100 horsepower per liter naturally aspirated
06-07-2007, 01:39 AM
#81
12 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SE Houston
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one thing i was thinking about, as far as comparing engines by hp/l, this is just a random thought, but if you were say 100 lbs, and could bench 100 lbs, what do you think would happen if you got in a fight with a 200 lb guy that could only bench 185? sure, you may be more efficient than him, but you still are overpowered by brute force. and fact is, i would rather be the big guy (big dumb american v8) kicking the living **** out of the little guy (little high revving torqueless wonder)
again, that is just a random thought that popped in my head, and i may be completely off base
again, that is just a random thought that popped in my head, and i may be completely off base
06-07-2007, 02:09 AM
#82
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
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.
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.
Main point of previous post = the actual weight of the engines compared to the horsepower they make. (I don't think you'll miss it this time)
Horsepower is king but you just killed any credibility you had when you stated "Torque doesn't matter".
HP = Torque * RPM / 5252
So if torque doesn't matter, and you can't have Horsepower without torque, then are you saying horsepower doesn't matter either?
Take two identical cars. One with a 500 HP / 300 lb ft engine and one with a 500 HP / 500 lb ft engine. The second one wins because it has more torque and therefore, MORE HORSEPOWER TOO. Wait, what? They both have 500 HP. The car obviously doesn't make 500 HP the entire time the pedal is mashed, the higher torque of the second engine equates to higher average horsepower throughout the RPM range.
So what would you rather have? A 5L DOHC engine that makes 100 HP/L, or a 7L pushrod engine that makes as much horsepower, more torque, and weighs less? One will impress the local Honda crowd, and one will win more races.
06-07-2007, 03:58 AM
#83
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality is the M5 weighs 4,000 lbs and has 383 lb ft.....I don't know maybe the M5 you drove was different but they don't magically get to 5,000 rpm the instant you push the throttle. What I am talking about is purely feel...when you put your foot to the floor how brutal is the hit. The M5 just doesn't hit as hard as 500 hp would lead you to believe.
06-07-2007, 05:30 AM
#84
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
In the world of sportbikes, it is always such...
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 in the world of sportbikes, size and weight are pretty standard.
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 in the world of sportbikes, size and weight are pretty standard.
And when you are tuning the bikes TO THE MAX, and your competitors and racing leagues dictate maximum displacement, HP/L is EVERYTHING.
----------------
Listen, I'm going to say this once more:
It is not HP per L that matters. It is HP per size/weight. They are sometimes related but mostly not. It is inaccurate and misleading to treat the two as if they were the same. It perpetuates ricer thinking. If you mean HP per size/weight, they say that! Do not say HP/L, because it is BS.
06-07-2007, 07:58 AM
#85
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
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.
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.
You're trying to compare sportbike engines to car engines???
Do you even know what torque is?
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
Torque is what matters, its what moves the car!
ITs what your feeling, not hp.
Find me a production car engine that weighs 390lbs undressed (or less) that makes 400hp/400ft.lbs with a flat curve that can be bought new for around $5,000 USD ...
06-07-2007, 08:47 AM
#86
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
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.
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.
That being said, they in no way have no relation to a car. This thread has turned into another ohc vs ohv thread. Physical size/weight vs hp produced is much, much more a relevant topic in a car than hp/liter. This point has been beaten on a million times. When will you accept it?? It is a proven and logical fact.
06-07-2007, 11:04 AM
#87
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Louie83
You completely ignored the main point of my post.
Main point of previous post = the actual weight of the engines compared to the horsepower they make. (I don't think you'll miss it this time)
Horsepower is king but you just killed any credibility you had when you stated "Torque doesn't matter".
HP = Torque * RPM / 5252
So if torque doesn't matter, and you can't have Horsepower without torque, then are you saying horsepower doesn't matter either?
Take two identical cars. One with a 500 HP / 300 lb ft engine and one with a 500 HP / 500 lb ft engine. The second one wins because it has more torque and therefore, MORE HORSEPOWER TOO. Wait, what? They both have 500 HP. The car obviously doesn't make 500 HP the entire time the pedal is mashed, the higher torque of the second engine equates to higher average horsepower throughout the RPM range.
So what would you rather have? A 5L DOHC engine that makes 100 HP/L, or a 7L pushrod engine that makes as much horsepower, more torque, and weighs less? One will impress the local Honda crowd, and one will win more races.
Main point of previous post = the actual weight of the engines compared to the horsepower they make. (I don't think you'll miss it this time)
Horsepower is king but you just killed any credibility you had when you stated "Torque doesn't matter".
HP = Torque * RPM / 5252
So if torque doesn't matter, and you can't have Horsepower without torque, then are you saying horsepower doesn't matter either?
Take two identical cars. One with a 500 HP / 300 lb ft engine and one with a 500 HP / 500 lb ft engine. The second one wins because it has more torque and therefore, MORE HORSEPOWER TOO. Wait, what? They both have 500 HP. The car obviously doesn't make 500 HP the entire time the pedal is mashed, the higher torque of the second engine equates to higher average horsepower throughout the RPM range.
So what would you rather have? A 5L DOHC engine that makes 100 HP/L, or a 7L pushrod engine that makes as much horsepower, more torque, and weighs less? One will impress the local Honda crowd, and one will win more races.
As for your example, there's no way to know which one will win. Assume the M5 weighs as little as the Vette, and has the same aerodynamics. Now, there's no way to tell which one will win. Because as I said before, the torque...OH GOD SORRY, the time the engine spends out of its tuned rev range, doesn't matter, especially when you have a transmission that can keep you in your rev range all the time.
Originally Posted by germeezy1
The reality is the M5 weighs 4,000 lbs and has 383 lb ft.....I don't know maybe the M5 you drove was different but they don't magically get to 5,000 rpm the instant you push the throttle. What I am talking about is purely feel...when you put your foot to the floor how brutal is the hit. The M5 just doesn't hit as hard as 500 hp would lead you to believe.
Originally Posted by JD_AMG
You're a walking punchline in this thread, are you high?
You're trying to compare sportbike engines to car engines???
Do you even know what torque is?
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
Torque is what matters, its what moves the car!
ITs what your feeling, not hp.
Find me a production car engine that weighs 390lbs undressed (or less) that makes 400hp/400ft.lbs with a flat curve that can be bought new for around $5,000 USD ...
You're trying to compare sportbike engines to car engines???
Do you even know what torque is?
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
Torque is what matters, its what moves the car!
ITs what your feeling, not hp.
Find me a production car engine that weighs 390lbs undressed (or less) that makes 400hp/400ft.lbs with a flat curve that can be bought new for around $5,000 USD ...
How about I find you one that makes 400hp, but 250tq? With the right transmission, it will drive just the same, and accelerate just as hard.
Originally Posted by Stang's Bane
That being said, they in no way have no relation to a car. This thread has turned into another ohc vs ohv thread. Physical size/weight vs hp produced is much, much more a relevant topic in a car than hp/liter. This point has been beaten on a million times. When will you accept it?? It is a proven and logical fact.
However, for the sake of argument, can someone find the undressed weight for a new 1000cc sportbike (R1, Gix 1000, ZX10, or CBR1000). And cite your source. I was unable to find any such numbers, but it'd be interesting to see if we proportionally increased it's weight to match that of the LS7, which one would produce more power. The bike would have the better, longer rev range, but which one would make more power?
06-07-2007, 11:21 AM
#88
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the M5 I drove for 3 months was exactly like every other M5. And yes, they do magically get to 4,500rpm the second you mash the pedal. It's called a stall.
I knew I would catch your bs if I let you talk for long enough. You obviously did not drive an M5. Can anyone tell me why what he is saying is incorrect before I jump all over it??
I knew I would catch your bs if I let you talk for long enough. You obviously did not drive an M5. Can anyone tell me why what he is saying is incorrect before I jump all over it??
06-07-2007, 11:30 AM
#89
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no stall in an M5.
My bad, it's called a clutch. And the M5 has like 4 of them.
There, I caught myself. Fact remains, the tach did instantly stand up to 4.5k.
My bad, it's called a clutch. And the M5 has like 4 of them.
There, I caught myself. Fact remains, the tach did instantly stand up to 4.5k.
06-07-2007, 11:34 AM
#90
A CBR1000RR weighs in at 388 dry. Let's assume that the engne weighs 150 lbs. I think that is a fair assumption. I think a ls7 engine weighs ~400 lbs.
There is just one problem with that theory though. If you were to increase proportionally the size of the bike motor to be equal the size of the ls7, you would not proportionally increase the output. Frictional losses would take over and put a damper on that. Also you would end up with a 4 cyl engine of roughly 2.75 liters that made absolutely no torque in a usable rpm range. You would have to run around at 7K rpm just to move a 3200 lb car.
I'm finished. I can't type fast enough to write all the problems with this theory....
There is just one problem with that theory though. If you were to increase proportionally the size of the bike motor to be equal the size of the ls7, you would not proportionally increase the output. Frictional losses would take over and put a damper on that. Also you would end up with a 4 cyl engine of roughly 2.75 liters that made absolutely no torque in a usable rpm range. You would have to run around at 7K rpm just to move a 3200 lb car.
I'm finished. I can't type fast enough to write all the problems with this theory....
06-07-2007, 11:42 AM
#91
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
it'd be interesting to see if we proportionally increased it's weight to match that of the LS7, which one would produce more power. The bike would have the better, longer rev range, but which one would make more power?
Are you suggesting that proportionally increasing the engine itself to the same weight of an ls7 engine would make more power? If that is what you are suggesting, taking a bike engine and just expanding it until it is the same weight as a V8 I think you'd be seriously dissappointed with the results, nevermind the reliabilty would be gone. Those engines live on the fact that the rotating assy is very lightweight.. increase the size so the engine weigh's as much as the ls7 motor and it would be VERY unreliable, and wouldn't make poo for power. It would lose probably over 50% of it's ability to spin to 12K plus, therefore lose all it's ability to make HP.
06-07-2007, 12:42 PM
#92
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
There is no stall in an M5.
My bad, it's called a clutch. And the M5 has like 4 of them.
There, I caught myself. Fact remains, the tach did instantly stand up to 4.5k.
My bad, it's called a clutch. And the M5 has like 4 of them.
There, I caught myself. Fact remains, the tach did instantly stand up to 4.5k.
06-07-2007, 12:50 PM
#93
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by germeezy1
Maybe you weren't driving the M5 that I know of....because the M5 only has one clutch. Its a computer controlled manual...it does not dump the clutch at 4500 rpm whenever you jump on it. The M5 revs pretty fast but its not instantly at 4500 rpm.
At any rate, it feels like a stall, and essentially rides the clutch. You mash it, the engine instantly revs to 4500rpm, and then uses the torque at that engine speed to get the drive wheels to match this engine RPM, much like a stall does.
06-07-2007, 01:22 PM
#94
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
The new M3 will have, rather does have, a 420bhp 4.0l V8. That's 105hp/l. Which is more than 100.
06-07-2007, 01:24 PM
#95
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the one that I was in did not do that, also it doesn't make sense that it would let the clutch slip to 4500 rpm every time you floored it. Do you know how long the clutch would last...not very long.
Its ok to be wrong sometimes you know.
Its ok to be wrong sometimes you know.
06-07-2007, 01:28 PM
#96
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
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.
06-07-2007, 01:44 PM
#97
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by germeezy1
Well the one that I was in did not do that, also it doesn't make sense that it would let the clutch slip to 4500 rpm every time you floored it. Do you know how long the clutch would last...not very long.
Its ok to be wrong sometimes you know.
Its ok to be wrong sometimes you know.
But the one that I was in, nearly day in and day out for 3 months straight, did do this. Put it in M mode, and mash the throttle. The engine is near instantly sitting at 4,500, while the tires are barking trying to catch up.
Originally Posted by kinimod
I almost missed this gem! How can they accelerate the same yet one is slower?
They accelerated the same, as in the feel was the same. Neither one lagged. Both had the power right there. They pulled hard to redline, hit the next gear and did it again. Both felt the same. Except, as I so clearly stated, the SL65 did so much more ferociously and with more power. That doesn't mean they can't feel the same. Feeling the same is like a LS2 vs a LS7. Even though the LS7 makes much more power, they both accelerate in the same manner, with generous low end power, then a strong surge at 3-4000rpm. Not feeling the same is like a S2000 and LS7. However, the brilliance of the M5 is that it can drive and perform just like motors that have much better low end torque numbers.
06-07-2007, 01:54 PM
#99
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
near instantly sitting at 4,500
So is it near instantly or instantly? It revs very fast in the lower gears I agree but it does not let the engine free rev to 4500 rpm and let out the clutch. They wouldn't be able to keep a tranny in the car....none of the automated manual cars do this...except for off the line with launch control.
The M5 is an amazing sports sedan....I agree just as the GT500 is a great sports coupe. It still doesn't stop the fact that they don't accelerate like you would expect 500 hp to accelerate because of there weight and with the M5 its weight and lack of low end torque.
So is it near instantly or instantly? It revs very fast in the lower gears I agree but it does not let the engine free rev to 4500 rpm and let out the clutch. They wouldn't be able to keep a tranny in the car....none of the automated manual cars do this...except for off the line with launch control.
The M5 is an amazing sports sedan....I agree just as the GT500 is a great sports coupe. It still doesn't stop the fact that they don't accelerate like you would expect 500 hp to accelerate because of there weight and with the M5 its weight and lack of low end torque.
06-07-2007, 02:01 PM
#100
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FieroZ34
The new M3 will have, rather does have, a 420bhp 4.0l V8. That's 105hp/l. Which is more than 100.
ENGINE WEIGHT! (see me, I'm right here!)
How much does your 4L DOHC weigh?
Compare that to an LS7, I bet you will be surprised.Here, go educate yourself: http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums...opic=15551&hl=
Once you are able to get that through your thick skull, then maybe we can work on torque too.