Seems like you have no problem making generalizations of your own. I suppose I should call you "irrational" and that statement "baseless."

Nah.

 

"Making power from the smallest sized package."

Hmmm, what does that have to do with HP/L? Packaging is a consideration in how well the car moves, since you have to be able to fit the engine in the car before it will move.

You can talk about all the "engineering" you want, but if it's irrelevant to making a car move, then I will call you on it, especially if you think such irrelevant nonsense can be used to prove the "superior" engine.

 

Are you retarded? If I make two engines with the exact same dimensions, same bores, strokes, bore spacing, deck height, valvetrain setup, bank angle, etc... and one engine breathes better than the other, ultimately producing more peak torque, and can hold most of that increased torque to the power peak, I now have an engine that makes more power than the other one, in a more efficient engine. More power from the same sized package, making the better breathing engine the better package. What exactly is so hard to see about this?
I stated tq/l as an interesting stat, and you started calling me stupid and slinging insults right away, like a 5 year old kid might do. For what reason, I have no idea. Two engines, equal dimensions and displacement, and if one engine makes more tq/l, and can carry it for just as long in the powerband as the other engine, and the engine making more tq/l will make more hp/l, and more over hp period. The LS1 and the LS6 are a good analogy of this. According to you, how well an engine breathes and how well it is engineered to produce power for it's given displacement is irrelevant, but I guarantee there are a group of mechanical engineers at GM that would disagree with you. You know what the goal for the LS1 was when it was being conceptualized? 1hp for every cubic inch. That was the standard GM set for it. Are they idiots now too? Why are we not allowed to discuss all various engine dynamics here without being insulted by your "all knowing level of engine intelligence". Why are we even still having this discussion? Instead of offering any insight into the conversation, you have continually told everyone how wrong they are, and criticized me repeatedly of contradicting myself, which I most definetly have not.

I am sure you will have yet another "contribution" to make to this thread. I can't wait to read yet more of you "insight".

 

So HP/L can predict the more powerful engine if every single other variable is the same. Great. And why couldn't you just ask which engine makes more power? You've already said bore and stroke are the same, so liters must be the same.

So, basically what you're saying is HP/L works if THE LITERS ARE THE SAME.

LOL, do you know how stupid you sound?

 

I'd like to ask how to unsubscribe from this thread. I've already tried going to:

Thread Tools > Subscrive to this thread > Notification Type > No email notification

I'm still getting a bunch of notices in my inbox...a WHOLE BUNCH

 

Do not mind FieroZ34.

He built a "10,000.00" engine and only ran a 15 sec 1/4 mile in his "superior, more efficient" powerplant DOHC.

 

My $10,000 CAR, not engine. And the engine doesn't even has heads yet. Get your facts straight.

My stock 3.4 Fiero ran a 15.4, pulling a 6-speed LT1 by 2 tenths. Gotta love Colorado.

 

No. I said if one engine produces more power than another engine that has the exact same dimensions in every respect, than the more powerful engine is the more efficient package. Hence, why tq/l and volumetric efficiency can be interesting to look at. No where did I say any of this **** was the be all, end all. You have just implied that I have made a statement to that extent over and over agian. You are either trying to be an *** by selectively reading my post, or maybe your comprehension skills are just that poor.

What point exactly are you trying to make at this point? That you have to get the last word in, regardless of what that last word may be? So be it. I am sure you will reply, so congrats on the last word. I am not going to respond to your garbage anymore.

No, but I have a good idea of how stupid you have made yourself sound time and time again.

 

That's true, but it has nothing to do with this:

That statement in no way follows from the one you made above. You've switched from talking about size/weight to talking about liters. You use the size/weight (i.e. legitimate) part of the discussion to establsih a point, then switch to talking about liters of displacement (which do not correspond the the external dimensions of an engine).

 

10K car??? It was engine last time you were bragging.

Now you're changing your story again?

You mean the heads you have that can OUTFLOW any Stock V8 heads.

I can post the threads and call you out.

I dont know why you feel you have to lie.

Maybe if you were honest people would'nt give you a hard time on RFT or PFF.

 

I is irony.

 

That is actually true, with the reason I gave. The engine is less tuned for a specific RPM.

 

And so is my generalization (you'll notice I didn't say yours was untrue. Generally speaking, but not always, it is). The basis is the mathematics of how torque and horsepower are related. So unless you're just allowed to make generalizations and I'm not, then how about laying off the "irrational" and "baseless" nonsense, mmkay?