100 horsepower per liter naturally aspirated
#361
Forced induction Busa, and a really nice Forced inducted DOHC Fiero, and then there is that TERMINATOR engine... I see no link here...
I wonder how many are using automatic transmissions....
I wonder how many are using automatic transmissions....
Last edited by B T; 06-24-2007 at 04:32 AM.
#362
Originally Posted by germeezy1
Wrong any deficit in torque can be overcome with a combo of extreme light weight and gearing. . . I still stand by the fact that light weight is the only true way to overcome no torque.
Originally Posted by germeezy1
gearing in fact where you keep looking to shift up on the freeway.
Mike
#363
Originally Posted by JD_AMG
Compared to other 500hp engines(Like BMWs or MBs), yes its light and small.
Originally Posted by JD_AMG
And Im saying that's not right. Generally engines have gotten more displacement since the 80s. Look at all the performance cars, how many of them gone down in displacement?
Did you see where GM is talking about canning RWD cars in the future to improve gas mileage? When the companies are pressed, you'll see displacements going down.
Originally Posted by JD_AMG
I guess the bigger cam(s) dont effect gas milage either...
And for the vette, the significantly larger wheels/tires, and beefed up drivetrain of course dont play a role in gas milage.
And for the vette, the significantly larger wheels/tires, and beefed up drivetrain of course dont play a role in gas milage.
Mike
#364
Originally Posted by Old SStroker
An interesting study in hp/L as well as pure hp and torque is the Grand American Daytona Prototype (DP) class.. . . (deleted for brevity)
Please answer this, though, do you truly believe that a 2 valve cylinder head on any given displacement will make more power than a 4 valve cylinder head?
Mike
#365
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
There's a reason Toyota sells more cars than GM, and doesn't make a single pushrod OHV engine.
Trust me, you aren't going to win this segment of the argument. I did the research to find out which motor was THE BEST for my application, so I wouldn't be disappointed in the end.
#366
Originally Posted by engineermike
But. . . when compared with DOHC engines that were specifically designed for a high power density (and I'm talking hp/lb to make you guys happy), the aluminum, titanium, and plastic LS7 loses out.
DOD should prove to everyone that reducing displacemnt improves gas mileage.
#367
Originally Posted by black_knight
OMG, are you a fool? Toyota outsells GM for reasons totally unrelated to engines!
If you're going to be saying that, and I quote your blatant ignorance, "pushrods offer a better street setup and OHC was more suitable to displacement-limited racing and impressing HP/L morons." So everyone that buys a Toyota buys it to impress their friends with it's crazy hp/l, not for it's superior street setup? I was thinking the opposite, that people buy Toyota's because they fit a potent enough powertrain into a quality vehicle that yields great MPG numbers and a very smooth driving engine, quite unlike GM.
What argument? I'm not arguing about your car! News flash: this is not about your car and nobody cares about your car!
#368
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
I get it, as soon as I find a very real, very average example that makes everything you say look as retarded as Michael Jackson, all of the sudden nobody cares. But I'll let it stand, since according to you pushrods offer a better street setup and all DOHC is for is to impress people with my HP/L, find me a SINGLE pushrod engine that is superior to my DOHC powerplant.
#370
Originally Posted by 78novacaine
remember the v6 from the GN's and t-types?
The ones that you have to build 5 custom engine mounts for?
The ones that weigh over 60lbs more than I do, even with my turbo/intercooler?
Yah, I remember them. Waste of iron. I'd say waste of aluminum too, but they don't use enough to waste.
#371
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
Whether they are linked, who knows. But whatever Toyota is doing, it is working.
I get it, as soon as I find a very real, very average example
Last edited by black_knight; 06-24-2007 at 04:29 PM.
#373
Originally Posted by black_knight
Whoa, wait a minute. I can guarantee you that hp/L WAS one of their goals. That's why it sucks so much.
Originally Posted by black_knight
Of course not! I am only saying that HP/L is not one of those things!
Originally Posted by black_knight
Yes, exactly, you thick-headed lunatic! NASCAR IS DISPLACEMENT LIMITED!
Originally Posted by black_knight
The BMW is also performance-car only and limited production. I am comparing like to like. And I'd bet money that the BMW is more expensive.. .[/
Originally Posted by black_knight
I am providing examples where we do what YOU insist is possible, which is having a low displacement motor that makes EQUAL hp and less TQ and is geared to go just as fast. All of the counter-examples you gave ('vettes, fords) do not meet that criteria. It is YOU who are giving bad examples!
Originally Posted by black_knight
No, I just await your proof.
Originally Posted by black_knight
You mean, higher hp/pound. HP/L does not make cars go faster.
Or how 'bout this. . . if you upgrade your camshaft, then you just increased hp/liter. Is it faster?
The point of my post was that, if you limit engine size to a certain amount of liters to get mpg, then increase hp to get performance back, then you ARE increasing hp/liter!
Originally Posted by black_knight
If you think that the BMW v8 is more moddable than the LS7, then you are simply a fool. And there will be no convincing you. The LS7 is better and you can mod them both to the max, but the LS7 will still be better.
Originally Posted by black_knight
Do you care to point to what the hell you are talking about? Do you mean the IRON BLOCK, FORGED terminator motor?
Originally Posted by black_knight
Keep it N/A. Then tell me that a ford 4.6 liter does not get its *** handed to it by the LS1. I dare you.
Originally Posted by black_knight
. . . And that's before bringing the even larger ford 5.4 into it! If you're going to use contemporary Fords, then you'd better use contemporary LS motors - i.e. the LS3. What I will remind you is that you are arguing against the statement: Ford dropped the ball with the 4.6. Compare any version of the 4.6 with its contemporary LS motor and tell me the Ford doesn't get its *** handed to it.
Originally Posted by black_knight
What applies to motorcycles does not scale up to cars.
Originally Posted by black_knight
No doubt this will make cars suck. And since DOHC sucks, then there you go.
Originally Posted by black_knight
I've been over how your examples do not prove your claim: that having a low displacement motor that makes EQUAL hp and less TQ and is geared to go just as fast will make better MPG.
4.6 2v gas mileage > 5.4 2v
4.6 4v power > 5.4 2v
It is physically possible to put a shorter rear gear in a vehicle along with a taller OD to get the same top gear rpm.
These are facts. Please connect the dots.
Originally Posted by black_knight
So you'll win by government mandate? . . .
If mileage was not a concern, then do whatever you want. . . build great big 2v motors that make 600 hp at 4000 rpm. I'd prefer a great big motor with a 4v head, though, and made 1000 hp at 8000 rpm (hypothetical). Seriously, I beg you to ride a 2v street bike like the GS1000, then ride a 4v sport bike like a GSXR1000. The difference in power really is astounding.
Mike
#374
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
...I'll agree pushrod engines have their place, and I really enjoy our LS1, but to say they are better at such a broad scheme of things is wrong, as is saying DOHC is solely for HP/L. A better street setup? Bullsh!t...
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
Slightly less crappy? My heads flow more than LS7 heads at any lift, and they haven't seen a CNC machine (And we all know how cheap CNC machines are...)
Mike
#375
Originally Posted by black_knight
I don't see any - and keep in mind these highlighted words - 1: production! 2: car! engines where it does. Except ones that 3: cost! several times over what it does!
Mike
#376
Originally Posted by DanO
The internal combustion engine has nearly reached the end of its life and will never have a significant enough jump in efficiency over current state..
#377
Originally Posted by engineermike
Okay, then, if a design team builds an all-new engine of a displacement and purpose never built before, then how are they supposed to find out how well they've done, if not by benchmarking using scaling?
Let me word my question a different way. . . if NASCAR were to remove the displacement and 2-valve head limitation, do you honestly think they would stick with 2 valves/cylinder?
If you think that the BMW was built with the same exact goals as the ZO6, then obviously you understand nothing about the company.
The 4.6 Expedition has 210 hp and the 5.4 has 260....[snip]
Again, use your head here. Are you really saying that the transmission manufacters are able to choose tranny gear ratios for each gear?
Does a BMEP study make cars go faster?
Or how 'bout this. . . if you upgrade your camshaft, then you just increased hp/liter. Is it faster?
I said that many of the stock components are difficult to improve upon and pointed out that you can make up to 800 rwhp with a stock long-block.
The 5.4 4v does quite well when compared to the LS1.
Just how many stipulations do you want to put on this comparison???
Either way, the ball was not dropped on the 4.6.
It beat the current 285 hp camaro by 20 hp
If you call that "dropping the ball", then I just don't think we're going to be able to agree on anything...
Sure it can. If you can build a 430 lb bike with a 1.3 liter motor making 180 hp, then you can certainly build a 3000 lb car with a 2.6 liter motor making 360 hp.
Increasing fuel mileage doesn't have to make cars suck.
That, and the free-market effects of using up a limited resource (crude oil).
Seriously, I beg you to ride a 2v street bike like the GS1000, then ride a 4v sport bike like a GSXR1000. The difference in power really is astounding.
It's tiresome, really.
#378
Originally Posted by engineermike
If you put enough stipulations on it, then you can force any outcome that you want.
So the Busa V8 costs alot - HELLO! it's because they're not building 5,000 a year.
If you really think it's possible, then let's wait and see. If some wacky regulations don't step in and change the game, then I'd think sooner or later someone's going to get rich putting inexpensive motorcycle-derived tiny V8's that make big hp and get great gas MPG and last 100,000+ mi into production cars. But for now, I'm calling on your ***.
#379
Originally Posted by engineermike
Sure it can. If you can build a 430 lb bike with a 1.3 liter motor making 180 hp, then you can certainly build a 3000 lb car with a 2.6 liter motor making 360 hp.
Originally Posted by black_knight
I know you think that, but the real world has another idea.
If you'd like, I can very easily make it weigh 3000lbs, and make 360hp.
Let me guess, it disproves you, so it must not be part of the real world and nobody cares?
#380
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
My car weighs 2800lbs, has a 3.4l motor, and makes some 440hp.