Eurasian Engines - Proposal?

[Rabbit07]

Uh oh!! Oh boy, I liked the box from this, the most high traffic site this side of TMZ!




Regarding the RX-8, Chris, so, if a car does ok at a race that you go to, it's classed appropriately??
I'n not sure I follow how a car with 180hp at 3000 can possibly cmpete with a car with 180hp that weighs 500 pounds less and runs on the same rubber.

I am really getting tired of F;d up comments like that. You guys have proven to me that your commentary is useless in this situation and really not worth the effort.

[lateapex911]

I am really getting tired of F;d up comments like that. You guys have proven to me that your commentary is useless in this situation and really not worth the effort.

Chris, hey, I'm not trying to attack you...
But, look at what you wrote. I'm sure you were just typing off the top of your head, but really....and I'm not trying to be the biggest dick around... that statement makes little sense.
First, are you REALLY going to look at it if it doesn't do well???? And if so, based on what sample size? (Forgetting the whole what defines the 'that far off' aspect). Basicaly, you're saying that the STAC is going to mointor performance and make adjustments. I really don't think thats the case, but, obviously, I could be wrong.

Second, you said you were sure it would do fine. Well, yea, maybe against unprepared STL cars, or double dippers, but who cares about that? I can't see how the motor has a snowballs chance in hell of competing when it's hundreds of pounds heavy.

Listen, I'm of the philosophy that if you list an engine, make it so that it fits. If it doesn't fit,* then don't list it. I'm not sure I see the point of listing it, but thats based on my philosophy.

*It seems that it misses the class standards because you consider it to be 2.6L, above the max size, and it's stock rating is well above the max allowed. IIRC the stock rating is (was?) 238, which is right with the S2000 2.0L (240) that is excluded.

So, I'm sorry to piss you off, but your comments seemed at odds with my perception of reality.

[Rabbit07]

:026:

Chris, hey, I'm not trying to attack you...
But, look at what you wrote. I'm sure you were just typing off the top of your head, but really....and I'm not trying to be the biggest dick around... that statement makes little sense.
First, are you REALLY going to look at it if it doesn't do well???? And if so, based on what sample size? (Forgetting the whole what defines the 'that far off' aspect). Basicaly, you're saying that the STAC is going to mointor performance and make adjustments. I really don't think thats the case, but, obviously, I could be wrong.

Second, you said you were sure it would do fine. Well, yea, maybe against unprepared STL cars, or double dippers, but who cares about that? I can't see how the motor has a snowballs chance in hell of competing when it's hundreds of pounds heavy.

Listen, I'm of the philosophy that if you list an engine, make it so that it fits. If it doesn't fit,* then don't list it. I'm not sure I see the point of listing it, but thats based on my philosophy.

*It seems that it misses the class standards because you consider it to be 2.6L, above the max size, and it's stock rating is well above the max allowed. IIRC the stock rating is (was?) 238, which is right with the S2000 2.0L (240) that is excluded.

So, I'm sorry to piss you off, but your comments seemed at odds with my perception of reality.

Yes, we will monitor.