Maker Pro
Maker Pro

What is the root of this BMW design flaw in all 3,5,7 series BMWtrunk wiring looms?

N

Nate Nagel

Jan 1, 1970
0
I have seen a lot of cars over the years, and I have never, ever seen one
that used anything approaching quality wire.

And that begins with the '72 Datsun I had, where all of the insulation turned
to goo and every foot of wire in the body had to be pulled out and replaced.

Just take a look at what goes into airplanes vs. what goes into cars and
you'll be staggered.
--scott

Surprisingly, I apparently got one of the first '55 Studebakers that
used the plastic-insulated wire rather than the cloth-covered wire that
was used previously. It was still intact and flexible when I pulled the
harness for repairs 5-6 years ago which made me happy as I was not
looking forward to laying out for a new one.

nate
 
N

Nate Nagel

Jan 1, 1970
0
This isn't an 'argument'; it's merely a discussion.
Everything you said and everything I said was true.


The E39 that I own handles those three with aplomb!


The stock front pads are Jurid, with the rears being Textar,
both with an FF friction & fade coefficient. They work well
enough, although Akebono GG friction ratings are often used
as replacement.

I use the Axxis/PBR FF pads, which dust the same color as the
wheels,

??? dude, brake dust is /two/ components:

1. pad.
2. disk.

if your wheels aren't being stained, it's because #2 is not present, or
at least, not to the extent that "bmw spec" [high silica] pads have.

so you don't see the unsightly darker-colored dust
of the stock Jurid pads.


The OFH often leaks on the BMW M54 engine; but luckily it's an
inexpensive part, albeit a bit of a pain to DIY.

N54, but same principle.
i don't understand this equation - y'all are starry eyed about something
that is completely unreliable /and/ expensive to maintain. sure, it's
better than a buick, but really?

I've not found it to be that unreliable (touch wood.) There *are* a lot
of electronics to fail, and that scares me a little, but that's true of
every modern car with a few notable exceptions worth having and none of
mine have failed yet (good lord I hope I don't regret posting that.) So
far I've paid for fluid changes, aforementioned OFH gasket, and a bunch
of random upgrades (euro light switch, spare tire kit, winter wheels and
tires, alarm, sat tuner, etc.) Despite the reputation for being hard to
work on I was able to install the alarm and sat tuner in an afternoon in
the driveway following excellent directions easily available online, and
without any unusual tools that a moderately DIY-oriented enthusiast is
unlikely to have. Really, no harder than changing a car stereo in any
garden-variety car. The biggest challenge to DIY work is actually
lifting the car to get underneath due to the very limited ground
clearance, but that goes with the territory of pretty much any decent
handling car, and if it doesn't, an enthusiast is likely to change that :)
if you like fixing stuff and are serious about rwd's with handling,
race-prep a miata. if you want something that handles from new, buy an
elise.

don't pay bmw's "advertising beats engineering" tax.

Neither the Miata nor the Elise has a back seat or a usable trunk.

I think having a 3er for a daily and a Miata or Elise for weekend fun
would be a great combination. My mom actually has a Miata for a "fun
car" and loves it (as do I) but I don't have the space/funds to justify
another vehicle purchase.

And where is all this BMW advertising? I must not pay attention to the
same media that you do, BMW seems to really not advertise at all
compared to other manufactureres; people buy them because of
reputation/previous experience/glowing reviews in magazines and on
enthusiast-oriented TV programming.

nate
 
J

jim beam

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:49:51 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

You're probably expecting me to argue with you, but I'm not

This isn't an 'argument'; it's merely a discussion.
Everything you said and everything I said was true.

three most important things ... are power, handling, and braking

The E39 that I own handles those three with aplomb!

(although the stock brake pads suck unless you like refinishing
your wheels every couple years.)

The stock front pads are Jurid, with the rears being Textar,
both with an FF friction & fade coefficient. They work well
enough, although Akebono GG friction ratings are often used
as replacement.

I use the Axxis/PBR FF pads, which dust the same color as the
wheels,

??? dude, brake dust is /two/ components:

1. pad.
2. disk.

if your wheels aren't being stained, it's because #2 is not present, or
at least, not to the extent that "bmw spec" [high silica] pads have.

so you don't see the unsightly darker-colored dust
of the stock Jurid pads.

current ride hasn't cost me anything but maintenance and an
oil filter housing gasket

The OFH often leaks on the BMW M54 engine; but luckily it's an
inexpensive part, albeit a bit of a pain to DIY.

N54, but same principle.
i don't understand this equation - y'all are starry eyed about something
that is completely unreliable /and/ expensive to maintain. sure, it's
better than a buick, but really?

I've not found it to be that unreliable (touch wood.)

what cognative dissonance trip are you on this morning? you catalog a
bunch of completely unacceptable failures one day, then here you are the
next saying it's not unreliable! are you not taking your meds?

There *are* a lot
of electronics to fail, and that scares me a little, but that's true of
every modern car with a few notable exceptions

dude, what is wrong with you this morning????

worth having and none of
mine have failed yet (good lord I hope I don't regret posting that.) So
far I've paid for fluid changes, aforementioned OFH gasket, and a bunch
of random upgrades (euro light switch, spare tire kit, winter wheels and
tires, alarm, sat tuner, etc.) Despite the reputation for being hard to
work on I was able to install the alarm and sat tuner in an afternoon in
the driveway following excellent directions easily available online, and
without any unusual tools that a moderately DIY-oriented enthusiast is
unlikely to have. Really, no harder than changing a car stereo in any
garden-variety car. The biggest challenge to DIY work is actually
lifting the car to get underneath due to the very limited ground
clearance, but that goes with the territory of pretty much any decent
handling car, and if it doesn't, an enthusiast is likely to change that :)

can we change who shows up with meaningless drivel on r.a.t?

Neither the Miata nor the Elise has a back seat or a usable trunk.

ah, got it - you idea of a car that "handles" is an extended cab pickup.
got it.

I think having a 3er for a daily and a Miata or Elise for weekend fun
would be a great combination. My mom actually has a Miata for a "fun
car" and loves it (as do I) but I don't have the space/funds to justify
another vehicle purchase.

you sure won't have funds if you're driving a bmw.

And where is all this BMW advertising? I must not pay attention to the
same media that you do, BMW seems to really not advertise at all
compared to other manufactureres; people buy them because of
reputation/previous experience/glowing reviews in magazines and on
enthusiast-oriented TV programming.

nate, i'm sure that if you're nice to your mom, she'll let you out of
the basement occasionally. you can have the tv on while she hoses you
down and changes your depends.
 
N

Nate Nagel

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 03/17/2013 11:05 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:49:51 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

You're probably expecting me to argue with you, but I'm not

This isn't an 'argument'; it's merely a discussion.
Everything you said and everything I said was true.

three most important things ... are power, handling, and braking

The E39 that I own handles those three with aplomb!

(although the stock brake pads suck unless you like refinishing
your wheels every couple years.)

The stock front pads are Jurid, with the rears being Textar,
both with an FF friction & fade coefficient. They work well
enough, although Akebono GG friction ratings are often used
as replacement.

I use the Axxis/PBR FF pads, which dust the same color as the
wheels,

??? dude, brake dust is /two/ components:

1. pad.
2. disk.

if your wheels aren't being stained, it's because #2 is not present, or
at least, not to the extent that "bmw spec" [high silica] pads have.


so you don't see the unsightly darker-colored dust
of the stock Jurid pads.

current ride hasn't cost me anything but maintenance and an
oil filter housing gasket

The OFH often leaks on the BMW M54 engine; but luckily it's an
inexpensive part, albeit a bit of a pain to DIY.

N54, but same principle.
Overall, I think we're in agreement, so there's really no need
for any argument. One thing about bimmer owners, they KNOW their
cars!

i don't understand this equation - y'all are starry eyed about something
that is completely unreliable /and/ expensive to maintain. sure, it's
better than a buick, but really?

I've not found it to be that unreliable (touch wood.)

what cognative dissonance trip are you on this morning? you catalog a
bunch of completely unacceptable failures one day, then here you are the
next saying it's not unreliable! are you not taking your meds?

What failures have I catalogued? I had a leaking oil filter housing
gasket at the time the car was purchased, which was repaired and the car
has been trouble free since. That is the ONLY issue that I've had in
this car in about 6K miles/several months since purchase (car has 77K
give or take.) There have been NO other repairs to this car under my care!

<rest snipped because clearly there's reading comprehension issues here.>

nate
 
B

Brian Downing

Jan 1, 1970
0
jim beam said:
that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.
fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.
 
N

Nate Nagel

Jan 1, 1970
0
No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.

Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000 qualifies as
well, FWIW. Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight, and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

nate
 
J

jim beam

Jan 1, 1970
0
No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.

the e46 was released in 2000 wasn't it? the honda prelude SiR had
100hp/l in 1996 if i understand the dates correctly. the s2000 was
released in 2000 [though its tokyo motor show debut was in 1995].
 
J

jim beam

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a buick".
I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000 qualifies as
well, FWIW.
prelude.


Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.
 
N

Nate Nagel

Jan 1, 1970
0
you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a buick".

I didn't forget anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.
irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.
true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata, I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.
irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
at all? Fascinating.

nate
 
J

jim beam

Jan 1, 1970
0
I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
of suppositional nonsense!

I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

how old are you nate?

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
at all? Fascinating.

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.
 
N

Nate Nagel

Jan 1, 1970
0
I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.
it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."
It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
of suppositional nonsense!

I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars,
but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle. You're
attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as
the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the
comparison. Dissemble much?

how old are you nate?



red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

nate
 
N

Nate Nagel

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!

I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.
it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."

If you need an explanation of why my example is not actually a fair
comparison, see here:

http://www.drivingsports.com/site/2008/12/rotary-vs-piston-engine-equivalency/

Likewise, a two stroke completes all its power strokes in 360 degrees of
crank rotation as opposed to the traditional 720 of a four stroke
engine, therefore to normalize it WRT most of the engines that we
encounter and the traditional methods of calculating displacement, their
actual geometrically calculated displacements need to be doubled to make
a fair comparison.

Alternately, instead of just using "displacement" as a raw number, we
could use "displacement per revolution" e.g. an Otto or Diesel engine
with a 3-liter displacement would have a 1.5 liter/rev displacement,
which would actually make more sense, but the convention has been in
place for so long that a change just to allow for fair comparisons with
the exceedingly rare (only found in the current RX-8) Wankel engines and
the similarly now rare (although somewhat common in the past, and we
didn't appear to have confusion problems then) two stroke gasoline and
Diesel engines.

That all aside, with the increasing prevalence of various forms of
supercharging, actual displacement seems to be becoming less and less
relevant anyway...

nate
 
J

jim beam

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!

I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.

i didn't "get" anything - you simply shot your mouth off without any
attempt at basic fact checking. as per usual.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."

you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
of suppositional nonsense!

I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars,
but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle.
???


You're
attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as
the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the
comparison. Dissemble much?

you're putting false words in my mouth, then not even making sense with
what you say i said. fail to comprehend much? [rhetorical]

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

you really are brain damaged. anosognosic.
 
J

jim beam

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production
vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production
vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are
the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with
the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.
Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke
than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."

If you need an explanation of why my example is not actually a fair
comparison, see here:

http://www.drivingsports.com/site/2008/12/rotary-vs-piston-engine-equivalency/


Likewise, a two stroke completes all its power strokes in 360 degrees of
crank rotation as opposed to the traditional 720 of a four stroke
engine, therefore to normalize it WRT most of the engines that we
encounter and the traditional methods of calculating displacement, their
actual geometrically calculated displacements need to be doubled to make
a fair comparison.

Alternately, instead of just using "displacement" as a raw number, we
could use "displacement per revolution" e.g. an Otto or Diesel engine
with a 3-liter displacement would have a 1.5 liter/rev displacement,
which would actually make more sense, but the convention has been in
place for so long that a change just to allow for fair comparisons with
the exceedingly rare (only found in the current RX-8) Wankel engines and
the similarly now rare (although somewhat common in the past, and we
didn't appear to have confusion problems then) two stroke gasoline and
Diesel engines.

That all aside, with the increasing prevalence of various forms of
supercharging, actual displacement seems to be becoming less and less
relevant anyway...

he said, diving down the irrelevant brain-damaged rabbit hole of his own
digging.
 
N

Nate Nagel

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production
vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production
vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are
the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with
the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.

i didn't "get" anything - you simply shot your mouth off without any
attempt at basic fact checking. as per usual.

Um, I *did* attempt to check your facts, and I found that it was a
nominal 2.2 liter engine with 217hp. If you have cites to the contrary,
I'm willing to be corrected, because, as you well know, hondas are
something that I have little to no experience with. In fact I am trying
to remember if I've ever even driven one. Since you're the supposed
expert, please, enlighten us.
you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.

No, if you consider power strokes per rev irrelevant, then the Wankel
wins, hands down.
At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
of suppositional nonsense!

I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars,
but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle.
???


You're
attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as
the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the
comparison. Dissemble much?

you're putting false words in my mouth, then not even making sense with
what you say i said. fail to comprehend much? [rhetorical]

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

you really are brain damaged. anosognosic.

Man Look! I came here for an argument.
Mr Barnard (calmly) Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse.
Man Oh I see, that explains it.

nate
 
J

jim beam

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production
vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production
vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are
the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with
the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the
217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.

i didn't "get" anything - you simply shot your mouth off without any
attempt at basic fact checking. as per usual.

Um, I *did* attempt to check your facts, and I found that it was a
nominal 2.2 liter engine with 217hp.

then you're simply incompetent because you didn't check properly.

If you have cites to the contrary,
I'm willing to be corrected,

i've already given you the numbers, retard! do you want me to repeat
them??? [rhetorical]

because, as you well know, hondas are
something that I have little to no experience with. In fact I am trying
to remember if I've ever even driven one. Since you're the supposed
expert, please, enlighten us.

no. and i'm not wiping your ass for you either. retard.

No, if you consider power strokes per rev irrelevant, then the Wankel
wins, hands down.

he said, grasping at pathetic irrelevant straws.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters -
it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by
way
of suppositional nonsense!

I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars,
but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle.
???


You're
attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as
the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the
comparison. Dissemble much?

you're putting false words in my mouth, then not even making sense with
what you say i said. fail to comprehend much? [rhetorical]

I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

how old are you nate?



and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not
important
at all? Fascinating.

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

you really are brain damaged. anosognosic.

Man Look! I came here for an argument.
Mr Barnard (calmly) Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse.
Man Oh I see, that explains it.

so why do you keep coming back? [rhetorical] you are truly brain damaged.
 
N

Nate Nagel

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 03/21/2013 05:26 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production
vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production
vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are
the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with
the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the
217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too
spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you
get
that one.

i didn't "get" anything - you simply shot your mouth off without any
attempt at basic fact checking. as per usual.

Um, I *did* attempt to check your facts, and I found that it was a
nominal 2.2 liter engine with 217hp.

then you're simply incompetent because you didn't check properly.

If you have cites to the contrary,
I'm willing to be corrected,

i've already given you the numbers, retard! do you want me to repeat
them??? [rhetorical]

because, as you well know, hondas are
something that I have little to no experience with. In fact I am trying
to remember if I've ever even driven one. Since you're the supposed
expert, please, enlighten us.

no. and i'm not wiping your ass for you either. retard.

Hey, you're the one making the claims, you back them up.

I'm not even saying you're wrong. I *am* saying that the burden of
proof is on you because I (and likely many other readers of this group)
are going to take your word for jack shit because you're hardly an
authoritative source. And before you get your nosehairs all in an
uproar, that's the way life works - unless you're a published expert,
when you make a claim you need to back it up. And if you *are* a
published expert, then the backup ought to be in your published works.

I shouldn't have to spend more than a minute or two researching anything
you post, you lazy satchel.
he said, grasping at pathetic irrelevant straws.

In what way is it irrelevant? If you want to name a winner in the
"breaking the 100 hp/l mark in a production automotive naturally
aspirated engine" unless you exclude them and/or apply an adjustment
factor (generally accepted as 2, e.g. the nominal 1.3l 13B engines
should be considered to be 2.6l for purposes of this discussion,) Mazda
wins.

Unless you want to start looking at two-stroke motorcycle engines... do
those count, too? I'm sure I could find examples of those putting out
over 200 hp/l before applying an adjustment factor.
At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters -
it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by
way
of suppositional nonsense!

I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars,
but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle.

???


You're
attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as
the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the
comparison. Dissemble much?

you're putting false words in my mouth, then not even making sense with
what you say i said. fail to comprehend much? [rhetorical]




I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

how old are you nate?



and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not
important
at all? Fascinating.

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

you really are brain damaged. anosognosic.

Man Look! I came here for an argument.
Mr Barnard (calmly) Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse.
Man Oh I see, that explains it.

so why do you keep coming back? [rhetorical] you are truly brain damaged.

Boredom? the need to feel better about myself? Who knows.

Clearly most of the intelligent people have left Usenet; I guess I'm a
little nostalgic for the good old days when we used to have actual
intelligent, enlightening discussions. A little libertarian/egalitarian
part of me truly believes that a moderated forum is inferior in most
ways to an unmoderated group; however, you and others like you are
starting to make me seriously question that belief.

nate
 
C

Cydrome Leader

Jan 1, 1970
0
In sci.electronics.repair Stormin Mormon said:
Worse, even, than Lucas Electric, the Prince of Darkness?

probably, although I've never seen anything from lucas here.
 
C

Cydrome Leader

Jan 1, 1970
0
In sci.electronics.repair Nate Nagel said:
You've never had an old British car, have you?

nope.

But I have had to do parking lot wiring repairs of modern german cards.
 
Top