I see some holes in multiple aspects of everything being stated here. Though my little bit of opinion will probably fall to the way-side, I'll post anyway.
- You cannot compare engines based on what form of motorsport they'll be used for. Some require a flexible, broad power-band and some are all about putting down maximum power as much as possible. Two extreme examples of this would be F1 and WRC. F1 uses 2.4L V8 engines and are limited to 18,000 rpm. WRC has gone gone to 1.6L engines (four cylinder) with a 34mm restrictor- these teams tune for maximum torque. Can you figure out why each of these classes have such regulations? Comparing an RB or SR or KA used for drifting and used for drag racing are two completely different arguments. I see Sin posting mostly about drag racing and the fastest Nissan powerplant being a SR and arguments that the KA and RB are used for drifting. This is simply an invalid argument. Don't worry, I'm not saying one of you is wrong over the other on this.
As far as the SR vs all debate- it's a matter of preference to me. I don't know the mechanical ability/shortcomings for the SR/KA/RB engines and which one is more cost effective to build, but I can apply what I know from what I am familiar with. I come from the Mazda world and know the BP engine quite well. It's not a great flowing engine, especially in n/a form. There are other engines out there in a similar family that are seen as the "big boys" for me, like the FE or MZ-R. But in the end, it comes down to what you like and how you make it work for you and how much you want to spend. Personally, I think the B6 (1.6 variant of my 1.8 BP) is inferior; not in build, but power potential (SR vs KA) Either engine can be built to make good, reliable power, and generally speaking, the larger displacement will always make more torque...but as Sinfix has said, torque isn't everything. So once you really start the whole a built xxx is better than a stock xxx" or "built this vs built that", everything really breaks down- the point of "building" and engine is to address the weak points associated with that engine when increasing it's power output. All engines have a point of failure once you push them past their original design specification. The SR was designed a specific way that is not related to the KA or RB. So stating "oh a KA with rods and pistons is better than a SR". Duh. You've addressed the main points of failure there...congratulations on the common knowledge. So now apply that to the SR that is so "bad" and now you can take that engine further.
Furthermore, tuning plays probably the single most important role here. One person might break a SR at 250hp and one might make 450hp all day long and beat the absolute shit out of it and never have a problem. Much of this comes down to tuning. Like I've said, I'm not well versed on actually tuning ECUs, but I understand the cause and effect of what goes into it and how very little differences make for major results.
Oh and Nelson, to answer this really fucking retarded statement-
Originally Posted by nelson9995
It's called GEARING. How the fuck do you think vehicles with 3k redlines are able to do highway speeds? They are geared to use the torque curve of the engine. It's pretty fucking simple. Did you know Audi waxed ass in ALMS with a diesel powered LMP car? OMG HOW'D THEY DO THAT?!?!? DIESELS DONT REV!! Gearing- that's how. Once again, comparing race cars to street cars, there is a point where transmissions are replaced with gear seats that optimize the desired power delivery....like full on drag cars and "drift" cars. There are so many details to both sides of this thread, but when it comes down to it, all you have done is prove your lack of deductive reasoning and ability to understand.
Sin- I'm not saying you're wrong either in anyway. Clearly you understand mechanical aspects of what you're talking about, there are just a few areas of comparison in here that just cannot be done.
Reply With Quote
