B T

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....

engineermike

Well, maybe YOU can explain to ME how the extreme torque deficit on the 140,000 lb tank gets it moving quite well. Please please please I wanna hear your explanation since this thing weighs 35 times more than an F-body but has the same torque.

I'm done trying to explain to you and black_knight that the OEM's can change 1 gear in the tranny without changing the rest of them. In fact, they sell a lower 1st gear for my ZX-10r. If they can do a lower 1st, then they can also do a taller 6th.

Mike

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.

. . . but we're seeing things like DOD pop up, which reduces displacement at cruise. DOD makes a 5.3 get almost as good gas of mileage as a 2.6 motor. But, there is still the extra parasitic drag of the extra 4 dead cylinders. . .

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.

The 5.4 and 4.6 I compared have the same cams. Also, as pointed out above, DOD should prove to everyone that reducing displacemnt improves gas mileage.

Mike

engineermike

I'd like to dig into the rule book to see where the differences truly lie, but I honestly don't have time for that now. I will say this, though, that camshaft design can overcome alot of shortcomings of an inferior cylinder head in a race application. Unfortunately, for a production engine, the camshafts required to do this are out of the question.

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

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

OMG, are you a fool? Toyota outsells GM for reasons totally unrelated to engines!

What argument? I'm not arguing about your car! News flash: this is not about your car and nobody cares about your car!

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

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!

Once again, you forget what you are trying to prove: 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.

FieroZ34

iTrader: (1)

But, and this is fact. Toyota does not make a car that uses an OHV, pushrod powertrain. Toyota sells more cars than GM. Whether they are linked, who knows. But whatever Toyota is doing, it is working. The same cannot be said about GM.

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.

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.

78novacaine

iTrader: (2)

remember the v6 from the GN's and t-types?

germeezy1

I am done with this one....we have digressed to talking about tanks..and cars that don't have enough torque to pull tall gearing but somehow the oems want to gear them that way.

FieroZ34

iTrader: (1)

The ones that make 140hp less than I on the same boost levels?
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.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

You're a fool. There are MANY reasons that Toyota outsells GM. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with engines. Here's a hint: build quality and not being hamstrung by unions. Here's another: gross mismanagement. I am not in the mood to go over 30 years of business history. Toyota doesn't even really build performance cars anymore for the US market.

No, I already explained this to you. Read my previous posts. The fact that you keep asking about what engine would be a better choice for your car means you still think this is about your car or that the particular things that fit in your car proves something. Get real! This is not about you!

DanO

Meh..

Fuel Cells is where its at

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..

engineermike

If hp/l was their cheif goal, then their 4.0 liter motor would be making 800 hp. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't at the top of the priority list.

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.

I really hate explaining every little thing to people. If you're making posts in the Advanced Tech section, then you need to use your noggin to extrapolate a few things. The 4.6 Expedition has 210 hp and the 5.4 has 260. The 4.6 gets 17 mpg and the 5.4 gets 16 mpg. Let's say you add the 4v heads to the 4.6 motor with the same gearing. Now, it's making 300 hp, which is 40 more than the 5.4, but the 4v heads do not affect fuel economy (as seen in a comparison of the 1999 Cobra versus GT mustang) so you get better mileage too.

Again, use your head here. Are you really saying that the transmission manufacters are able to choose tranny gear ratios for each gear? Heck, as I pointed out to germeezy, I can buy a lower 1st gear for my ZX-10R and it doesn't affect the other 5.

Does a BMEP study make cars go faster? (I'm really asking you to think hard on that one, not only to figure out what BMEP is, but how it makes cars faster, and how it allplies to hp/l)

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!

The BMW v8 doesn't have much of an aftermarket, and it never will. BMW owners don't spend $70k on a car, then pull then engine to swap cams. When I say that he BMW isn't at its limit, what I'm talking about is on a higher level. Not a bunch of Camaro owners putting lumpy cams in their cars. I'm talking about Engineering changes on a production engine that will increase the hp.

You said that the 5.0 has a much more aftermarket than the 4.6. 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. Therefore (again, I hate pointing out obvious connections), if you can make 800+ rwhp with stock heads and cams, then it is difficult for the aftermarket to improve upone it. Try and keep up.

The 5.4 4v does quite well when compared to the LS1. 2000 Cobra R made 385 hp with 9.6/1 compression and ran 12.9 at 113 mph stock, and the car was no lightweight.

Just how many stipulations do you want to put on this comparison??? Either way, the ball was not dropped on the 4.6. When the 4.6 4v NA motor was 1996 and it made 305 hp. It beat the current 285 hp camaro by 20 hp and it beat the previous Cobra by 65 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. I'm glad you're not in the engine design group at GM. You'd just give up totally on performance if you were forced to reduce displacement.

4.6 4v gas mileage = 4.6 2v
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.

That, and the free-market effects of using up a limited resource (crude oil). That's really been my whole point. That mileage will be forced to go up, so displacements will be forced to go down, so if you want hp, then you'll have to get it from a smaller motor.

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

engineermike

Well said.

It really is amazing how much a 4v head can flow compared to a 2v head. Particularly impressive is the low-lift flow.

Mike

engineermike

If you put enough stipulations on it, then you can force any outcome that you want. We were talking about what is possible, right? If you're going to benchmark, you have to look outside such a narrow scope. So the Busa V8 costs alot - HELLO! it's because they're not building 5,000 a year.

Mike

engineermike

Dano, have you seen the Crower combined cycle? Looks pretty promising. . .

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

What is scaling? Compare it to the competition. Other motors out there that are comparable. Like the LS7.

If they limited by a combination of size and weight instead of displacement, you mean? Yeah, I think that's entirely possible. But then again NASCAR is more dependent on all top-end, from what I understand, so maybe it would go with 4v.

I think it wasn't, as I said. The point is that clearly the LS7 is the better engine from a performance perspective.

Your examples are invalid because they do not 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.

I am really saying that TQ matters and that gearing can't solve all TQ problems. You have trade offs.

Your question shows you still don't understand my criticism of HP/L and what constitutes abuse of it.

The important part to the fact of going faster is that you increased HP; not that you increased HP/L. You increased HP/L without changing L. The L cancels out of the equation. I've said that, what, four times?

Once again, WTF are you talking about? Which 4.6 block is this? What upgrades were used? You've mentioned this several times like it's a self-evident fact, but I doubt anyone here knows what car you're talking about.

Hah! The 5.4 is even bigger and heavier than your loser 4.6 which you love so much.

Only enough so that it actually makes some effing sense.

Yes, it most certainly was. The 4.6 sucked the big one. Ford 5.0 guys know this, Ford internal people knew this; I've seen internal memos admitting that the thing was an engine by committee, designed to be all things to all people and it ended up being crud. I'm actually surprised you haven't pulled out the "don't use the 4.6 as a representative of OHC because it just plain sucks" line yet. Because it is a valid point.

It did no such thing. Look up the SS and Ram air versions: 310 hp. So it lost by 5 hp, smart guy.

There are two ways to look at it: production ability to keep up with GM and aftermarket. Either way, the 4.6 loses.

I know you think that, but the real world has another idea.

When it's done by government fiat, it sure as hell does. But that's really a whole other discussion.

Again, a whole other discussion, but there is no natural oil shortage. It's all caused by various governments. For us, mostly our environmentalist laws against drilling or refining oil within our borders.

Bikes don't need TQ, they need top end. Again, no surprises. You just have a problem with taking ideas from one situation and applying them to another where they don't in fact apply. That's been your whole tune over and over again. You see some things in the bike world and think you can bring them over to cars while ignoring a million variables that change. HP/L "matters" for bikes because their L's match their size/weight. TQ is unnecessary for bikes because they weigh nothing. Pushrods are only used by Harley and aren't high-tech in their existing bike applications. Bikes, bikes, bikes. Every one of your fallacies lies in taking something from the bike world and attempting to think it applies to cars.

It's tiresome, really.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Yes, working in the real world is such a stifling stipulation.

You'll excuse me if I remain skeptical. There isn't anything even remotely like it out there. If you really could make it work, at cost, for a production car then I think someone would have done so. I suspect that longevity in that application isn't possible. But that's just a hunch.

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 ***.

FieroZ34

iTrader: (1)

My car weighs 2800lbs, has a 3.4l motor, and makes some 440hp.

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?

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Boosted. He was talking N/A. God, are you just looking for excuses to talk about your car? Get over yourself! (or your car, as the case is)