Quote:
Originally Posted by COBodom
Try reading with understanding next time. Which exact part of this previous post confuses you genius?
"I didn't say nomenclature was the only difference. I said that you are correct on the proper nomenclature. Not sure where you got the idea that I am claiming nomenclature being the only difference. Of course there are mechanical and physical differences. I never said there aren't."
The guy then became OCD with this $hit providing massive copy/paste trying to prove the difference which I never disputed to begin with.
|
Confused? Man, that's ironic.
I'm not confused. I read all your posts, and I get what you're saying about relative merits of each engine based on the buyer's priorities. I agree that for many buyers, the layout of the engine amounts to a line item on a spec sheet, and nothing more. I agree with much of what you said...
But you keep saying V4, V4, V4. It's driving everyone nuts, and now other people are picking up the incorrect term. You are making everyone around you
dumber, just by being part of the conversation. Congrats.
We can't have a conversation about relative merit, because you can't use the correct terminology. How do you expect anyone to take what you're saying seriously?
Say it with me: I4.
Try it once more: I4.
It's not difficult. You already conceded the point. Just make the small modicum of effort required to use the correct terminology.