100 horsepower per liter naturally aspirated
#381
Originally Posted by black_knight
Yes, working in the real world is such a stifling stipulation... Only enough so that it actually makes some effing sense.
Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it's not "real world".
Originally Posted by black_knight
Hah! The 5.4 is even bigger and heavier than your loser 4.6 which you love so much.
I'll address your other null points later...
Mike
#382
Originally Posted by black_knight
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.
4.6 4v power > 5.4 2v
4.6 4v gas mileage = 4.6 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. I re-ordered them to make it easier to understand.
These facts prove my point. The 4.6 4v is EQUAL or MORE hp than the 5.4 2v, has less TQ, greater mileage, and can be geared to go just as fast. And please don't say that putting a 4.11 rear gear will kill the mileage. I think even you, deep down, understand that they have the ability to put a taller OD in the tranny. . .
Originally Posted by black_knight
Bikes, bikes, bikes. Every one of your fallacies lies in taking something from the bike world and attempting to think it applies to cars.
- Weight is extremely competitive.
- Size is extremely competitive.
- Power is extremely competitive.
- Cost is extremely competitive.
- You say torque doesn't matter, but they have a better torque/weight ratio than just about any car.
- They made the transition from 2v to 4v back in the early '80's.
I think it's extremely applicable since we're seeing the same basic market demands in cars now.
Mike
#384
Originally Posted by engineermike
These facts prove my point. The 4.6 4v is EQUAL or MORE hp than the 5.4 2v, has less TQ, greater mileage, and can be geared to go just as fast.
- You say [bike] torque doesn't matter, but they have a better torque/weight ratio than just about any car.
Last edited by black_knight; 06-25-2007 at 07:26 AM.
#385
Originally Posted by engineermike
So, since it doesn't match your criteria of being an existing production engine in a car and cheap to build then it can't be done? As far as I can tell, this whole thread is about what can be done not about what has been done already. Do you really lack that much vision?
Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it's not "real world".
. . . and the 5.4 4v hands the LS1 it's *** also. 113 in the quarter bone stock. If you're going to insist that the NA 4.6 just downright sucks and "missed the boat" because the LS1 "hands it it's ***", then be prepared for me to point out a smaller displacemnt mod motor that "hands the LS1 its ***". I'm sure you don't like that comparison. Who on LS1tech would. . .
I'll address your other null points later...
Mike
Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it's not "real world".
. . . and the 5.4 4v hands the LS1 it's *** also. 113 in the quarter bone stock. If you're going to insist that the NA 4.6 just downright sucks and "missed the boat" because the LS1 "hands it it's ***", then be prepared for me to point out a smaller displacemnt mod motor that "hands the LS1 its ***". I'm sure you don't like that comparison. Who on LS1tech would. . .
I'll address your other null points later...
Mike
#386
I am still trying to figure out how he compares an LS1 to a 4.6l. If we wanna talk equal...compare the 4.6 to the 4.8. Or the 5.4 to the LS1. I agree...the 4.6 and the 5.4 arent the greatest motors and I think ford could have done better. But they are purpose built. Ford is known for assembly line ease...so they make a modular motor...it fits what THEIR company wants. GM's LSx series motors fit what they see they want. But in the real world...we may not like it...so dont buy it. I mean yes...its an LSx website...so most here are partial to LS1...but lets keep it level. Factory motors... Not a 7.0 Performance derived LS7 to a 4.6l modular multi purpose motor. Its like comparing an LS2 to a 6.0l truck motor...same basic idea...dif goals. HP/L willl always be a tricky thing to deal with. Emmissions and Longevity of use will always come into play. Millions of factors in many ways. And many say the smog laws would kill muscle cars..nah...it just hesitated for a moment...but I think now we are better of because of those times. Forces companies to rethink how to get EFFICIENT GOOD power. I am hoping the HP/L will go up in the real world...but I myself want to see it done freindly to the consumer and the future.
#387
Originally Posted by Stang's Bane
You have to show me this 5.4 that traps 113 NA. I really want o see it??
Seeing how it needs 3 shifts and 4 gears to do that already....
I really want to see it do that with an automatic 4 speed ( I'll let mike choose the proper gearing for the trans ) with no crazy stall , something in the 2:73 final drive gear range so that it will still have the ability to have a theoretical TOP SPEED of 220 MPH in forth gear.
So mike would really have to watch how he gears that over drive gear ( 4th )
How's that for some gearing Mike?
Get out that abacus and do the gear reduction on that one.
Maybe if you gear it down correctly you can still have a good 1/4 mile, 1/2 half mile and 1 mile TIMES with good MPH and still put down over 25 MPG
I think I just killed a kitten, my bad!
#388
Originally Posted by Jhankinson
I am still trying to figure out how he compares an LS1 to a 4.6l. If we wanna talk equal...compare the 4.6 to the 4.8. Or the 5.4 to the LS1.
lets keep it level. Factory motors... Not a 7.0 Performance derived LS7 to a 4.6l modular multi purpose motor.
#389
I'm suprised the cady N* motor hasn't been brought up more in this debate. 4.6L DOHC 275-320 hp NA and it will deliver 25+mpg highway in 4000lb vehicles.
engineermike- some people can just never be wrong no matter how well you explain concepts to them (black knight) . It should be obvious that extracting higher hp levels from a constant displacement would indicate a better performing engine, but some folks just can't extract themselves from their overemotional envolvement with certain brands and designs. Luckily evolution does a pretty good job of weeding them out of the reproductive population.
engineermike- some people can just never be wrong no matter how well you explain concepts to them (black knight) . It should be obvious that extracting higher hp levels from a constant displacement would indicate a better performing engine, but some folks just can't extract themselves from their overemotional envolvement with certain brands and designs. Luckily evolution does a pretty good job of weeding them out of the reproductive population.
#390
Originally Posted by whiteghost
I'm suprised the cady N* motor hasn't been brought up more in this debate. 4.6L DOHC 275-320 hp NA and it will deliver 25+mpg highway in 4000lb vehicles.
engineermike- some people can just never be wrong no matter how well you explain concepts to them (black knight) . It should be obvious that extracting higher hp levels from a constant displacement would indicate a better performing engine, but some folks just can't extract themselves from their overemotional envolvement with certain brands and designs. Luckily evolution does a pretty good job of weeding them out of the reproductive population.
engineermike- some people can just never be wrong no matter how well you explain concepts to them (black knight) . It should be obvious that extracting higher hp levels from a constant displacement would indicate a better performing engine, but some folks just can't extract themselves from their overemotional envolvement with certain brands and designs. Luckily evolution does a pretty good job of weeding them out of the reproductive population.
Yup, he (black knight) wouldnt make it a day in the automotive engineering world.. well i take that back.. i've met far too many engineers just like him.. focused on one aspect without seeing the big picture.. or any picture besides thier own..
#391
How any one can say the ford mod motor wasn't a failure is beyond me, the people who design and build it know its junk, but need to pay down R&D and tooling costs. It was designed to save money, by using many of the same parts, tooling, and assy line to build everything from an econo v6 to a high perf V8 for cars(both fwd, and rwd) trucks, vans etc. The project ended up way over budget, and way short of goals.
Just look and the class action law suit that ford lost because of the poor performance of the cobra, a car that was advertised to make 320 hp, but only made 256 at the tires, while the 320 hp LS1, made 296.
Mod motor= big heavy POS
Just look and the class action law suit that ford lost because of the poor performance of the cobra, a car that was advertised to make 320 hp, but only made 256 at the tires, while the 320 hp LS1, made 296.
Mod motor= big heavy POS
#392
Originally Posted by Krom
How any one can say the ford mod motor wasn't a failure is beyond me, the people who design and build it know its junk, but need to pay down R&D and tooling costs. It was designed to save money, by using many of the same parts, tooling, and assy line to build everything from an econo v6 to a high perf V8 for cars(both fwd, and rwd) trucks, vans etc. The project ended up way over budget, and way short of goals.
Just look and the class action law suit that ford lost because of the poor performance of the cobra, a car that was advertised to make 320 hp, but only made 256 at the tires, while the 320 hp LS1, made 296.
Mod motor= big heavy POS
Just look and the class action law suit that ford lost because of the poor performance of the cobra, a car that was advertised to make 320 hp, but only made 256 at the tires, while the 320 hp LS1, made 296.
Mod motor= big heavy POS
#394
Originally Posted by whiteghost
It should be obvious that extracting higher hp levels from a constant displacement would indicate a better performing engine
#395
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
Here, I'll say it. The Ford motor was not a failure. Because though it may not have been an LS1, people still cut the checks for a 4.6 Mustang. GM can't exactly say the same, as nobody bought F-bodies, whether they had a LS1 or L36. There's a reason the Mustang is still being built.
#397
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
Here, I'll say it. The Ford motor was not a failure. Because though it may not have been an LS1, people still cut the checks for a 4.6 Mustang. GM can't exactly say the same, as nobody bought F-bodies, whether they had a LS1 or L36. There's a reason the Mustang is still being built.
#398
Originally Posted by black_knight
Nice cliche. Bet you can't back it up, though. What exactly am I focused on to the exclusion of the big picture?
Look at diesel engines, fairly heavy.. but BSFC's in the mid/low .3 lb/hp-hr range. I'd love you to show me a gasoline engine that can do that all day, at peak torque none the less!!
Or you can get insanely high HP/lb with a formula 1 engine, but have a horribly annoying torque curve for street driving
Or you can have our LS1 which is decent for a mid sized car but not particularily light for its power, but it has an acceptable torque curve for street driving. If you think the LS1 is even remotely close to the best engine you are very narrow minded and have spent too much time on this site.
Basically, you fail to see why we have so many different engines in the world, Peak numbers dont mean crap.
Most importantly, if you can increase the efficiency and power density of a given displacement, you can always reduce weight and then you can do a study on durability vs weight and how long you truly want the engine to last.
You fail to see there is more than one way to skin a cat (another cliche for you)
And im sure you cant be as dumb as you come across...after this long, i am sure youre arguing for sheer entertainment value.
#399
gm seems to be doing great, from the lt1,ls1, ls2, ls7...each is better than the last and gets good mpg, they're accomplishing exactly what needs to be done
you can think hp/l all you want but when you do you always have to consider other factors
power-weight ratio is usually the final outcome
you can think hp/l all you want but when you do you always have to consider other factors
power-weight ratio is usually the final outcome