Hitech vs Lotech.. ;)

[RC45]

Just to stoke the fires of "Car Chat" - which seems to have been stuck in boring econo-box mode for a couple days...

Hitech vs Lotech - DOHC vs Pushrod etc etc.. (Turbo vs NA or any other situation where one can show a progression in performance while reducing complexity)

And this is more than just a simple poll - lets get all passionate and discuss stuff

10 Years Ago: Then Versus Now We've done this before; a little more than a decade ago, in fact, in our Feb. '92 issue. In the ensuing decade, the joint horsepower number for this pair has gone from 775 to 905. The Viper's 0-60-mph time has come down by seven-tenths of a second, but the amazing story is that of today's Z06 versus the $65,000-plus Corvette ZR-1 of '92. The Mercury Marine-built DOHC V-8 hauled the C4-based ZR-1 to 60 in 4.9 sec. Yet today's "less sophisticated" overhead-valve small-block LS6 gets the job done three-tenths of a second quicker--in a better-handling C5 that costs $15,000 less (in today's dollars). The '92 pair cost just over $120,000, with today's duo running about $130,000. Adjust for inflation, and America's two true sports cars have gotten both faster and cheaper. Now, that's progress.

So - in summary - if something gets quicket while going down in price and losing complexity - That my friends is the TRUE measure of progress

Let's warm up the flame throwers and put your best examples of why hitech is better than lotech ---- or vice versa...

[mindgam3]

yeah the vette is a great way of showing how a simple car can be quick, but ultimately if you want to go faster technology has to move on

[RC45]

Originally Posted by mindgam3 yeah the vette is a great way of showing how a simple car can be quick, but ultimately if you want to go faster technology has to move on

See above - I was hoping to make it a little more than just "Vette vs the rest" (which we have won resoundingly already... ) - but I am in the "new for newer sake" is not the only way to exctract the most.

Sometimes, refining is better than re-inventing..

[rob_e1]

Originally Posted by mindgam3 yeah the vette is a great way of showing how a simple car can be quick, but ultimately if you want to go faster technology has to move on

Yes, but hi-tech can also be simple, see lotus elise.

[mindgam3]

Originally Posted by RC45 Originally Posted by mindgam3 yeah the vette is a great way of showing how a simple car can be quick, but ultimately if you want to go faster technology has to move on Sometimes, refining is better than re-inventing..

I wouldnt say anyones reinvented the internal combustion engine

Wankle may have changed it slightly, but the basic otto cycle four stroke combustion engine has been around for a fair old while

So I would say just about every new engine is a refinement not a re invention

Agreed, sometimes keeping it simple is the best way to go. But then again new technology can be more simpler. I just feel if you want better engines, you have to create new technology in the long run

[DanielW]

I'm gonna design an engine that will have 10 valves per cylinder, and a seperate cam for each cylinder. yeah. that will be very high tech. super cool. oh and it will have 300hp/l

[hemi_fan]

Im all for the lowtech! As my dad always says, "The less bells and whisles you have on your car, the less there is to go wrong."

[mindgam3]

but more simple dosen't neccesarily mean its less technologically advanced.....

[nthfinity]

ived owned, and will likely own another turbocharged 4 banger...
but not one of those turbo'd cars had the balls of a 91 L98 corvette i had once driven
mabey one day, i will drive a turbo 4 that will change my mind (ive passenger'd in an evo Viii... as it is very fast, i really isnt in the same league as the vette)

besides the vette, the other massive v8's ive driven seem to have one thing in common... a much longer torque curve then any variable valv turbo 4 can re-produce (sti) its a much more limited need to downshift for the quicker accelleration feel. in my old saab... sure, i could lay on the gas at 70mph, build up the boost... and gradually feel more power in 5th, or 4th for that matter... but from 50-85 was really for 3rd gear... opposed to several camaro's and mustang's ive driven that the torqe is felt as strong at lower revs, as it is at higher revs.

i love hi-tech, i love 'lo-tech'
but what i love the best the seat of my pants feeling

[hemi_fan]

Originally Posted by mindgam3 but more simple dosen't neccesarily mean its less technologically advanced.....

Guess that sums it up for me then! I love simplicity whether its high or low tech. As long as it has the power to back itself up 8)

[graywolf624]

Hitech vs Lotech - DOHC vs Pushrod etc etc.. (Turbo vs NA or any other situation where one can show a progression in performance while reducing complexity)

Theres only one problem. Many modern day pushrods are just as hitech as their dohc competitors. Same with turbo and na.

[mindgam3]

IMO dosen't get much better than a porsche CGT V10 or ferrari V8 howling away....

[RC45]

Originally Posted by graywolf624 Hitech vs Lotech - DOHC vs Pushrod etc etc.. (Turbo vs NA or any other situation where one can show a progression in performance while reducing complexity) Theres only one problem. Many modern day pushrods are just as hitech as their dohc competitors. Same with turbo and na.

I guess were are discounting the technology of the control systems for the newer engines then.

As the newest generation of "lo-tech" engines would not be able to extract all the power they do without the complex control systems supporting them - or the advanced specification materials used.

So the hi vs lo-tech would then need to be seen in the context of the design - not the execution.

The transverse composite leaf spring on the Vette rear suspension being a good example.

The styeel eliptical leaf springs of a solid axle Morgan is old-tech lo-tech... where as the Vette would be new-tech lo-tech... as apposed to the DOHC and 4wd of a 1932 Bugatti is old-tech hi-tech vs the DOHC and 4wd execution of the EVO VIII which would be new-tech hi-tech...

Does that make any sense?

[mindgam3]

lol, yeah it does, makes arguing for and against lo and hi tech kinda difficult tho

My view is that if it gives the engine better overall perfromance then they're can't be much wrong with it. I know you don't agree, but high HP/litre from NA engines is equally impressive as the actual overall performance

[graywolf624]

. I know you don't agree, but high HP/litre from NA engines is equally impressive as the actual overall performance

oh good grief.. Get off it already.