For fuck's sake, can we stop this running around in circles?

@LordCaledus you confused mpg targets with emissions targets.

@Matt You are a fucking retard and a god damned liar.

No, I literally only _mentioned_ mpg targets and was _wrong_ to.

I called Rat Attac a retard because of one sentence he made which he hasn't retracted, and which you inaccurately defended. "To get better mileage you need more compression." The context of this line is that the WRX could be made more efficient by increasing its engine's compression ratio and the implication was that this was the best way Rat could recognize to improve fuel economy.

Problem: compression ratio being increased will not on its own increase fuel economy.

Increasing compression and _decreasing boost_

@Fitzydog none of the stuff you're saying supports your case.

Although it doesn't make much even stock

Problem: compression ratio is not even the first thing that would be done to increase fuel economy.

Really? Then why does Mazda do it?

The Mazda 2.5L has, what, 14:1 compression?

Yet it's short about 20hp on Chevy's 2.5L.

Because they've already checked the other boxes. Because engineering is more multifaceted than your weird focus on this subject makes it out to be.

Oh, then I guess we can just use 9:1 compression.

Makes no difference, right?

Well that's not what he said.

I said it was a major factor, given the subject of the video.

Just fuck off you two. Go find a link to post instead of arguing god damned semantics

The subject of the video was about compression

You are again inaccurately defending Rat.

I don't give a fuck

Why would I talk about the other factors when that's not the subject at hand?

With the same argument.

I think you're both mentally ill.

This isn't a god damned rhetoric clinic

"But you were acting like this was the only factor?"

Go beat off to futas on 4chan or w/e you fags do

"No, it was the only factor relevant to the conversation."

Maybe you have something resembling a point on confusing thermal and fuel efficiency. But A) you made it clear right off the bat your intent was to be an asshole, both of you. B) The only relevant factors to the conversation were boost and compression ratio. That's it.

Rat I will admit that I have perhaps been too harsh on you and overly critical of your choice of words. But again, I am arguing very simply against the inaccurate claim "to get better mileage you need more compression." Perhaps you intended for this to be a confined statement made with all else equal. But if that is the case it still fails to acknowledge that fuel economy is not equal to thermal efficiency.

I don't think explaining yourselves in a coherent way is really too much to ask.

That's what the discussion was.

I will retract my claim that you are a retard but I stop very short of it.

Boost and compression. How to adjust the two to get better fuel economy

With the obvious choice, all else being equal, being higher compression, lower boost.

Thus my choice of words, "if you want better mileage you need more compression"

As opposed to _less compression_

Fuel economy is equal to thermal efficiency.

Not as opposed to "literally any other strategy"

forced induction is actually not necessary for petrol vehicles unless the engine is undersized for the application and ultimately will only harm economy as a result