after reading and digesting it seems 2 camps have very narrow views of what constitutes "performance" before i throw in my tuppence worth of opinion, (remember opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but some are full of <beep>) i have been for as long as i could walk, a confirmed petrol head, i have a relevant engineering degree and currently hold the UK landspeed record for a production road legal motorcycle, (with added woosh pah of course).
performance ??
this means so many different things to many different people,
handling is regarded as performance by some
power is regarded as performance by some
how loud the stereo is, seems to be popular down the local car park these days.
each of us have (or should have) a real world test to determine if the "performance" we have paid good ££ actually works in the real world.
for some people this is on the static dyno
for some its 1/4 mile times
for some its skidpan, track or slalom
the fact is all of the above are valid ways to evaluate your "performance" but actually not one of them in isolation will give you a true picture of real world dynamics, the only caveat to that is for track day cars or 1/4 mile drag cars, but i have to assume that we are talking about daily driven, road cars here.
buying a pile of parts for lots of ££ only results in a "pile of parts" the skill is in the fitting, the testing and the driving to extract the best from any given set of "performance" adders.
if you buy any given upgrade based on marketing, or what your mate said down the pub, then beware.
i'd like to think that we are a bit more clued up than the local Halfrauds mob and take relevant real world data from several sources and not act like sheep,
some of the above posts are so full of untruths, and bullshit that its not even funny, but each and every side of the argument have very valid points to make and remember that "performance" like art is in the eye of the beholder.
Dave
.
