[pukicabuki]

Originally Posted by aus

Call it what you want, but not many NA engines can achieve that number. If you don't get that it's a significant achievement, there's nothing I can say to you that'll make you get it.

High HP/displacement simply eludes to small displacement high revving engines which all inherently lack torque. The 6.2 AMG engine may not make 100hp/L, but it certainly makes significantly more torque and has a much broader power band. You see 100hp/L as some kind of significant achievement. I see it as a really high strung engine that you have to wring the shit out of in order for it to perform. Big displacement AMG engines allow for a much more usable power band in a package that is much less stressed.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

But it's not Mitsuibishi sold Evo X FQ-400. Now I may be wrong here and learned funny maths, 400hp is more than 355hp, isn't it?

It's not just my "maths" you're questioning. Virtually every major publication that has reviewed the CLA45/A45 has acknowledged that the motor is the most powerful production (i.e., mass produced for every market) 2.0L, 4-clyinder ever.

So there must be some logic in excluding the Evo you mentioned. Perhaps the fact that its availability was limited? I believe someone mentioned that it was never available in the States. I never remember it landing here.

Edit: As Blipit explains below, the Evo X FQ-400 is a limited production tuner car, not a mass-production car.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by gago1101

I have owned 2 AMGs in the last 6 years, an 05' E55 and a 12' CLS63 and have participated in 2 AMG driving academy events where I have driven all the available AMG models including the c63 and the SLS. AMGs have an extremely high quality built and refinement level, C63 lacks the latter.

IMO, the LCI C63's interior is a significant upgrade over the pre-LCI interior. More soft-touch materials, re-designed center stack, re-designed instrument panel and gauges, new steering wheel, new COMAND system, the introduction of the transmission program/throttle mapping selector knob, etc.

And the seats have always been some of the best, if not the best, in class.

But one should only expect a certain level of refinement for the C63, which competed with the likes of the E9X M3, IS-F, etc. The suspension is definitely on the firm side but the damping is excellent. Steering feel and turn-in on the LCI models has been universally and heavily praised. The car has always had a raw feeling to it and that's one of the reasons why it was beloved by so many (including auto. journalists such as Chris Harris and Jeremy Clarkson).

Early reports indicate that the W205 C-Class (W205 C63 included) has a world-class interior and levels of refinement that are on par with the new E and S-Class models.

Should share quite a bit in common with the new AMG GT's interior (the GT and C63 will share the same motor once again): http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=972871

[DieGrüneHölle]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

It's not just my "maths" you're questioning. Virtually every major publication that has reviewed the CLA45/A45 has acknowledged that the motor is the most powerful production (i.e., mass produced for every market) 2.0L, 4-clyinder ever.

So there must be some logic in excluding the Evo you mentioned. Perhaps the fact that its availability was limited? I believe someone mentioned that it was never available in the States. I never remember it landing here.

The question is...is the Evo FQ-400 truly a factory car? It certainly doesn't come off the factory assembly line as a FQ-400. In fact New Zealand-based WRC Developments is responsible for the final tuning of the car, not Mitsubishi. The FQ-400 is also a UK market car, with only 28 units total. To call it a factory Evo is a big stretch, which is why it is ignored when publications claim the CLA45 to be the most powerful 4-cylinder produced.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by Blipit_

The question is...is the Evo FQ-400 truly a factory car? It certainly doesn't come off the factory assembly line as a FQ-400. In fact New Zealand-based WRC Developments is responsible for the final tuning of the car, not Mitsubishi. The FQ-400 is also a UK market car, with only 28 units total. To call it a factory Evo is a big stretch, which is why it is ignored when publications claim the CLA45 to be the most powerful 4-cylinder produced.

Well said. I was just about to post this after reading up a bit more on the FQ-400. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Arcoril]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Should share quite a bit in common with the new AMG GT's interior (the GT and C63 will share the same motor once again): http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=972871

That AMG GT interior looks amazing. If it truly comes in at around the 911 price point I'm going to have some serious decision making to do.

[Ganxxta]

Coming back to the actual topic...

The shaft through the engine can be done in carbon, BMW does that with the M cars for the drive shaft already.

Another often used material in F1 is titanium, both are lightweight and should keep up with the forces.

[swanson]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

High HP/displacement simply eludes to small displacement high revving engines which all inherently lack torque. The 6.2 AMG engine may not make 100hp/L, but it certainly makes significantly more torque and has a much broader power band. You see 100hp/L as some kind of significant achievement. I see it as a really high strung engine that you have to wring the shit out of in order for it to perform. Big displacement AMG engines allow for a much more usable power band in a package that is much less stressed.

I cant believe people are still stuck in the 100hp/liter mentality. I'd take a bigger displacement engine that make useable power and torque throughout the rev band over a smaller, high strung, ticking time bomb engine that needs to be revved super high in order to make any power with a gutless bottom end.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by swanson

I cant believe people are still stuck in the 100hp/liter mentality. I'd take a bigger displacement engine that make useable power and torque throughout the rev band over a smaller, high strung, ticking time bomb engine that needs to be revved super high in order to make any power with a gutless bottom end.

Can I use this quote in my signature?

I agree completely. For daily driving purposes, I've been thrilled with the M156 motor. It has gobs of torque down low but can still haul when you bury the pedal at 5.5k, all the way out past 7k.

[swanson]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Can I use this quote in my signature?

I agree completely. For daily driving purposes, I've been thrilled with the M156 motor. It has gobs of torque down low but can still haul when you bury the pedal at 5.5k, all the way out past 7k.

of course you can, bud

[aus]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

High HP/displacement simply eludes to small displacement high revving engines which all inherently lack torque. The 6.2 AMG engine may not make 100hp/L, but it certainly makes significantly more torque and has a much broader power band. You see 100hp/L as some kind of significant achievement. I see it as a really high strung engine that you have to wring the shit out of in order for it to perform. Big displacement AMG engines allow for a much more usable power band in a package that is much less stressed.

If I wanted a big block engine, I'd get the last gen ZO6.

It's sad how people in this thread all prefer big block, low tech engines... it's also sad how these people have no interest in a 458, F12, Gallardo, Aventador, or GT3.

.

[pukicabuki]

Originally Posted by aus

If I wanted a big block engine, I'd get the last gen ZO6.

It's sad how people in this thread all prefer big block, low tech engines... it's also sad how these people have no interest in a 458, F12, Gallardo, Aventador, or GT3.

.

It's pretty clear that you missed the point completely. That was a nice way of saying that your 100hp/L metric is an arbitrary and utterly useless means of determining the merits of an engine.

BTW........ the Z06 is a small block.

[pukicabuki]

Originally Posted by aus

If I wanted a big block engine, I'd get the last gen ZO6.

It's sad how people in this thread all prefer big block, low tech engines... it's also sad how these people have no interest in a 458, F12, Gallardo, Aventador, or GT3.

.

Forgot to mention that the crap bucket 6.2l AMG motor not only makes more horsepower and more torque than BMW's S65..... it also weighs less. 439lbs vs 445lbs.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by aus

If I wanted a big block engine, I'd get the last gen ZO6.

It's sad how people in this thread all prefer big block, low tech engines... it's also sad how these people have no interest in a 458, F12, Gallardo, Aventador, or GT3.

.

Don't lose hope my friend. I think that for most of us, we appreciate everything that is good, whether it's "big block, low tech" or "small displacement, high tech."

Displacement alone does not make or break a motor. For example, was the soon to be retired M156 (6.2L V8) motor revolutionary? No, not really. But it was executed brilliantly and as a result, it has already achieved legendary status. It delivered heavenly sound, 440+ lb-ft of torque, 507+ horsepower, and plenty of revs.

And it all depends on the situation/application. For daily driving purposes (city commuting in my case), I don't want a car with a motor that needs to be revved sky high to have some fun. It's not practical. Nor do I want to go to jail.

On the track, sure. Now I've got the real estate to wind it out.

I think what's sad is when people knock cars/motors they've never even driven/trashed. While the specs are certainly fun to argue about on the internet, how the car drives/motor performs in the real world is the deciding factor for me.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

Forgot to mention that the crap bucket 6.2l AMG motor not only makes more horsepower and more torque than BMW's S65..... it also weighs less. 439lbs vs 445lbs.

For a second I thought you were really going to argue that it was a crap bucket. But then I continued reading.

Both the M156 and S65 are great motors. And they'll both be sorely missed.

[aus]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

It's pretty clear that you missed the point completely. That was a nice way of saying that your 100hp/L metric is an arbitrary and utterly useless means of determining the merits of an engine.

BTW........ the Z06 is a small block.

Yes, it's "small block" in the literal GM sense but that's HUGE to EVERY other manufacturer.
And I get your point, I'm just NOT impressed with a motor that can't make 100hp/L NA when it's suppose to be a performance arm of a major German manufacturer. If 100hp/L isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but I must also mean you have NO INTEREST in any of the cars I listed above... which would be sad for a car enthusiast.
And I NEVER said the AMG motor was crap. It sounds awesome and has tons fo torque the old fashion way, but there's nothing "special" about it in terms of tech or innovation.

.

[pukicabuki]

Originally Posted by aus

Yes, it's "small block" in the literal GM sense but that's HUGE to EVERY other manufacturer.
And I get your point, I'm just NOT impressed with a motor that can't make 100hp/L NA when it's suppose to be a performance arm of a major German manufacturer. If 100hp/L isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but I must also mean you have NO INTEREST in any of the cars I listed above... which would be sad for a car enthusiast.
And I NEVER said the AMG motor was crap. It sounds awesome and has tons fo torque the old fashion way, but there's nothing "special" about it in terms of tech or innovation.

.

I didn't realize we were talking figuratively about what constitutes a small/big block. Displacement has nothing to do with small/big block. Displacement is nothing more than the combination of bore and stroke.

You left this beast off your list of supercars that I don't care about. Its clearly one of the all time great cars according to you because it meets your 100hp/L criteria.



That's enough banging my head against this wall of awesomeness for one night.

[aus]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

I didn't realize we were talking figuratively about what constitutes a small/big block. Displacement has nothing to do with small/big block. Displacement is nothing more than the combination of bore and stroke.

You left this beast off your list of supercars that I don't care about. Its clearly one of the all time great cars according to you because it meets your 100hp/L criteria.



That's enough banging my head against this wall of awesomeness for one night.

Engine was decent. Car wasn't.
So, you're not interested in the 458, GT3, Audi R8 or the McLaren F1?

.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Sorry to throw a wrench in all the bickering, but doesn't every F1 engine this season utilize Compound Turbo architecture? I didn't think this was a MB development.