Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days
Discussion
hhhpsmlh8 said:
Yes and they all look the same
Same now with the Jags audis Bms et al... All identical
My old 993 looks the business though... and my daily runner A Mk 1 Rav 4 Squared off little cutie... "2door job Gorgeous
Hang on...you are trying to say all saloons look the same....then cite the 911 as different? The words longest and worst, lazy evolutionary car design?Same now with the Jags audis Bms et al... All identical
My old 993 looks the business though... and my daily runner A Mk 1 Rav 4 Squared off little cutie... "2door job Gorgeous
DonkeyApple said:
If the engine is just going in a utility box which purpose is to transport a drone from their dormitory street to a desk farm then it doesn’t really matter does it? It should just be the cheapest and most efficient it can be. If that’s a 1 litre engine or a 5 litre engine to achieve this robotic transport objective then so be it.
If you want a car for actual personal driving enjoyment then any engine that is designed for generic drone transport is likely to fail to deliver any reward. If an engine is built for pleasure, fun and reward then I don’t think it’s cc matters. There are great 1 litre engines and great 5 litre ones. There are great 4 pots, straight 6s, V8s and V12s. Personal choice along with the type of car in question probably have more baring than being able to specifically say what cc is categorically better.
After all, the reason modern turbo cars simply aren’t the same as turbo cars from 30 years ago is because thirty years ago a turbo was used to add mentalness whereas today it is used to add ‘Cliveness’. They aren’t the crazy addition by a wayward engineer but the result of hours of careful deliberation by a team of accountants and lawyers and there is a reason why parties full of accountants and lawyers are s
t. 
OT, but I enjoy your posts enormously.If you want a car for actual personal driving enjoyment then any engine that is designed for generic drone transport is likely to fail to deliver any reward. If an engine is built for pleasure, fun and reward then I don’t think it’s cc matters. There are great 1 litre engines and great 5 litre ones. There are great 4 pots, straight 6s, V8s and V12s. Personal choice along with the type of car in question probably have more baring than being able to specifically say what cc is categorically better.
After all, the reason modern turbo cars simply aren’t the same as turbo cars from 30 years ago is because thirty years ago a turbo was used to add mentalness whereas today it is used to add ‘Cliveness’. They aren’t the crazy addition by a wayward engineer but the result of hours of careful deliberation by a team of accountants and lawyers and there is a reason why parties full of accountants and lawyers are s
t. Ares said:
Don't be ridiculous (and use selective quoting), not emotion of the car (I drive a 500bhp Italian car for god sake ) - emotion out of being able to say "It's NA engine" - How is the C63 any worse now it has the 4.0T engine?
I'm not being ridiculous, emotion is personal, if a forced injection car doesn't get you then there is no emotion there. ) - emotion out of being able to say "It's NA engine" - How is the C63 any worse now it has the 4.0T engine?I know some who have loved the new AMG with FI yet it has left others a bit cold and they preferred the NA versions they had before.
It is not about 'saying' it is a NA engine, it is what works for you. My point is you can't say 'the new 4 litre turbo is a better engine, because that statement simply isn't true, it depends on the person driving it, you can say you prefer it, you can say many others prefer it, but you can't say it is better as not everyone thinks it is.
That is what I am trying to get at.
gizlaroc said:
Ares said:
Don't be ridiculous (and use selective quoting), not emotion of the car (I drive a 500bhp Italian car for god sake ) - emotion out of being able to say "It's NA engine" - How is the C63 any worse now it has the 4.0T engine?
I'm not being ridiculous, emotion is personal, if a forced injection car doesn't get you then there is no emotion there. ) - emotion out of being able to say "It's NA engine" - How is the C63 any worse now it has the 4.0T engine?I know some who have loved the new AMG with FI yet it has left others a bit cold and they preferred the NA versions they had before.
It is not about 'saying' it is a NA engine, it is what works for you. My point is you can't say 'the new 4 litre turbo is a better engine, because that statement simply isn't true, it depends on the person driving it, you can say you prefer it, you can say many others prefer it, but you can't say it is better as not everyone thinks it is.
That is what I am trying to get at.
As for someone that loves the 6.2 but is left cold by the 4.0T, I suggest that is a case of 'cutting ones nose off' and a decision that has been made before driving, as having driven both, the cars are so similar, I don't see how such polarised views are realistic aside from a pre-determined view of FI.
Ares said:
I'm talking 'better', not conjecture...factually, measurably, etc. The 4.0t is more powerful, lighter, more frugal, more tuneable....etc etc.
As for someone that loves the 6.2 but is left cold by the 4.0T, I suggest that is a case of 'cutting ones nose off' and a decision that has been made before driving, as having driven both, the cars are so similar, I don't see how such polarised views are realistic aside from a pre-determined view of FI.
he might mean 'feels' better, so hard to be factual! or at least need to measure other aspects such as responsiveness.As for someone that loves the 6.2 but is left cold by the 4.0T, I suggest that is a case of 'cutting ones nose off' and a decision that has been made before driving, as having driven both, the cars are so similar, I don't see how such polarised views are realistic aside from a pre-determined view of FI.
In my limited experience I would say adding turbos to large engines works quite well. at the sub 2 litre level they're often compromised, even if the stats look good.
CABC said:
Ares said:
I'm talking 'better', not conjecture...factually, measurably, etc. The 4.0t is more powerful, lighter, more frugal, more tuneable....etc etc.
As for someone that loves the 6.2 but is left cold by the 4.0T, I suggest that is a case of 'cutting ones nose off' and a decision that has been made before driving, as having driven both, the cars are so similar, I don't see how such polarised views are realistic aside from a pre-determined view of FI.
he might mean 'feels' better, so hard to be factual! or at least need to measure other aspects such as responsiveness.As for someone that loves the 6.2 but is left cold by the 4.0T, I suggest that is a case of 'cutting ones nose off' and a decision that has been made before driving, as having driven both, the cars are so similar, I don't see how such polarised views are realistic aside from a pre-determined view of FI.
In my limited experience I would say adding turbos to large engines works quite well. at the sub 2 litre level they're often compromised, even if the stats look good.
Ares said:
Take the old 6.2 AMG V8 Vs the current 4.0T AMG. Is the 6.2 better?
Ares said:
I'm talking 'better', not conjecture...factually, measurably, etc. The 4.0t is more powerful, lighter, more frugal, more tuneable....etc etc.
As for someone that loves the 6.2 but is left cold by the 4.0T, I suggest that is a case of 'cutting ones nose off' and a decision that has been made before driving, as having driven both, the cars are so similar, I don't see how such polarised views are realistic aside from a pre-determined view of FI.
It may be more powerful, lighter, more frugal and more tuneable, that doesn't make it 'better' for everyone. As for someone that loves the 6.2 but is left cold by the 4.0T, I suggest that is a case of 'cutting ones nose off' and a decision that has been made before driving, as having driven both, the cars are so similar, I don't see how such polarised views are realistic aside from a pre-determined view of FI.
It was the same with the 5.5 turbo E63 when that arrived, yeah the low down shove made it a real weapon that by the time the 6.2 got in its stride around 3500rpm the 5.5 had disappeared, but there was something that the 6.2 had and that was precision control.
the way you could be in complete control with the throttle on the 6.2 was lost on the 5.5, especially mid corner, and when you got to 6500rpm the 6.2 was really starting to howl and come on song where as the 5.5 was changing gear and starting over again.
Some will like prefer one of the other, but what you are saying is that result will be 100% in favour of the turbo, I'm saying that you're wrong.
How fast do you want a car to be?
When buying a car that loses £50k in the first 3 years doing 10k miles a year and costs another £3k in servicing and another £2000 in tyres does saving £20 a week really even enter into it?
Sure a bit more range is nice, but real world differences seem to be 16-19mpg to 22-24mpg, so hardly going to get you across Europe in one filling.
So what does the turbo cars add?
Some might argue nothing more than bragging rights down the pub at how quickly you can get to 60mph?
More tuneable?
I can imagine many feeling embarrassed when asked how quick their car gets to 60mph and they have to say "3.3 seconds".
I can see them getting it remapped on day one!
Just read the Merc forums, some who have swapped have loved the things you say above but miss the 6.2 once the novelty period has worn off, where as just adore the low down shove and the fact for £500 you can remap it to silly levels.
Once again, simply saying one is 'better' is just silly, it will be better for some and not for others, depends what you like in a car.
The Tesla Model S has 762hp and 687ft/lbs and does the sprint to 30mph 3/10th second quicker than the E63s and gets to 60mph 6/10 of a second quicker, and by 100mph is almost a second quicker, it is much more frugal too.
Does this make it better?
Only if the only thing you care about is figures on paper.
Edited by gizlaroc on Wednesday 24th January 18:58
gizlaroc said:
Ares said:
I'm talking 'better', not conjecture...factually, measurably, etc. The 4.0t is more powerful, lighter, more frugal, more tuneable....etc etc.
As for someone that loves the 6.2 but is left cold by the 4.0T, I suggest that is a case of 'cutting ones nose off' and a decision that has been made before driving, as having driven both, the cars are so similar, I don't see how such polarised views are realistic aside from a pre-determined view of FI.
It may be more powerful, lighter, more frugal and more tuneable, that doesn't make it 'better' for everyone. As for someone that loves the 6.2 but is left cold by the 4.0T, I suggest that is a case of 'cutting ones nose off' and a decision that has been made before driving, as having driven both, the cars are so similar, I don't see how such polarised views are realistic aside from a pre-determined view of FI.
It was the same with the 5.5 turbo E63 when that arrived, yeah the low down shove made it a real weapon that by the time the 6.2 got in its stride around 3500rpm the 5.5 had disappeared, but there was something that the 6.2 had and that was precision control.
the way you could be in complete control with the throttle on the 6.2 was lost on the 5.5, especially mid corner, and when you got to 6500rpm the 6.2 was really starting to howl and come on song where as the 5.5 was changing gear and starting over again.
Some will like prefer one of the other, but what you are saying is that result will be 100% in favour of the turbo, I'm saying that you're wrong.
How fast do you want a car to be?
When buying a car that loses £50k in the first 3 years doing 10k miles a year and costs another £3k in servicing and another £2000 in tyres does saving £20 a week really even enter into it?
Sure a bit more range is nice, but real world differences seem to be 16-19mpg to 22-24mpg, so hardly going to get you across Europe in one filling.
So what does the turbo cars add?
Some might argue nothing more than bragging rights down the pub at how quickly you can get to 60mph?
More tuneable?
I can imagine many feeling embarrassed when asked how quick their car gets to 60mph and they have to say "3.3 seconds".
I can see them getting it remapped on day one!
Just read the Merc forums, some who have swapped have loved the things you say above but miss the 6.2 once the novelty period has worn off, where as just adore the low down shove and the fact for £500 you can remap it to silly levels.
Once again, simply saying one is 'better' is just silly, it will be better for some and not for others, depends what you like in a car.
The Tesla Model S has 762hp and 687ft/lbs and does the sprint to 30mph 3/10th second quicker than the E63s and gets to 60mph 6/10 of a second quicker, and by 100mph is almost a second quicker, it is much more frugal too.
Does this make it better?
Only if the only thing you care about is figures on paper.
Edited by gizlaroc on Wednesday 24th January 18:58
If you are saying some would say it is better, in what ways?
The 6.2 may have a barely better sound but that's it's only superior feature over the hot V8. Oh but wait the feels, don't forget the feels. Also the "response". Oooh now what about the emotion and the soul. Give me strength. Absolute piffle perpetuated by the mags and those who try to elevate themselves as the more discerning petrolhead.
RumbleOfThunder said:
The 6.2 may have a barely better sound but that's it's only superior feature over the hot V8. Oh but wait the feels, don't forget the feels. Also the "response". Oooh now what about the emotion and the soul. Give me strength. Absolute piffle perpetuated by the mags and those who try to elevate themselves as the more discerning petrolhead.
Wtf are you talking about? Some prefer exhibit a some prefer exhibit b. There isn’t a right or wrong, better or worse. Its called personal preference and it’s a really simple concept.
Ares said:
Take the old 6.2 AMG V8 Vs the current 4.0T AMG. Is the 6.2 better?
Ares said:
In what way is the 6.2 better than the 4.0T?
Ares said:
Hence the question. Is the 6.2 measurably better? Having driven both, I'd say no.
If you are saying some would say it is better, in what ways?
I have explained that it is not 'measurably' better. Just read what I put on the post you replied to. If you are saying some would say it is better, in what ways?
I have said that some prefer the older 6.2 over the newer blown versions. I am one of them.
I can understand why some may prefer the 4.0 and 5.5, it seems weird you can't accept others may prefer something different to you?
Do you prefer the new 3 litre turbo M3 over the 3.2 or the V8 M3?
All great engines, but personally the M3 CSL has been my favourite M3 engine. In the same way am I wrong for liking that more than the new turbo which is quicker, more frugal and far more tuneable?
I just get why everyone has to like the one you like best?
I can't really explain it any better, so I guess you can come back and tell me my preference is wrong and I will just have to live with that.
Plate spinner said:
Wtf are you talking about? Some prefer exhibit a some prefer exhibit b. There isn’t a right or wrong, better or worse.
Its called personal preference and it’s a really simple concept.
It's a bit strange isn't it? Its called personal preference and it’s a really simple concept.
It is like the arguments on AVforums.
"But my LCD is 4k, has HDR, can go brighter, has more set up options and uses less power."
"I agree, but it doesn't look anywhere near as good as my OLED with any type of material when you sit down and watch it, so I will stick with the one I enjoy watching more, as after all that is what I do with a TV."
gizlaroc said:
Ares said:
Take the old 6.2 AMG V8 Vs the current 4.0T AMG. Is the 6.2 better?
Ares said:
In what way is the 6.2 better than the 4.0T?
Ares said:
Hence the question. Is the 6.2 measurably better? Having driven both, I'd say no.
If you are saying some would say it is better, in what ways?
I have explained that it is not 'measurably' better. Just read what I put on the post you replied to. If you are saying some would say it is better, in what ways?
I have said that some prefer the older 6.2 over the newer blown versions. I am one of them.
I can understand why some may prefer the 4.0 and 5.5, it seems weird you can't accept others may prefer something different to you?
Do you prefer the new 3 litre turbo M3 over the 3.2 or the V8 M3?
All great engines, but personally the M3 CSL has been my favourite M3 engine. In the same way am I wrong for liking that more than the new turbo which is quicker, more frugal and far more tuneable?
I just get why everyone has to like the one you like best?
I can't really explain it any better, so I guess you can come back and tell me my preference is wrong and I will just have to live with that.
On the M3, I loved the CSL engine, because it was and 'event' to drive it, and it's screaming nature was great fun. But I'd take the newer 3.0T for an engine to use daily as the CSL engine was far harder work.
TooMany2cvs said:
Oh, it's certainly proven tech...
Turbo petrols have been in production cars for longer. Corvair Monza, 2002, 911, 99? All predate Merc's introduction of a turbo-diesel S-class in the late 70s. Kawasaki were putting turbos on bikes at about the same time.
.
Not strictly true. The Kawasaki TC was a US dealer modificationTurbo petrols have been in production cars for longer. Corvair Monza, 2002, 911, 99? All predate Merc's introduction of a turbo-diesel S-class in the late 70s. Kawasaki were putting turbos on bikes at about the same time.
.
I'm with the OP to a degree, not so much bemoaning losing a 2 litre N/A for a 1 litre Turbo, but up a range. I'm lucky enough to drive one of the last BMW's fitted with an N/A Straight 6, and for everyday use it is an absolute joy - tractable and smooth around town, quick when prodded with a big stick, and at all times provides the user with a lovely cultured soundtrack.
I spent 1200 miles in the US driving a 430i with the new 4 Cylinder Turbo replacement, and I'm struggling to see any way it was superior to the old N52. Fuel consumption was about the same (20 - 25 in town, 40 ish on the Highway), it had less power (252bhp vs 265) and didn't sound as good. It was an effective tool, but a definite step back on the old 6 imo.
At least BMW will still offer you a 6, albeit with turbos attached.
I spent 1200 miles in the US driving a 430i with the new 4 Cylinder Turbo replacement, and I'm struggling to see any way it was superior to the old N52. Fuel consumption was about the same (20 - 25 in town, 40 ish on the Highway), it had less power (252bhp vs 265) and didn't sound as good. It was an effective tool, but a definite step back on the old 6 imo.
At least BMW will still offer you a 6, albeit with turbos attached.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff