Well, that would be a different discussion on each particular comparison.Aralonia wrote:Actually, yes, there are major differences between the way the Corolla Matrix/any normal car and the LF-A/any high performance car are made.
But as long as the HP car reaches a certain mass-production-level there is no big difference anymore. An RS6 is made with the same tech as an A3. BTST.
Highest tech on aluminium blocks today is to cauterize, not to bore them.Aralonia wrote:Far smaller discrepancies which I have repeatedly mentioned regarding fit-and-finish, different technologies required to bore out the aluminium engine blocks on the higher-performance cars,
That´s show´n´shine, not tech.Aralonia wrote:more care and detail work as well as time spent on constructing carbon-fibre reinforced plastic bits and knobs.
That´s what Joe Average thinks (no pun intended). Hint: Porsche is overestimated. Vastly.Aralonia wrote:A Honda Fit rattles and vibrates doing turns around the Nordschleife at whatever speed it can manage; a Porsche 911 GT2 RS screams only because its tires demand more road to chew up.
Also Honda isn´t that bad. I don´t like them very much, but they came a long way, and they are testing a lot on the ring. In some smaller classes in RCN/VLN they´re unbeatable.
Simple thing: It´s "good enough".Aralonia wrote:(and this is a rhetorical question: if VW is so far ahead then why does the new Jetta still fit the crap 2.0L 115hp inline 4 from the 3rd generation Jetta and why has it been downgraded to aft-mounted drum brakes instead of discs? I'm not really dissing the company, I can't, I drive a Passat)
Also: That "crap engine" came a long way in engineering. Basic maintenance assumed these engines are good for >500.000 miles. Try that with a french car or a Yugo.
And engineering is about production cost: You won´t believe how cheap these engines are in production. That´s were VW makes money. And still they´re reliable and durable.
No, it´s not. Overall tech level is comparabel. Craftmanship also.Aralonia wrote:I am, however, disagreeing with you in your methods of comparison. You have stated that the methods of constructions of ships are the same across all ship types, which is a flawed argument on simple grounds of engineering tolerances causing different necessities between ship hull types.
Leopard is known to be the most reliable MBT, while the Abrams is the worst maintenance hog ever. In desert environment they´re constantly broken. See Iraq.Aralonia wrote:You comment on the differences between the M1 Abrams main battle tank and the Leopard (ostensibly Leopard 2A5 or similar) without looking at things such as the necessity of various items implemented on each tank (less parts and finer tolerances = more things breaking that shouldn't and the like).
And that mirrors craftmanship.
There´s one point you miss: Craftmanship for it´s own is useless.Aralonia wrote:Being hopefully not tech-illiterate and moderately well-versed in land warfare implements, I can look past "OH COOL GADGETRY" and go towards "I wonder how effective each of these things is in a situation it was designed for". Craftsmanship and quality sometimes have to fall by the wayside when it becomes necessary for the survival of a kind.
But Bismarck yielded a head start from it´s precision. They constantly hammered Hood from the third salvo on, while Hood only hit with her seventh (!) salvo. Without consecutive hits. We know the outcome.