Yep. Rocking the 0.99L 3 cyl here ![Laughing :-DD](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley_laughing.gif.pagespeed.ce._hfWAz_QHO.gif)
Sounds like a V8 if you stick kangaroo juice in it.
I think you've been drinking too much of the kangaroo juice. Nothing sound like a V-8 except a V-8. ![Wink ;)](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/xwink.gif.pagespeed.ic.cldandycH0.png)
I have no problem with folks keeping the heavy metal of yesteryear alive... I'll always be a motorhead, and there still is no replacement for displacement. But this is a different world; these toys of yesteryear have to be treated as toys, not as a way of life if we are to survive as a species. We cannot afford for those lovely beasts to be anybody's "daily driver" any longer.
mnem
![](https://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/mnemennth/avatar423_2.gif)
Aaaaand this has always been utter nonsense. This is why Colin Chapman's designs blew all the primitive displacement based ones into the weeds.
The only thing adding displacement is good for is going fast in a straight line. For anything else, weight reduction is the real answer. Hence how Mini Coopers could beat 7-litre+ yank tanks in the early days of touring cars.
And it's equally arguable that your line of reasoning is just wankers spankin' it because they can't get their hands on a real car.
Anything you can do to a tiny engine you can do to a big engine and get even more power. Simple physics.
You don't have a right to judge how people like to play, or their choice of toys... don't be a dick, man.
mnem
![Flogging A Dead Horse :horse:](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/DeadHorse.gif.pagespeed.ce.kBWvHKqCd1.gif)
You're completely missing the point, not sure if deliberately or not, but w/e.
The Point: Weight reduction improves EVERY aspect of a car's performance. Putting a bigger engine in it, or for that matter keeping the same engine and increasing the power by boring/stroking it, ONLY improves (assuming you have the traction and gearing headroom) straight line acceleration and top speed. That is simple physics.
I have not at any point criticised or judged other people's method or means of playing, that's entirely in your head. I put it to you that it is not I that is "being a dick".
Power/weight is why many Brit cars of the pre Mini/Cortina era were such slugs.(although my Series II Morrie Minor
could do 70mph, which was seriously scary).
Heavy bodies & low powered engines gave you the worst of both worlds for most of the "bread n' butter" Brit stuff of those years.
Amazingly, the Triumph TR3 had a worse power/weight ratio than my EH Holden Station wagon.
OK, the Triumph had a 4 speed box, the overall gearing gave it a better top speed, it had better roadholding & brakes, but one was a sports car, & the other a six seater wagon!
I never had the chance to check the fuel economy of the TR3, but some of the lesser lights of the Brit stuff had amazingly poor mpg.
The Austin A95 I had in the UK during my 1970/71 visit could "gas guzzle" with the best/worst of 'em, & even when we ditched it for a tiny little Ford 100E "Popular",
that turned in 20/25 mpg---worse than my EH!
And that was with red blooded Brit gallons, not US "gallonettes"!