So then..... if quoting the peak number is irrelevent, then why do so many people on this site, yourself included, quote their peak dyno numbers??? But you quoted Hp, not Hp/Liter, so I guess it's OK.

 

If you want to see the absolute best possible hp per CI, look at model aircraft engines, less then one CI and they're laking in excess of 5 HP... for a width of about 100 rpm in the operating speed.

But, it's totally irrevelant... because other then those engines, I can't think of anything other then maybe a lawnmower that operates at only one engine speed.. it's the power curve that matters not the peak #'s Hence why the entire argument of pwr per litre is ricer math... it's so irrevelant, only people that worry about stuff like this are people that bench race because they can't drive or their cars don't run for ****

 

Yes, I said Hp/L is ricer math... We already had this discussion. But for those who already missed it.

See Erik's post here:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showpost....3&postcount=45



Or, see the entire thread which discusses the downside of extra stroke.

https://ls1tech.com/forums/advanced-engineering-tech/494318-downside-extra-stroke.html#post4774397

BTW, if you want to have nice drivability, and a big cam, you can go with an ITB intake and throw a lot of cam at a motor and have it drive like stock.

 

I think its amazing how engines have advanced so much. For instance the difference between oversquare and undersquare. Oversquare engines are good for high revs but bad for boost but don't tell Porsche that! Undersquare engines are great for torque but not so good at high rev's but don't tell Lambo that either. And go drive a long stroke 2.8 Audi and tell me if there is any torque down low! OHC motors are better at high revs but don't tell Ford that. And pusrods can't do what OHC motors can but don't tell GM that.

And I agree hp/liter is ricer math it only applies in spec racing series or racing series limited by displacement classes.

 

What V8s are you talking about? Older 4.4 made ~300hp and 5.0 in M5 made 400hp. Their new 4.8 V8 only makes 360hp.

 

The new M3 has a 4.0l V8 pushing upwards of 412bhp, and the M5 has a 5.0l V10 making 505bhp, both higher than 100hp/l.

 

>>>>

Nice thread.

Rotary engine = giant money pit that will never make any great power realiably.

Wasted money on them since 1986, worst engine choice I've ever seen.
Anyone need a 1990 Turbo II fully loaded with 50K on the clock, needs ANOTHER engine... AGAIN.

If I wouldn't have wasted so much money down that road for the last 15 years I could be DRIVING a really nice V8 now.

I found the LS1 as per Ari Yallon's suggestion at Rotary Performance in Dallas,

I haven't looked back since...13 second 1/4 with 2:73 rear gears using only one shift is hard to beat in my book.

That is all, carry on.

 

First of all V10 is not a V8.
Seconds of all, new M3 is not out yet and hp rating is just a speculation at this point since there wasn't an official announcement yet as far as hp output. How he said it implied that these engines already exist...

The only engines so far that made 100hp/l from BMW are V10 and inline 6 from the M3.

 

I used to always admire BMW's for there power curve and torque spread. In my mind the S54 M3 motor was so special not because of its hp/liter but also because of its high torque for a high rev engine. 265 lb ft is an amazing # for a 3.2 I-6. Seeing the Honda could only coax 224 lb ft out of its 3.2 NSX engine. Same thing with the S62 M5 engine a 3800 rpm torque peak and a 6600 rpm power peak with 368 lb ft. But now they seem to be going for the Honda school of thought even more. For instance the new V-10 M5 engine your telling me with all of that development on this engine they are only able to squeeze out 383 lb ft at a stratospheric 6100 rpm?? What happened to the famous BMW powerband? And for the RS4 to have 317 lb ft and the M3 only 295 lb ft for a V-8 is crazy. I always thought BMW was the king of engines but now I am starting to question it.

 

Drive one, you'll change your mind fast.

 

Yeah they are so fast.....it would probably scare me wouldn't it? Never driven one but been in one....much prefer the sledgehammer delivery of the E/CLS55 myself.

 

lol, at least show my next post in which I stated:

"I agree.....

Not sure why you think I don't.....

I was merely explaining why smaller cube engines make more HP/L, I was in no way saying that they were better or would make more total power than a larger cubed engine."

 

The new M3 will have, rather does have, a 420bhp 4.0l V8. That's 105hp/l. Which is more than 100.

I'm not saying you'd admire it because it's fast. You said you admired them for their power curve. BMW has made the "stratospheric 6100 rpm" seem off idle. You punch the M5, it's fighting traction control. There is no lag. Off idle, the RPM's instantly stand at 5,000, and the tires start barking right to the 8,250rpm redline. BMW may have a torque-less wonder on their hands, but you never need the torque. BMW has done amazing job of making sure you are never sitting around, waiting for it to pick up power. Any speed, and gear, you give it gas, the RPMs stand right up. There is never a time where there's isn't enough torque. They have made the 6100rpm tq peak quite usable.

Remember, gearing and converters make up for the lack of torque. And they do so quite well.

As for AMG's newest powerplants, I love them. I had the chance to flog a 604hp/738tq SL65 around for a while. I simply loved it. But to say the M series have a terrible power band is flatout wrong. They have a different powerband, but the technology to make it drive the same. The M5 accelerated the same as the SL65 (Just slower of course), both were barking the tires from idle right through 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear.

 

FieroZ34, you seem to know a lot about BMW's and Mercedes. Do you work for a BMW dealership?

Mind if I use your Communism worked in theory pic. Thats hilarious.

 

I do not, I actually work for my school's police department.

However over summers I go out to SoCal where I help my best friend, who is the automotive guy for a few very wealthy clients who have a lot of cars. I've got a few quick cell-phone pics of a few of the cars here:

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v3...iforna%20Cars/

Feel free to use the pics, any of the ones on my Photobucket. I'm not creative enough to make them myself, I borrow them from others

 

The one my brother drove was in power 500 mode and it just didn't have that right now feel.....ok I could agree to being incredibly jaded comparing this car to my C5 and to his CL600 but it was impressive on the top end but seemed slow on the bottom and mid range also compared to the E/CLS55. If you think gearing makes up for a lack of torque completely go drive an S2000!

I too love BMW's and have owned quite a few, very close to buying an M3 instead of my C5.

 

Gearing AND torque converters

That statement was more geared towards auto transmissions, but also remember the BMW 5.0 V10 is making probably triple the torque that the S2000 is, whilst only moving double the weight. But I'll agree, the S2000 is a horrible car. It needs an LS1 like Britney Spears needs a *****.

The M5 is down on low end, no doubt about it. But from my experience, there was never a time when I needed the power, and the car didn't have it. It instead adjusted, rather quickly, to the upper RPMs to give me the power. If my eyes were closed and ears plugged, I wouldn't know the difference between a SL65 AMG and M5 (If both accelerated at the same rate of course). The only way I knew they were completely different beasts was the tachometer. Oh, and the sound of a 505hp, 101hp/l V10 at 8,250rpm. It was orgasmic. But at the same time, the 6.0l twin turbo V12 didn't sound half bad either

The M3 is an awesome car. I'm going to be buying a new car when I graduate, and it is tied with a LE SuperSport.

 

In the world of sportbikes, it is always such. There's a reason why the 600s only run a few tenths slower, despite having just 2/3 the power.

Inline configuration has EVERYTHING to do with it. The DOHC valvetrain is higher, and wider. But with an inline configuration, the height doesn't matter, and the width is still less than the block. It is SOLELY the V configuration that makes the DOHC engines larger to an extent that they cannot be used.

Remember genius, I wasn't talking car engines. And in the sportbikes, the entire package is so minimalistic, that the 600cc is smaller than the 750, that's smaller than the 1000. EVery time, every brand, every engine. And when you are tuning the bikes TO THE MAX, and your competitors and racing leagues dictate maximum displacement, HP/L is EVERYTHING.

And in the world of sportbikes, size and weight are pretty standard. A 600cc GSX-R isn't going to be materially different in size or weight than the CBR's 600. It all comes down to how much power the factory can extract from the 600cc.


If only GM could design things like Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and sometimes Kawasaki. Then my statement would be correct. But from a minimalistic point of view, that simply means the LS1 and LS2 are underperforming and poorly engineered.

But now as you are are raging that I dare bash GM and the only engine they can make that's worth a damn (the LSX in general), let me add some to the above. I say they are poorly engineered. This is true, but not given the circumstances of what the engine must do. For sportbikes, it only needs to last out the front doors and, maybe over 10,000 miles. Whereas the LSX needs to last for 150k+, and with the expectation of owner neglect. That's why they get over-engineered. So they aren't poorly engineered, just overdone, which is bad in a class that has minimalistic standards (Sportbikes). So basically, the LS1 would not be a good engine for a sportbike...If there was any doubt...haha

 

Looks impressive on paper until you consider that the LS7 probably weighs less than either and makes WAY more torque than both.

There is a lot more to consider than the PEAK HP/L of an engine.

Let's say a company like Honda comes out with a 1L engine or whatever that makes 200 peak HP at 14,000 RPM and weighs 100 pounds. 16 year old Honda kids would brag like no other about how American engineers are dumb and could never build an engine like that. Meanwhile, we have engines like the LS2 and LS7 that would weigh slightly more, make way more peak power, and way way more power throughout the RPM range (due to the huge torque advantage). Still, ignorant kids will talk up the Honda engine as if they designed it themselves and how it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Once again - There is A LOT more to consider than PEAK HP/L of an engine.

 

With the exception of Supras, I disagree.

You're correct in that peak numbers are not everything.

However, I've yet to find a production car today, that boasts any HP peak, without a halfway decent curve to back it up. And I challenge you to find me one. Back to my beloved sportbikes, where the R1 shows 161rwhp @ 12,100rpm. By your logic, this bike would have a terrible curve, and its just a dyno queen. When in fact, quite the opposite is true. From 8,500rpm all the way to 14,000, the bike is making over 120rwhp. So it is making over 75% of peak power for 5,500rpm! Show me an LSX that can do that.

I know what's coming, torque blah blah blah torque wins races and blows transmissions blah blah blah BS. But in case it matters, that same R1 has a table flat torque curve from 4,000rpm to 14,000, and it is over 50rwtq for that entire spread, with a peak of 75. Find me a single production American engine that makes 67% of peak torque for a 10,000rpm spread.

TORQUE DOESN'T MATTER. Torque doesn't win, it spins. And that's after it's blown out your 10-bolt, broken your axles, merged transmission with pavement, made your 4 engine mounts become 8, and the list goes on. And now to the Z06. Frankly, its becoming more and more like the torqueless wonders every year. In fact, the only reason it still makes great torque is that is has a bazillion and a half cubic inches. But having drive one, I wasn't impressed. Impressed with the car as a whole, and the power? HELL YES. Impressed with the torque? Not quite. The engine still didn't really come on until 3500rpm. And below that, sure, it had enough to get out of its own way and show most of the cars out there, but who cares? Because when it comes down to it, and there's a Saleen that needs its *** beat, you'd better bet I'm revving the **** out of that motor. Volumetric Efficiency for the win. So what's wrong with the stratospheric 6100rpm tq peak of the M5? It has the transmission to make it feel every bit as forceful as a C5 Z06, even right off the line.