On Mon, 13 Nov 1995 PDQSHIP@aol.com wrote:
> >i'm afraid this really is an apples to orange comparison. the cars
> >don't weigh the same, one's rwd, the other awd.. the only conclusion
> >you can draw is that one car is faster than the other in the dry. you
> >can't make any conclusions about the engines from this.
> Sure you can.... My thinking is that the weight isn't as far off as you'd
there's an easy way to find out...
>but the reality is that cars are
> compared in their class eliot, that's the only way you can compare them,
and that's what i'm saying. you can compare overall performance of
the entire package, but how can you conclude that it is the engine
alone that is responsible for the difference.
> I can easily
> compare my folks 3 liter Touring to my 2.3 liter turbo 5ktq, engine
> drivetrain and chassis.... This ain't rocket science, it's hp and torque
you can make some conclusions, sure, such as flatness of torque
curves, smoothness, refinement... but i'm saying that weight and 4wd
drivetrain inertia, transmission lossiness (for slush) all play a part
in determining performance. to say that everything else doesn't matter
and that only the engine is the sole determinant is just plain wrong.
> Never thought I'd see you quote a mag as a reference, eliot....... Still,
> haven't heard mechanics swearing at the BMW either........
there are magazines that i respect and there are those that i don't... :)
> >i haven't tried the M3 yet, but with servotronic steering i am not
> >salivating at the prospect at all.
> You are missing out on a truely great experience, eliot...
yeah, one of these days... haven't tried lots of the new stuff
> But the Corrado needs some serious help to stay alive too.........
the corrado is dead. it's now the golf and the jetta... in the
current state, the suspension is too flaccid to be a good BMW
alternative, but i wasn't exactly thrilled by the 325i w/o sports
suspension either... soft, americanized damping on the standard, but
no where as bad as the current golf vr6.