I was never a big fan of sheer volume when it comes to engines. I always preferred a bit of sophistication, be it high revs, VVT, or a turbo/supercharger. But i stand by my statement that boost > muscle, because you can take a that massive muscle engine, fiddle with the engine management, and add a big turbo or supercharger, and if done properly, will always produce more power than the n/t engine. besides, the fastest car on the road today, the veyron, is blowin.

I dont know anything about yer mach 1, so i really cant say anything about that little example. it is modded though, correct?

I believe the veyron is boosting off four turbos if im correct... ;)

The veyron is no longer the fastest car. It is the new saleen, but it is still boosted.

Think about it this way. The veyron took 4 turbos to go somewhere around 14mph faster than the Mclaren, that is LAME.

And the Mach1 is a DOHC version of the Mustang GT. 305hp, no mods, 100% stock.

i agree muscle is not invinsible, and thats about the only thing in your post that is true.

If you want to race a 500 HP mustang Fly over here race and if you win I'll pay for your trip.

95 si vtec= it is a 95 prelude Si with vtec... there is no inbetween. The Si prelude had vtec.

The 95 prelude with I/H/E was a 15 second car.

Just because you see a chevelle don't assume it is an SS or that its even running correctly. I've been in a chevelle SS that is running correctly (you've seen Fast and the furious where the charger pulls a wheelie.) A stock SS can do that too.

for starters, the veyron is much heavier and much larger than the mclaren f1 because the veyron was meant to be fast and luxurious, not just fast.

on top of the weight, for a car, every mph over 200 is difficult to get. when were talking about 2 cars that can easily do over 240mph, 14 mph is a huge difference in top speed.

not to mention, in a race to 200mph, if you give the f1 a 100mph head start, the veyron will STILL reach 200mph first. so its not just that the veyron, with its 4 turbochargers, is 14mph faster; its not that simple. the veyron has a greater top speed despite its weight, and can out-accelerate the f1 easily. thats a pretty big argument for the strengths of boost.

however, im not saying sheer displacement is useless. obviously, the more space you have to mix gas and air, the more potential you have to make power. the 300zx and the 3kgt vr4 both weigh a ton, which kinda offsets their high(er) power, when compared to yer mach 1; though in all fairness, both those cars only have 10 or 15 more hp stock than the mach 1. one car i think we are forgetting is the turbo rx-7. they are light, fast, and powerful. they are a great example of what boost can do. their engines are tiny, but produce plenty of power when turbocharged.

1.3 Liters FTW!

So why does the VW Veyron have to have a W16 and 4 turbos to get the same speed that the new saleen does iwth a V8 and 2 Turbos?

weight

1000lbs does not justify an extra 8cyl and 2 more turbos.

And there is a bentley dealer not to far from me that has a veyron and let me tell you, it isn't all that "luxurious." Cadillac makes many cars more luxorious than that POS.

the veyron may have 8 more cylinders and 2 more turbos, but its engine has only got 1.5 liters or so on the SSC's engine. the fact that the SSC engine isnt much smaller combined with its substantially lower weight and better aerodynamics are why it can top out higher than the veyron.

and im sure its luxurious for a supercar. traditionally, supercars have been rather spartan. the mclaren f1, for example. and personally, im not sure i would be calling a car that tops out at 250+ and costs over $1 million a POS, but thats just me.

Anything made by VW is a POS

Except the 2.7 TT motor.

Torque ftw..........Most imports lack in this area which is why they get stomped in 1/4 mile races and the like against muscle.
How can a truck that weighs several tons beat my car off the line up to 40mph?
It is the torque that sends one off the line at nearly 35 MPH.