Quote:
Originally Posted by adc
In the 80's, many countries had high taxes for engines beyond a certain capacity. So the only things available for companies to increase power output were revs, and turbos. By far, turbos offered much more bang for the buck, even taking huge lag into consideration. Turbos were added to engine for performance, like in Audi Quattros, Porsche 911 and 959, Ferrari F40 etc. The entire Group B rally cars, 500-600 BHP from 1.6-2.5L engines. Fuel consumption was far worse for these cars, as it was for turbocharged F1 cars. They didn't have turbo 4 cyl engines outputting 1200-1500 BHP for fuel efficiency for crying out loud, you got it all wrong.
In the 20's and 30's, as well as the initial turbo days of the early 80's, they had an equivalency formula: lower capacity allowed for FI cars, and higher capacity allowed for NA cars. That's simply because FI cars made lots more power, not because they were sipping less fuel. If you tell this to an automotive engineer of the times they'll die of laughter.
Anyway I don't want to spend more time arguing with you about these topics. Anybody with a modicum of interest can read about it and make their own opinion. Happy motoring.
|
Just FYI,
check this timeline. Engine fuel consumption limits were started in 1983 in Formula 1 for the reasons I stated earlier -- as well as a method for limiting power by requiring engines to run races on a set amount of fuel.
Also FYI: I was a huge F1 fan during the era. For example, I attended the Monte Carlo GP for three years running from 1982-84.
So have those engineers IM me, kay?
