Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ShuRugal t1_j3t83k6 wrote

Reply to comment by RD__III in TIL that in 1947, U.S. House Minority Leader Sam Rayburn was gifted a 1947 Cadillac Fleetwood Series 62 from 142 Democratic congressmembers and 50 Republican congressmembers. Each congressmen donated $25 to circumvent Rayburns personal rule of not accepting gifts more than $25. by FranklinDRoosevelt32

>This is it, right here. I am trying to talk calculus with a first grader

keep attacking the arguer because you know you don't have an argument.

or is your argument really "ItS BetTeR BeCaUsE ItS hAnD bUiLt!"?

only things that matter in an engine are performance and reliability.

I'll go ahead and predict your response: "YoU cOulDn'T PoSsIbLy UnNeRsTaNt!!!"

2

RD__III t1_j3tgtuy wrote

> performance

Exactly. Performance isn't just Horsepower. Which is what you don't understand. That's literally the entire point.

Weight

RPM

Lag

Efficiency

Stability

All of these are important factors in engine performance. Many much more so than raw horsepower. ALL of these you neglected. ALL off these you seem to pretend deosn't exist.

​

A big, heavy, slow, inefficient low RPM engine (Like the Cadi has) is not a top tier engine, even if it has more horsepower than a top tier engine.

1

ShuRugal t1_j3tjqzk wrote

>That's literally the entire point.

Then you should try and make that point, instead of saying "YoU cOuLdNt UnTeRsTaNn, mAnN"

2

RD__III t1_j3tkle9 wrote

I mean, I brought up RPM right away. I also brought up the comparison of a 996 V power stroke engine.

Instead of just ignorantly sticking to your guns, you could have admitted you were wrong and asked a question. you were confidently incorrect, and it's taken like 6 comments deep to breach your ego.

1

ShuRugal t1_j3tkxx4 wrote

>I mean, I brought up RPM right away

yeah, because more revs == more better? So, my CX500 has a better engine than the Ferrari, right? it goes all the up to 12,000

2

RD__III t1_j3tm6r0 wrote

Exactly. Performance isn't just RPM. Which is what you don't understand. That's literally the entire point.

Weight

Horsepower

Lag

Efficiency

Stability

Displacement (forgot this one, oops)

​

But RPM is a massive component, or better yet, an indicator. Of course, comparing a bike engine to a car engine is sort of comparing apples to oranges, but that's pretty par for the course for this "discussion"

1

ShuRugal t1_j3tniy8 wrote

>But RPM is a massive component, or better yet, an indicator.

and this is the other item, aside from your attacking me instead of actually making and argument, which tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

The function of an engine is to produce mechanical power in a rotating format. The power out the shaft is all that matters. We invented this thing called a "gearbox" which can be used to turn any combination of torque and RPM into any other combination, provided it adds up to the same power as seen by the input shaft (minus the losses in the geartrain).

Cars are do not drive their wheels directly from the crankshaft of the engine. Displacement is irrelevant. RPM of the engine is irrelevant. Torque of the engine is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how much power the engine can output. The gearbox takes care of the rest.

Have a pleasant life, I won't receive whatever reply you care to make.

1