scott wrote:
>> Sure, but AMD don't actually call it the XP 2.4GHz. That would be 
>> false advertising - as would claiming that an engine has a 
>> displacement of X when it's actually Y.
> 
> Yeh, I doubt any car makers falsely advertise the displacement.  But 
> calling your car a "1.6 TDI" or whatever and it actually having a 
> displacement of 2000cc is probably ok (even though 90% of people would 
> assume the displacement was 1.6 litres).

Hmm, probably.

I'm pretty certain my car's engine *really is* 1.6L though. (The Haynes 
manual has different instructions depending on the size and/or year.)

>> Or just HP if you want to know how powerful it is,
> 
> I doubt many people are actually interested in the maximum power their 
> engine can develop at one particular engine speed.  What's more useful 
> is how quickly the car can accelerate, eg 40-70mph or 70-100mph times.  
> This depends on how much power the engine can develop across a wider 
> range of RPMs, and also the mass of the car.

Or that, yes.

I still find it quite impressive that a CAR, which is made of METAL and 
powered by EXPLODING PETROL, can apparently be out-accelerated by a 
cheetah, which is MADE OF MEAT. Then again, an adult cheetah probably 
weighs significantly less than an Audi TT...

>> I never did understand 
>> the fascination with displacement. (Other than that I guess you can 
>> unambiguously measure it.)
> 
> Didn't the UK car tax depend on the displacement of your engine?

Ah yes, if your car is 1.1L or less, you get cheaper car tax.

Presumably the government chose this value since all 1.1L cars known to 
man are actually 1103 cc, not 1100 cc. Hence, approximately 0.1% of the 
population qualify for this.

In any case, given that this is supposedly a "green tax", taxing based 
on emissions or fuel efficiency would seem far more logical. But then, 
the entire concept that you can make people abandon their cars just by 
making it too expensive is laughable. You make people use alternatives 
by making the alternatives ACTUALLY ****ING WORK, not just by taxing 
them off the road. But then, the former costs money, while the latter 
generates money under the pretenses of giving a **** about green, so...

> Also 
> lots of racing formulas have limits on the engine displacement (eg 
> 2400cc for F1 currently).

Yes. Presumably so that to make the car go faster, you have to actually 
*work at it* rather than just make it burn petrol faster. ;-)

Post a reply to this message