thanks

That was sorta the problem.

Zone, they do porn and shit.

Someone piss in your cornflakes bro?

That was sorta the problem.

Zone, they do porn and shit.

I suppose you could say that the plane got... snickerdoodled...
anyone? or should I be ashamed and show myself out?

nigga don't tell anyone but that joke made me fucking snicker

Someone piss in your cornflakes bro?

That was sorta the problem.

Zone, they do porn and shit.

gets lodged in pilots throat.
chokes to death
whole plane pepsi

Its not like their mouths are covered or anything pppffft

it gets lodged the old fashioned way. by eating it

what a buzzkill, this guy.

Higher compression ratio does that

300rpm?! Damn what you got? Some 70 liter in line six off a tugboat?

ill put it in my honda civic

An in line or "straight" 6 cylinder engine has perfect primary valence, and can theoretically be scaled up or down infinitely and still operate smoothly, without the need for complicated balencing mechanisms.
For example I know the Nissan RB family of in line sixes are anywhere from 2.0 to 3.4liters (I think around there), many American cars (before the proliferation of the v8 the I6 was a very common engine layout for a multitude of reasons in most big cars and trucks in the u.s.) had displacements of around 4.0 liters and then on tractor trailers big I6 diesels around 20 liters, locomotives diesel electric hybrids with 50 or 60 liters up to tugboat and huge merchant cargo ships in the first half of the 1900s had literally hundreds of liters of displacement with doors in the cylinder walls for crew members to enter and scrub the cylinder linings as the connecting rods were 12 ft long in one case I know of.
I6 engines are some of the smoothest reciprocating combustion engines, besides v12s (essentially 2 I6s sharing a crankshaft) and v16s which are perfectly balenced by themselves iirc

The more you know

Yea I read alot about some ferry at a museum shit was huge they had a full sized model and said it would run on almost any fuel and the cruising rpm was 137!

That's what I figured. Still, your claim about your brother's volkswagen golf isn't accurate, because it would mean that he's getting more than twice the EPA and 1.86 times the DIN fuel consumption. It's probably closer to the 0.6 l/m that this review reports:

www.netcarshow.com/volkswagen/2014-golf_gti/

You can produce more power with the same amount of fuel, but it's the efficiency that matters.

Correct. But what he was suggesting, an engine making twice the power at a cost of half the fuel, would only work in specific cases because efficiency limits would come into play.

A lot of these comments don't understand maximum efficiency, or concepts such as torque.

If it were turbocharged then that is very easy. On boost= twice the power, don't let the turbo build any boost and voila twice the economy. AT max power tho shit economy. Averaged out tho its possible. Especially if the engine has variable valve timing and lift and cylinder deactivation and all that other stuff

At anyone moment you are correct but on average it could theoretically work.

Well let me rephrase: THIS product is completly bullshit but there are other ways of achieving the desired effect