|
Originally Posted by zondaland
I expected that a larger capacity engine would be associated with a larger footprint and more weight. Thus a larger engine would compromise overall car design, and a heavier weight would reduce acceleration and cornering speeds. However as you have made clear GM have managed to make the engine more compact than smaller displacement rivals, and weigh less.
|
So basically you assumed you must know more than the blokes who built it?
But seriously - the misconception that bigger engine capacity is always accompanied by heavier engines is a common one - although no-one jumped on ferrari everytime THEY up the displacement of their V8 and V12 road engines...
|
Originally Posted by zondaland
Exactly how did I say that the car was lacking anything.
|
Well, you weren't praising GM/Holden for shipping the GTO/Monaro the way the did with it's current engine choices... unless I misread your musings about why they chose an inadiquate power plant.
|
Originally Posted by zondaland
And to answer your last line, why would I want to reiterate what I have just said, for some sort of edification of yourself?
|
No - simply so you can repeat to yourself as many times as you can that "paper specs and stats out of context are of no use".
I don't critique Ferrari for going the route they did - as the engine they shoehorned ionto the 360 fit their purpose - and helped the package perform at a ceratin level.
But just because performance peers choose a differnet route doesn't make either one wrong.
The say way it would be a pointless waste of time to put the 360 engine in a Z06 and the LS6 into the F-Car - as out of their own context and packaging each is uneffective.
So- again, you repeating yourself would be for YOUR edification - although I would hesititate to equate Chevy/Ford/Ferrari fanaticism with the path to religious enlightentment - but it's a damn close second...