.

 

[jlee]

I'm talking about the cheap ones that are being thrown into low end cars. I've heard nothing but woes from people test driving or owning newer cars with dual clutch tranmissions. I'm not talking about the ones in Ferrari's or Lambo's. That point was more in the way of complaining that true manual transmissions going away and in their place cars are being given paddle shifters.

I'd much rather my DD be a Civic, Focus, Fiesta, etc, if it has a manual transmission rather than the cheap DCT with added paddle shifters for a "manumatic" touch. They aren't the F1 inspired and hardened ones you'll prefer in your E92 M3 or you get in your Ferrari. They don't shift faster than you can blink, they are cheap imitations that make you shift slower than with a real MT and generally just annoy you, especially when they become the only option.

Since when do Civics come with dual clutch transmissions?

 

[Monster_Munch]

If by true supercars you mean petrol powered, then yeah I think they will eventually die out since the oil wont last forever. But I think electric cars can have similar performance, we just need the Mr. Fusion device from back to the future.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yes, it will.

Anything you can do to a 1L engine can also be done to a 7L engine where it will be 7 times as effective.

Not really interested in doing a childish "uh-huh" "nuh-uh" routine with you about made up bs. I didn't agree as, well, 4000hp would not be liveable (so I don't even know why your response was about claiming linear scaling based on displacement), and I would say definitely not moreso than a 1000hp 4 cylinder (neither one is likely all that livable, but the latter I'd wager to be much more feasible, as the chassis needed to handle a 1000hp 4 cylinder would be about the same as the one needed for a 1000hp V8). But by all means, prove to me that a 7L V12 making 4000hp is better than a 1000hp 4 cylinder (oh, by the way, let's say that its a 14 liter, since you never even bothered to qualify that aspect when you made your claim :awe. If the gas needed for the turbo 4 is unicorn blood (hmm, I might be wrong, but I don't believe they had that in the 80s...), then the 7L 4000hp V12 is the unicorn itself, so the argument is even more nonsensical.

I don't even agree that it would scale linearly either though. Something to consider for instance:

Top Fuel supercharged 500ci V8 vs 80s F1 1-1.5L turbo 4 cylinder engines. Roughly the same output at ~1hp/cc. The Top Fuel engine runs on nitromethane, has less durability, and the extra power output is only useful in a specific limited application. Oh, and the Top Fuel engine might literally shake you to death (which means its even less usable).

I don't really even know what you're arguing though since I already said I don't care how its achieved, I just care more about the end results, which actually doesn't even contradict your side.

 

[jlee]

Not really interested in doing a childish "uh-huh" "nuh-uh" routine with you about made up bs. I didn't agree as, well, 4000hp would not be liveable (so I don't even know why your response was about claiming linear scaling based on displacement), and I would say definitely not moreso than a 1000hp 4 cylinder (neither one is likely all that livable, but the latter I'd wager to be much more feasible, as the chassis needed to handle a 1000hp 4 cylinder would be about the same as the one needed for a 1000hp V8). But by all means, prove to me that a 7L V12 making 4000hp is better than a 1000hp 4 cylinder (oh, by the way, let's say that its a 14 liter, since you never even bothered to qualify that aspect when you made your claim :awe. If the gas needed for the turbo 4 is unicorn blood (hmm, I might be wrong, but I don't believe they had that in the 80s...), then the 7L 4000hp V12 is the unicorn itself, so the argument is even more nonsensical.

I don't even agree that it would scale linearly either though. Something to consider for instance:

Top Fuel supercharged 500ci V8 vs 80s F1 1-1.5L turbo 4 cylinder engines. Roughly the same output at ~1hp/cc. The Top Fuel engine runs on nitromethane, has less durability, and the extra power output is only useful in a specific limited application. Oh, and the Top Fuel engine might literally shake you to death (which means its even less usable).

I don't really even know what you're arguing though since I already said I don't care how its achieved, I just care more about the end results, which actually doesn't even contradict your side.

Are you seriously trying to compose an argument involving the use of a 14 liter 4 cylinder gasoline engine in a passenger car?

 

[vshah]

And don't forget torque, something that 4 bangers usually are lacking on and people forget about. Especially ricers and their silly HP/L nonsense. I don't care if you can get 500HP out of a 4 banger, does it have any torque worth mentioning? If not, that 500HP is just numbers on paper and virtually useless.

a turbo 4 with 500 hp at 6k rpm will have around 438lbft of torque at that rpm. much less in the lower rpm ranges though.

 

[exdeath]

Not really interested in doing a childish "uh-huh" "nuh-uh" routine with you about made up bs. I didn't agree as, well, 4000hp would not be liveable (so I don't even know why your response was about claiming linear scaling based on displacement), and I would say definitely not moreso than a 1000hp 4 cylinder (neither one is likely all that livable, but the latter I'd wager to be much more feasible, as the chassis needed to handle a 1000hp 4 cylinder would be about the same as the one needed for a 1000hp V8). But by all means, prove to me that a 7L V12 making 4000hp is better than a 1000hp 4 cylinder (oh, by the way, let's say that its a 14 liter, since you never even bothered to qualify that aspect when you made your claim :awe. If the gas needed for the turbo 4 is unicorn blood (hmm, I might be wrong, but I don't believe they had that in the 80s...), then the 7L 4000hp V12 is the unicorn itself, so the argument is even more nonsensical.

I don't even agree that it would scale linearly either though. Something to consider for instance:

Top Fuel supercharged 500ci V8 vs 80s F1 1-1.5L turbo 4 cylinder engines. Roughly the same output at ~1hp/cc. The Top Fuel engine runs on nitromethane, has less durability, and the extra power output is only useful in a specific limited application. Oh, and the Top Fuel engine might literally shake you to death (which means its even less usable).

I don't really even know what you're arguing though since I already said I don't care how its achieved, I just care more about the end results, which actually doesn't even contradict your side.

Ah, youre one of the F1 kiddies that think they choose a 100,000 RPM .00001L engine because its better and not because regulations force them to by banning all other means.

Note that top fuel engine is making at least 8 times the power. And while that F1 engine isn't running nitro, its still not running 91 octane pump gas either. Therefore, as far a the rest of us are concerned with street cars, both might as well be unicorn blood.

A by your own definition it scales pretty linearly. Lol @ you mentioning they both have the same hp/L while forgetting one engine has more liters... duh. You do know that if two engines put out the same hp/L, and one of them is 4 times the L that its going to have 4 times the hp as well... that's pretty linear to me, thanks for proving my point :awe: And while the F1 engine isn't running nitro, its also running a turbo and not a blower that takes 800 hp to turn, also due to regulation...so while you are setting up your f1 engine to run nitro, I'm canceling out your gain with a gain of my own by setting up my top fuel engine with more efficient turbos.

Back to my point in the first place, gearheads and enthusiasts won't care that a *new* 4 cyl makes the same power as their *old* v8, they are going to want the *new* v8... Yeah we have 200 hp 4 cyl now that are as good as yesterdays V6...but todays V6 is as powerful as yesterdays V8, and todays V8s and V12s are pushing 600+ hp. So when you say technology lets a 4 cyl equal a v8, don't forget to be honest and quantify that as being a new 4 cyl vs a two decade old v8 and be aware that there are new v8s too that see every bit of improvement from technology as a small engine.