jwindbigler

iTrader: (20)

Well said.

SSNISTR

iTrader: (10)

Well the books wrong.

SSNISTR

iTrader: (10)

And holy *** this **** got off topic.

jwindbigler

iTrader: (20)

Yeah it did.

I guess so. Those were the #'s that I was taught, so those were the numbers I learnded

DrkPhynx

My car (2002 Trans Am WS6) dynoed 300rwhp/332rwtq, which, if you assume the "standard" 15% loss for a manual transmission, that puts it at basically 350hp at the crank. Which actually makes sense given OEM's tendencies to underrate cars (and these are definitely known to be underrated - almost certainly to not steal the Corvette's thunder), and that the 04 GTO was rated at 350 with the same engine (once the 'Vette moved on to the LS2).

DrkPhynx

Well yes it is all a matter of perspective - both driver background (and resultant expectations), and driving conditions. Even if you don't build boost below 4K (and I'm certain they do, but n/m, just for the sake of argument - ), given that they have such a high redline, in a race situation (as mentioned by the poster I was responding to), you'd be well within the boost zone anyway, so that lag you mention is irrelevant.

But that's also why I said "for all practical intents and purposes". All turbos have lag. And the bigger the turbo, the worse it is. You can use staged turbos, VNTs, intake manifold wizardry, etc, etc to maintain spindle rpm and boost response, but ultimately, there IS lag - even if it's too small to feel. And again, more power means bigger turbo which means more lag.

Given the choice, I'd prefer a big, lightweight, powerhouse N/A engine for road-course duty. Somethine like an LSx actually. It's linearity would make it easier to drive. But that doesn't, in any way, say that the boosted lower displacement car couldn't manage the same times if the driver was good enough (and the gears were optimised) to account for the boost related issues.

But I digress...

Some friends of mine are into boosted Japanese performance (STi's, Evo's, Silvias, etc). I wasn't just going by hype when I said that.

Oh, and to answer your question, I've only ever had N/A GM V8s (and 2 unfortuante episodes with V6s). Currently I have a 2002 Trans Am WS6 (which I bought new in 02), stock engine, SLP STB and SFCs (welded on), and 4/3 Koni's with the lower-perch/heater hose mod, and UMI Rod-ended PHB, and sold my 91 Grand Prix DD to switch to my (late) grandfather's '03 Dakota R/T CC (5.9 Magnum). I'm a Detroit V8 guy.

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

And back on topic: The economy is in the toilet also. The dollar is not doing so well these days in the global market. A new Shelby GT500 is 35,000 pounds in England, and they are what, $55,000 here?

suprastars

Your not understanding what Im saying. The difference between a Z06 and a M3/350z is 175-200hp stock. So basically theres no difference in power output when both are turbocharged with similar setups. Of course the Z06 will make more power, but thats becuase its making more than 200hp more stock.

suprastars

The viper is making the most hp, but look at how much displacement it needed to get there.

DrkPhynx

....and why is it 200 more stock? Because it's got more capacity. That was the point being made - more = better. There is no replacement for displacement because anything you do to small engines can be done to big ones for more power.

DrkPhynx

And also look at the CR differences.

2 other things you are (intentionally, I suspect) not looking are power to weight of the engine, and used power potential.

A high-strung little engine putting out X hp, or a huge, lazy V8 barely breaking a sweat putting out the same power - the V8 will be more reliable simply because it's not being worked (stressed) as hard. AND it will be cheaper to produce, sell/buy, and maintain.

If you want to talk about foriegn engines, let's use the VK-107 as an example. The Klimov VK-107, used in the Yak-3 in 1945 was a 12 cylinder water cooled V engine. It displaced 35.08 liters, or 2,140 cubic inches. It didn't rev over 4,000 rpm (in service), and it put out 1,650hp (at sea-level and 3,200 rpm).

It's HUGE, and it's lazy. That matters because in war, you want to go as long as you can with as little maintenance/serivice as possible. Longer service life means less production necessary. They could have spun it faster, but it would have hurt it's service life.

It also has a hp:L of 47.035. The LS1 (in 02 F-Boidies) has a hp:L of 61.40.


Ok, I know that's a very obscure reference, and a convoluted way to make a point, but bear with me.

You highlight all those cars with small displacement and their power output. You do so to claim them to be better than the larger displacement engines. Even to the point of dismissing real world considerations of production, purchase and maintenance costs, as well as service lifetime.

But clearly, when lives (and victory) are on the line, you need to consider your availale resources and not throw money away, so those concerns ARE important.

But the most important one, and the reason I brought it up in the first place...... that Klimov weighs 1,685lbs. That puts it at .98hp per pound. The LS1 weighs about 500lbs fully dressed. That puts it at .7hp per pound. If you scaled the LS1 up to the Klimov's power levels, it would weigh 2,357 lbs. Even if the physical bulk and packaging remained the same, the aircraft would lose acceleration (both in a straight line and in a dive), climb rate, top speed, and handling. In short, it's performance would be severely hurt. But hey, it's power per litre would be better (assuming the same scaling it would be 26.87 liters vs 35.08), so that's good, right?


When it comes to performance, it doesn't matter if it's a plane or a car, power to WEIGHT is what matters. NOT how much displacement it has or what techniques it uses to produce the power (OHV/OHC/FI/etc/etc/etc), and NOT how fast it spins to do it. (and if anything, equal power at lower revs is better on a street car)

If you add OHC to LSx engines, you add weight, bulk, complexity, and expense to them, REDUCING performance (the power gain won't account for the weight gain), and INCREASING cost (of purchase and ownership), while also increasing bulk, reducing potential applications.

How can you claim that would be a good thing, unless you are clinically insane?

JD_AMG

It seems you have trouble with reading (not surprising seeing your elementary approach to engineering) so I will highlight what I said:
"Power to WEIGHT is what matters, hence people doing LSx swaps. I know what youre getting at (again), hp/l is IRRELEVANT"
It didn't "take" that much displacement to get a peak 600hp, Dodge CHOSE to use 8.2L for the powerband(lots of torque at every RPM, and flat curve).

mzoomora

iTrader: (36)

The choice is the point, he will never get that though. The GMO Quad 4's made really good hp/l 20 years ago, the turbo Ecotecs make 260hp and 260tq, or as much as N/A 3.5L or so V6's. Why dont they use it in mid size cars or larger? Or even full size trucks? They CHOOSE not to use them because the power band is not right for what they want. You would have the gear them to rev higher to make up for the lack of low end, and then you are increasing wear. Manufacturers make a lot of choices when producing automobiles, and a high displacement OHV V8 is usually going to be smaller, lighter, cheaper and less complex that a smaller displacement DOHC V8.

SSNISTR

iTrader: (10)

WTF guys, make a new thread.

Jakes Dad

Because like many folks have pointed out on this page and others web pages. There are a couple to things all good young people need to do before they drive or think about buying a high performance car.

Become a full person - get an education - have the skills that pays 6 numbers a year before the period and last two 00's. Don't rely on drugs to complete your life.

A grumpy sometimes angry old man and his dog - Jake

mzoomora

iTrader: (36)

Its simple really. Think about what you are saying. If it cost $25k to actual produce and distribute the car and now you are selling it for $30k instead of $40k you have just cut your profit by 66%. All the new safety equipment doesnt help the price and neither does crash regulations.

And as far as pricing the Camaro with the Mustang, do you also want it to make the same power as the Mustang? Or do you want a LS3 and A6/M6 for $25k like the Mustang? I agree there should be a V8 Camaro priced around the Mustang, but be realistic- you cant have it all. How about a 330hp 5.3/A4 Camaro RS or Z28 for $25k? Then the Z28 or SS for $35k with a LS3 and A6/M6? Considering what a bargain people consider the Corvette to be, how could that not be a bargain for 2 more seats and $10k less?

djsanchez2

iTrader: (14)

I'd love for there to be those options, I think the pricing would be fair too. But time will only tell.

jwindbigler

iTrader: (20)

Ok, I think that I get what you are saying. However, the M3's are pretty much maxed out on power unless you rebuild the lower end. You cant put too much more than the 5-6psi of boost without destroying it. In order to run higher boost, you have to rebuild the lower end. The stock CR on vettes is much lower, which you can get away with putting 8-12psi in there and get away with it. Which will add another 200HP. So saying that an M3 engine and a ZO6 engine will gain the same power with the same mods is true, but the ZO6 will be faster every time just due to the more displacement.

jwindbigler

iTrader: (20)

Unfortunately the new camaro when (and if) its released, will have the same markup. Which sucks, but thats just the way of it. I remember when I bought my formula. The sticker price was 26K. So if they can get a basic one about there, and the Z28 around 30-32K, then I think that a lot of people will buy the car.

However, I do agree that selling the new challenger MSRP at 37K is stupid. It wont compete with the mustang sales. The stang is just too cheap.

suprastars

http://tunertrader.vidiac.com/catego...b4c080ba8a.htm

I love this video, becuase it shows two cars with very different power plants. I can understand peoples logic if this was 1993, when knowone was aware of what FI can do. But to say a car is faster with more displacement is false. As you can see here, an evo with less power, less torque, aerodynamics beats a car with 3 times the displacement.