Quote:
Originally Posted by southernstar
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. That the gearing in the 986 2.7 was chosen in order to optimize performance with the characteristics of the new and improved engine, rather than to improve fuel consumption, is proven by the fact that, in spite of more advanced fuel injection, the EPA conbined fuel consmption numbers remain the same while acceleration figures and top speed improve.
|
Unfortunately, you still don't understand how this works, Brad. Had they kept the ratios the same, the 2.7 still would have had increased acceleration and top speed, but the fuel consumption numbers would have been worse than the 2.5. Maintaining fuel consumption with a larger more powerful engine is effectively improving it in like for like terms.
Put in really simple terms, if you want to make a car fun and exciting, you do not make the gear ratios taller. But in the real world you have to compromise other demands, namely efficiency and refinement. Few people want a car that buzzes along at high revs when cruising. But if all you cared about is having fun, you'd have even shorter ratios than the 2.5's.
As for the rest, you're just going round in circles and choosing to take notice of things that fit your view and ignore those that don't.
Far from being biased towards the 2.5, I'd rather have the 2.7 and have little doubt it's quicker than the 2.5. I don't agree with the characterisations that the difference is dramatic. It's a sub 10% increase in power offset by taller gearing. The differences are in fact subtle. Nevertheless, I repeat that I'd still rather have the 2.7.
Moreover, I've only have made two claims. Firstly that the taller ratios in the 2.7 are about fuel efficiency and refinement, which they very obviously are. And secondly that since I'm not hugely bothered about either of those things (within reason), I'd like a 2.7 with the shorter 1-3 gear ratios of the 2.5.
Threaded Mode
