[Y0tsuya]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Remember: Everything that has been refuted of yours has been refuted by multiple people in this thread ... and the issue now has absolutely nothing to do with cars.

Multiple people who confuse object metric with their subjective feelings.

But if you really must whip your ///M Perf'd six out and be Mr. Invincible Childish Know-it-all: My current car kicks yours' arse, and it's a four, too!

Oh we have an internet badass here. I'm so scared.

There's nothing worse than a self-centered know-it-all who can't see beyond his own nose (or any other appendage). Please learn some humility, or go ahead and live in your own world and stay off community forums.

Oh yes Mr Editor who whips his editor credential penis around telling others to shut up. That's some humility. How about you take your own advice and stay away instead of hurling personal insults when you can't win an argument?

[BEM-S4]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy - this is going to get amusing soon.

[Y0tsuya]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

Oh boy oh boy oh boy - this is going to get amusing soon.

Are you not entertained already?

[Ron Jeffries]

I see no need to pile discourtesy on discourtesy but it did seem that the moderator, if they are one, was a bit rude, which is a bit naff.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by Ron Jeffries

I see no need to pile discourtesy on discourtesy but it did seem that the moderator, if they are one, was a bit rude, which is a bit naff.

Eh, I'm only a deputy with a distaste for illogical petulence. That's enough responsibility for me.

#AlreadyWon

[aozer]

Originally Posted by internalaudit

Does having fewer cylinders make a modern engine more reliable or would a 4 and 6 cylinder engine coming from the same car maker be equally reliable/unreliable?

i would say the early n20 has proven to be less reliable than the n55 with its timing chain issues, at least when it comes to catastrophic engine failures. newer n20 and b48, i have no idea.

there is no way to determine reliability based on cylinder count.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Eh, I'm only a deputy with a distaste for illogical petulence. That's enough responsibility for me.

#AlreadyWon

They should really add a dancing Porsche logo for you at this point. Much better kick in the balls for your enemy combatants.

[Y0tsuya]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

They should really add a dancing Porsche logo for you at this point. Much better kick in the balls for your enemy combatants.

Cayman GT4 > Cayman GTS > Cayman S > Cayman.

There. I stirred the pot. Now everybody go crazy again.

[Dylan86]

[aozer]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Eh, I'm only a deputy with a distaste for illogical petulence. That's enough responsibility for me.

#AlreadyWon

i actually think i saw your car this evening. same colorway at least.

i was at the light on greenville and caruth haven turning left into the village. you (or a car that looked like yours) drove by and turned right on caruth towards 75.

[3rdcoast228i]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

Oh boy oh boy oh boy - this is going to get amusing soon.

And this is why I have not been making anymore comments. I was fully aware it wasn't going anywhere good.

[aerobod]

A good demonstration of why more power in the same chassis doesn’t necessarily make a better car can be demonstrated by Caterham. In the current model range the entry level car has 160bhp per tonne, the top 620bhp per tonne, with all cars weighing close to 500kg. The general consensus in the community is that 360bhp per tonne is the best balanced performance point, the entry level car car be the most fun with its standard skinny tyres and the most powerful car can be exhilarating, dangerous and wearing all at the same time.

There was a model variant a few years ago called the Caterham Levante, which had a 2.4 litre V8 with 550bhp and weighed 520kg for 1074bhp per tonne. The Levante is fast, tricky to drive and has generally lost the handling balance of the less powerful models, losing a lot of the fun and feel to replace it only with speed.

From a track performance perspective, unless you have long straights it is difficult to predict which Caterham will be faster when you get above 400bhp per tonne, as the more powerful cars can be slower through the corners due to compromised balance and handling and may not regain lost time with extra power on the straights.

[Mr Carrots]

The m240i has barely 200 bhp per tonne, far from the magic 360 :/

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by aozer

i actually think i saw your car this evening. same colorway at least.

i was at the light on greenville and caruth haven turning left into the village. you (or a car that looked like yours) drove by and turned right on caruth towards 75.

Wasn't me ... mine's pretty easy to spot since there aren't many 718s around: gloss black wheels.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by Mr Carrots

The m240i has barely 200 bhp per tonne, far from the magic 360 :/

The 360bhp per tonne is only really the sweet spot for a Caterham, each vehicle will have its own value, based on many factors.

[bensanford]

Originally Posted by aerobod

each vehicle will have its own value, based on many factors.

The quote was about a different vehicle, but could be applied to the 230's or 240's as well.

Obviously, the 240 is going to be faster at the track, and superior based upon purely performance based metrics.

The differences become much smaller in normal day-to-day driving, especially on congested roads - and the 230 probably has slightly better gas mileage.

I based my purchase decision on how I will use the car. From a resale value, the 230 (with the options I picked), probably wasn't the best choice - but I intend to keep the car for a number of years, and it made sense to me - the person who will be driving it.

[Y0tsuya]

Originally Posted by bensanford

Obviously, the 240 is going to be faster at the track, and superior based upon purely performance based metrics.

#Triggered

[flypenfly]

Personally, I can afford either but I'm going with the 4 cylinder. The engine placement, balance, and handling characteristics all seem to indicate that it's the better choice for me according to some actual track enthusiasts and instructors I've spoken to.

The 4 cylinder also seems to be lighter than advertised according to a couple of weigh-ins.

HP isn't just a number, weight isn't just a number. It's a really simplistic layman's view to break it down to a single distillation of surface data. It reminds me of teenagers who think they know it all from just a tiny sliver of knowledge. Its like the phrase, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Kolyan2k]

Originally Posted by Kolyan2k

Its easy 12 > 8 > 6 > 4

I'm gonna have to quote the best answer here and we can just close the thread for good

[BarryJI]

Originally Posted by flypenfly

Personally, I can afford either but I'm going with the 4 cylinder. The engine placement, balance, and handling characteristics all seem to indicate that it's the better choice for me according to some actual track enthusiasts and instructors I've spoken to.

The 4 cylinder also seems to be lighter than advertised according to a couple of weigh-ins.

HP isn't just a number, weight isn't just a number. It's a really simplistic layman's view to break it down to a single distillation of surface data. It reminds me of teenagers who think they know it all from just a tiny sliver of knowledge. Its like the phrase, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Yup, the tuners and track rats I know have all stated a preference for the lighter platform and you see many more 228s/230s on the track than 235s/240s. But Y0t will be here in a minute, lecturing us aggressively about "metrics" and how absolutely right he is about something that is absolutely self-evident, at least to him, if almost nobody else.

[Y0tsuya]

Originally Posted by BarryJI

Yahoo Auto Blog http://www.2addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1448739

Yeah at least I don't overexert myself performing mental gymnastics trying play downplay the extra 35% power and trumpeting the minor difference in weight, and saying intellectually dishonest tripe like: "numbers are no measure of quality. All they ever set out to measure is capability. You are using data to quantify a purely subjective value."

As for performance and handling, let's do this by the numbers shall we?

HP: 335 vs 248, M240i wins by 35%
Torque: 369 vs 259, M240i wins by 43%
Curb Weight MT: 3499 vs 3342, 230i wins by 5%
Balance (MT): 52.4/47.6, 4.8% diff vs 50.1/49.9, 0.2% diff, 230i wins by 5%
Skidpad: I've seen tests where the M230i edges out the M240i by maybe 2%, so 230i wins by 2%.

These are what I can think of and it appears the M240i is an overwhelming win.

Plus when you option the 230i with M-sport + THP, which is already on the M240i, the difference in price is only $4K. I want to argue the M240i is also the better value, but the lower fuel economy makes it kind of a wash money-wise.

Now onto this "Quality" thing you keep bringing up. Handling is a part of it which is already covered above. I'd also submit that the I-6 is smoother and sounds so much better than the 4.

Originally Posted by BarryJI

But Y0t will be here in a minute, lecturing us aggressively about "metrics" and how absolutely right he is about something that is absolutely self-evident, at least to him, if almost nobody else.

Others are just more diplomatic than I am. Also the 328i/330i outsells the M235i/M240i by a wide margin so you'd see more of it on the track, and proves nothing.

[Mr Carrots]

After adding meth I can objectively say that a @ 450 WHP m240i is scientifically provable to generate a far bigger smile when you go WOT than a stock 230i