[Z OH 6]

Originally Posted by NG329

Let me give you an example of a "Superior Platform" vs an Inferior one. A little bit of Moto Racing history.

In the early 2000s, Honda campaigned a V-Twin 1000cc bike against inline 4 cylinder 750cc bikes. Honda started to dominate and it became next to impossible for Kawasaki and Suzuki to beat the V-Twin 1000cc. Having 4 cylinders allowed for higher RPM and more linear power delivery. However the torque off of the corners allowed the V-Twin RC51 to capitalize and win tons of races (2002 Nicky Hayden wins AMA Superbike championship against the best racer in AMA SBK history - Mat Mladin).

Licking their wounds, Suzuki and Kawasaki moved on to run 1,000cc inline 4 cylinder motorcycles and in 2003 Mat Mladin won I think 11 races out of 16. Complete and total domination. In fact, AMA (world superbike as well) enforced restrictor plates on the inline 4 cylinders to slow them down so there could be closer racing. THIS is an example of a Superior Platform (inline 4), vs an inferior one (V-Twin). Eventually V-Twins were phased out. In World Superbikes, Ducati ran as much as 1,299cc V-twins just to try and be competitive with the inline fours of the Japanese manufacturers. Years later, Ducati now campaigns V4 motorcycles against I4 bikes from Japan.

The same is true in Moto GP. Back in 2003 500cc 2 strokes gave way to 1000cc 4 strokes. This is an inferior platform giving way to a superior one. Valentino Rossi won the majority of races in 2003 with Honda's V5 4-stroke Moto GP effort. He completely and utterly destroyed anyone running a 500cc 2 stroke. So much so that racers pleaded for the manufacturers to catch up.

So my point? You can't just go saying a platform is superior to another just because you like where the engine is placed.. The data shows that FE cars are STILL COMPETITIVE with ME cars even to this day. ME cars are simply not dominating on a consistent basis where we could deduce that they are superior. That is not the case, and there is no data to support it. Superior means that it is rendering obsolete another platform and that simply has not happened.

We're not talking motorcycle here.

[Z OH 6]

Originally Posted by NG329

I'm merely asking you to teach me. Show me the way. So I looked it up. The Ferrari GTE has 600hp. The Garage 56 had "UP TO" 750hp.... or whatever that means. Yet, the times weren't even close. One would assume that the horsepower advantage is the sole reason for the better performance.

However.... In the real world, the Camaro ZL1-1LE has 650hp claimed, and the 911 GT3RS has a claimed 518hp. Not quite 150hp like the racing scenario, but close enough. And yet, the GT3RS is leaps and bounds better than the ZL1-1LE.

So while the 2nd comparison favors your viewpoint of the ME being a better platform, the racing comparison doesn't necessarily do that. Since in a street application an ME doesn't need equal horsepower to beat a FE, but in a racing scenario it does based on your argument in the previous post.

As a follower of your posts, I know you have a smugness and a unique way with words. But I definitely don't have my head in the sand. I would honestly switch sides in a heart beat if it comes out definitively that an ME is better than an FE.

I'm not a hater or a contrarian. I just want to fully comprehend the science behind such views. Word of mouth is never good enough for me. I'm at the top of my field in the world, and I take a data driven approach to my profession. So I kind of approach my hobbies and interests the same way. Not being a jerk, just pursuing a deeper understanding as to why.

Did you read the link I posted? That 150 HP is HUGE at LeMans because they stay at full throttle for over 70% of the race.

https://www.corvetteforum.com/articl...Z-VOhJ2myP6GhE

The mid-engine design utilized by the C8 Corvette also provided the engineering team with more room for things like the car’s headers and a pretty free-flowing exhaust system, along with a giant performance air filter – which helped them maximize output and lessen the need for aftermarket modifications like less-restrictive exhausts or low-restriction air filters.

Ultimately, however, the decision to go mid-engine was all about maximizing steering response, acceleration, getting power to the ground, and accelerating out of the corner on the track – the same things that pushed many race cars to make the switch years ago. The C8 Corvette also rides better than its front-engine counterparts, to boot, which enabled GM to use stiffer springs while retaining that ride quality.

[JG853]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

Racing is marketing too.

Of course it is. Ford still could have produced another version of the Ford GT with minor tweaks and sold ever one of them for more money than the Mustang GTD. But, they did not do that...