scathing

Give Narada a call anyway if you're interested in driving. I think he had some people pull out.

Mona - even if your car isn't ready, you should come down anyway. Watch, at least. With no official timing, perhaps more people will be willing to take passengers as they won't be chasing bragging rights. And its always good experience to sit in the car of a quick driver and see how they drive, and what lines they take.

Yeah, its 220V. A plug adapter will suffice. As for eating from portable street vendors, I remember one time I was out on the piss with my boss and I was staggering to the MTR to get the last train home. I walked past this portable vendor cooking...I don't know what. All I remember was him leaning over the wok, working away, and his sweat was dripping into it.

Racelogic in the UK make one of the best aftermarket systems available, if you're into sports car driving. Not only is it adjustable like on the current Ferraris with their Mattinetto system, so you can decide how much slip it permits before cutting power, but it can also be used as an (anti-lag) launch control. It also has a spark cut module as well as the standard fuel cut, so quite possibly it can be used as an anti-lag system while on the move too. Its not cheap, though.

It'd be nice if people posted this kind of thing, that's clearly not isolating to their specific region, in a non-regional forum. You did, of course.

A wider brake pedal would make it easier to left foot brake, as you don't have to put your two feet as close together and possibly foul each other. Not saying its the reason, just suggesting it as a reason.

You just proved Rabid's point. GM, through the LS1, is very reliable at something.....chucking more cubes at the engine to make more power, and spacing out the gearing to keep the fuel economy reasonable, rather than improving the overall design of the engine itself.

Shit! Foiled! Where the hell did I get 2.5 from? Its 2.2

Firstly.....I'll agree that the LS1 in itself is not a limited production engine. However, the figures you quoted as proof of how good the engine is are for the 7.0L variant, which is only available in the Corvette Z06. And that specific engine is limited production. You didn't compare it to the cooking model, which when released in the VT Series II Commodore make 225kW (or around 306hp) from 5.7L. EDIT: Got my cm -> in conversion mixed up with my kg -> lb conversion

Hate to break this to you, but the thread is about the "Engine of the Year" award, not the "Car of the Year". When you're trying to find the best performance of the former on purely numeric terms, the figures people care about are kW/L and Nm/L. Its only in the latter is where you care about kW/kg. So, actually, when you decide to post on-topic you will find out that it is about horsepower per litre. The Mazda 13B has the equivalent of a two stroke design when being compared to a piston engine, since it has 2 power strokes per crank revolution. So its 1.3L displacement is not an actual comparison against a 4 stroke piston engine. If you look at it as a 2.6L engine then its power is above average, but its torque is woeful. The thing also sucks fuel down far more than a 2.6L piston engine would so its not exactly extracting a bucketload of power for the fuel it uses.

The name sounds like a rip-off of the Autobacs chain in Japan.

So Chevrolet's top-of-the-line factory tuned LS1 nowhere near the 100hp/L that the other NA cars are hitting as their target, and these days exceeding. Its also making less than 100Nm/L. So, output-wise, its got very little to bring to the table aside from big displacement. Which is hardly something worthy of winning an award. The 7.0L variant is not exactly a mass production motor either, and so comparing it to BMW's roadgoing V10 in terms of philosophy is reasonable. And, as the winner, that shows that it makes about as much power as an engine 2.0L smaller. Torque's down, but for its displacement (which is the ultimate determining factor on torque generation in a NA car) the engine makes more than 100Nm/L. The standard Gen III also had a peaky power delivery, especially for such a big engine. It does make a great sound though, especially through a half-decent exhaust, which improves the driving experience. What about technology wise? I know that some LS1 variants can turn off specific cylinders for fuel economy, which is a pretty good thing, but anything else? Anything funky in its construction? The speeds aren't surprising, since you've already admitted that the car's only 1200Kg. Which makes the performance figures somewhat moot, since its the car its going into that's helping with the acceleration and fuel economy. If I stick a Hyundai Excel engine into a go-kart it would make a bloody quick and economical car - it doesn't make it any less of a boat anchor. And considering most Gen III powered cars use similar drivetrains, which have 2 overdriven gears, it also makes economy an easy thing to achieve without having to improve the engine itself. So yeah, I'm not kidding. Aside from being big, what does the LS1 do to make it special?

The next Mazda2's Miller Cycle engine looks interesting. From a technology standpoint alone (4.35L/100km, Miller Cycle) it might win a place on those awards (which are not based purely on specific power). That kind of mileage puts it in Prius territory, but without the complexity of a hybrid drivetrain. Its certainly a lot better than a Golf turbodiesel. From a technological, efficiency, power delivery, power output, sound and NVH standpoint....what does it bring to the table?

Not "always". The 6 speed will handle at least 220rwkW, which isn't bad considering the stock power is about 125rwkW. The only guys who end up putting 5 speed boxes in their Silvias are the guys who have chased big power out of them. I don't know of that many S15s running around with 5 speeders that aren't dyno queens or track cars. There is a known issue with one of the circlips breaking over time even at "mild" power increases (if you can call up to 75% more power than stock "mild"), which the most common cause of the 6 speeder's reputation for weakness, but as such there's also a fix for it when it breaks.

I am booked in, and bringing my own timing equipment.

He's always been in the infotainment side of journalism, not the technical side. When you watch / read Top Gear or read his column in the Times, it comes through. The man talks a lot of crap, basically. If you want to know how well something works with impirical precision, don't bother listening to him. If you want an opinion of how it goes, which is subjective, then if you find your opinions lining up with him then it'd be good advice. Personally, I find myself more in line with Hamster's opinions than Clarkson's (and not only because he hates my car).

Volkswagen has only released a twincharger for a 1.4L engine. They say its because, as displacement increases, the less efficient this setup becomes. Otherwise I'm sure they would have bolted this onto their 2.0L engine and released an even better GTI....or given the R32 the kind of balls that would make it stupendously fast. I would love to see a Kei car with a production-spec twincharger setup though. Imagine a Suzuki Cuppucino with one of these, especially in a sports setup? Yum.

Which makes it inefficient. You either gear the supercharger to hit peak boost at redline, which means you get no boost down low and a non-linear power delivery, or you gear it to hit peak boost somewhere in the midrange and then need to run a bypass valve to stop it from overboosting....which means a portion of the supercharger's parasitic loss is for no extra airflow and is costing you power you're not making up by introducing a denser air charge. Since a turbo is already more efficient in terms of parasitic loss compared to a Roots supercharger, that means its far better than a centrifugal one. I've driven a 350Z that ran a centrifugal supercharger for a while before going to a single turbo. Both made the same peak power, but the turbo felt quicker because there was so much more oomph in the midrange. I would have liked to have seen a boost graph for the pair of them to see when they come on, but I get the feeling the centrifugal supercharger was geared to hit peak boost much higher than the single turbo.

That's because superchargers tend to run a lot lower boost. Hence why they don't need front mount intercoolers (some aftermarket setups may run air to water intercoolers), and why they don't need to lower the compression as much. But wind the boost up on a supercharger, and its going to need intercooling. Mercedes uses superchargers because they're more drivable. There's zero lag, which for their market (old people who want a cruiser) makes it a perfect fitment. Also because of the target market they don't make high revving screamers, so supercharging is better suited to the type of car they build. Don't forget that all AMG models are auto - but they don't do it because it performs better or is cheaper to manufacture etc. They do it because their customers don't like changing gears themselves. And the most powerful Mercedes Benz engines run turbochargers. They're also investigating twin charging, and if I remember correctly they're also working on a tri-turbo diesel (2 small turbos to spool up quickly, and a big single for more top end grunt). Superchargers are slowly being phased out of the Mercedes line-up - their new engines are NA or turbocharged.

Mong Kok is the big shopping district unless you're very cashed up, at which point its Causeway Bay. Causeway Bay is like Double Bay in Sydney - its where a lot of the high-end designer stores are. Even if you don't shop, its worth visiting. It has the busiest intersection in the world, and is a great walk. The Stanley Markets are world famous, but they cater for tourists. I finally went there the last time I went for a holiday, all I saw was tacky junk. The kind of thing Westerners think is oriental. You might find something you like on its merits, but I also saw a lot of stuff you might buy on impulse but never actually show in real life. If you want to check out where all the expats hang out, visit Lan Kwai Fong in Central. Its about 4 blocks of restaurants and pubs. Hong Kong people, as a general rule, don't drink so pubs aren't that common outside the main districts. The Red Light district is in Wan Chai, and like the Cross there's also quite a few nightclubs there as well as the "main attraction". Ride the Star Ferry, so you can see Hong Kong from the harbour. That will take you across to Tsim Sha Tsui. The Hong Kong track in GT4 is around Tsim Sha Tsui, so it may look subtlely familiar. Whenever you see classic Hong Kong shopping scenes, this place is it. Back when Mong Kok was just street markets, Tsim Sha Tsui was the place to shop if you wanted something from a store. But now its not as popular as its gone upmarket and so the prices have also gone north. Anything else you want to see is going to depend on your interests. Depending on your age, or if you have kids, you might like Ocean World. Its like Sea World in the Gold Coast, but just bigger.

Victoria Peak. I can't remember exactly where the bottom of the tram is (near Central or Admiralty I'd say) but it tops out at the Peak, which has a very expensive restaurant etc. The road that goes up the peak is also quite nice, but you're unlikely to be able to get a car to drive it up anyway. Yeah, the company that set up the Octopus card has been contracted to set up a stored-value card in Sydney, at least for the public transport network. And the MTR in Hong Kong is amazing. On peak, trains arrive every minute and they're always on time. There's actually no published schedule that I'm aware of, since they're so regular.

Z4M wins my vote. Looks like a sports car, and goes pretty hard. A lot cheaper than a 911 (which, I'm assuming you're talking about the entry-model Carrera) and pretty quick. Its lighter and more direct than the M3 (unless you're getting a CSL), doesn't have that iDrive bollocks, and only comes with a proper gearbox.

I love Melbourne. Its just a more laid back place. The only things I don't like about Melbourne are: 1. The wind 2. The cold 3. The road enforcement (no signs for fixed speed cameras, heavy handed police, small margins of error) Aside from that, the city is tops.

Give us some dose, yuleh!

I've driven the current MX5, previous generation Boxster, and Rover engined Lotus Elise. To be honest, as a driver's car I can't see the point of buying a Boxster over buying an MX5 unless you're actually worried about lap times. Yes, the Boxster is quicker because of the extra power but it doesn't feel that much quicker. As an experience the MX5 offers the same thrills, but at a fraction of the cost. Unless you're running them head to head, Initial D style, or against a stopwatch on the track you'd be hard pressed to say one is quicker than the other. And the NC MX5's cabin is not that shabby. The seats are nice, the switchgear is well laid out, and the Bose stereo sounds great. For around $50K (for the hard top, a great feature not offered on the Boxster) its hard to top. The Elise isn't in the same class, as it isn't anywhere near practical to own. Those of us who are willing to sacrifice practicality for performance won't mind, but a typical person looking for a sporty daily driver wouldn't last long in one. This is something I agree with. I hate seeing that phrase; it just smacks of people regurgitating other people's bigotry. Its not a "poor man's 911", its a different Porsche. Its not meant to be a 911. If they wanted it to be some kind of 911, then they would have made a 101th variant of it to go with the other 100 different models of 911 Porsche sells rather than spending the money to design an all-new platform. And few of those naysayers would turn a Boxster down if they were given one instead of, say, a BMW 3 series convertible or Mercedes SLK of the same price. It is meant to be a roadster, and while the 911 has always been the "road going race car" the Boxster was always meant to be a street car only. And just because its the cheapest in the range doesn't mean its rubbish. Does anyone bag out the Gallardo for being the "poor man's Lamborghini"? Its cheap (in Lamborghini terms), and its missing the iconic scissor doors and V12.