How much HP to make up for 100lbs of weight??
11-12-2004, 07:50 AM
#1
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long island, NY
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much HP to make up for 100lbs of weight?? Not sure if there is a general equation of how much additional HP you need to make up for an additional 100lbs.
Namely how much more power would a 3500lb car need to stay even with a 3100lb car?
I'm guessing it's about 15rwhp per 100lbs??
Namely how much more power would a 3500lb car need to stay even with a 3100lb car?
I'm guessing it's about 15rwhp per 100lbs??
11-12-2004, 08:44 AM
#4
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peak power isn't the only thing that makes a car fast. your car weighs more, 3500lbs and the one you wanna beat is 3100lbs, so say both have 400bhp @ the fly then common sense dictates that the lighter car is going to be quicker. Okay, fair enough, but do both cars run the same gear ratios and have the same lbs/ft amount of torque? I know cars that have similar peak power and weight (they are the same car model... lol), but one has more aggressive cams and a custom remap which gives it no more peak power, but a smoother torque curve and as a result will pull much more from standing and in gear. To me any car over 3000lbs is far to heavy to be worth tuning, i'd strip the weight by getting lightweight panels and concentrate on increasing the torque to get it's lardy *** shifting of the line!
Trending Topics
11-24-2004, 10:41 AM
#11
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
think your taking my comment to literally. to me 3000lbs plus is heavy for a car. Notice that it's only you guys that have these big *** heavy cars with big engines... reason being they need em to shift the weight. Surely making the car lighter by using lighter panels is the best way to make them truly quick, afterall, cars are measured on power to weight and it's easier in most cases to strip the weight than tune the engine... and cheaper. it's all relative anyway. you guys drive around on bigger roads in bigger cars... we are the opposite... over here 3000lb+ car although fast would just not be practical and struggle to take on cars with less than half the power.
Quote: "muscle weighs more than rice" - yeah, but the Japs can extract more power from a smaller and lighter engine with less effort... whats yer point? lol
Quote: "muscle weighs more than rice" - yeah, but the Japs can extract more power from a smaller and lighter engine with less effort... whats yer point? lol
11-24-2004, 10:57 AM
#12
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Macomb, MI
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Jesus, (Never thought I'd say that)
So which unmodified Rice, can keep up with a Z06 that just happens to weigh over 3000lbs or better yet a Viper that also weighs over 3000lbs? And please I don't want hear the gas mileage argument! Last I've heard even the much hyped STI's and EVO's have a hard time cracking the 13.0 barrier.
So which unmodified Rice, can keep up with a Z06 that just happens to weigh over 3000lbs or better yet a Viper that also weighs over 3000lbs? And please I don't want hear the gas mileage argument! Last I've heard even the much hyped STI's and EVO's have a hard time cracking the 13.0 barrier.
11-24-2004, 10:59 AM
#13
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Texas
Posts: 8,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would you come onto the premier LS1 site on the net, and pick a fight with 30,000+ of its members, about american muscle....all the way from the orient? 
yes, you get by with smaller cars with smaller engines. you also don't have the luxury of TORQUE. 'nuff said.
yes, you get by with smaller cars with smaller engines. you also don't have the luxury of TORQUE. 'nuff said.
11-24-2004, 11:05 AM
#14
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheJesus
peak power isn't the only thing that makes a car fast. your car weighs more, 3500lbs and the one you wanna beat is 3100lbs, so say both have 400bhp @ the fly then common sense dictates that the lighter car is going to be quicker. Okay, fair enough, but do both cars run the same gear ratios and have the same lbs/ft amount of torque? I know cars that have similar peak power and weight (they are the same car model... lol), but one has more aggressive cams and a custom remap which gives it no more peak power, but a smoother torque curve and as a result will pull much more from standing and in gear. To me any car over 3000lbs is far to heavy to be worth tuning, i'd strip the weight by getting lightweight panels and concentrate on increasing the torque to get it's lardy *** shifting of the line!
Id love to see your rice can beat me out of the hole! Or even in the quarter/eighth whatever...
11-24-2004, 11:21 AM
#15
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HOS99 - what are the figures for the Z06? ie 0-100, standing 1/4 mile etc?
I'm sure a Nissan Skyline 400R or a Mitsi Evo FQ400 would rip it a new hole. The FQ400 will beat a Zonda S from 0-100... that fast enough for you from a 2.0 engine? Both of these cars can crack the 13.0 second barrier for fun... infact an Evo 3 with 280bhp does a 12.8 as standard... that's about 7-8 years old IIRC...
cyphur_traq - i didn't come here to pick a fight. I posted on the fact that you cannot simply apply BHP in order to make up a weight deficit due to other factors and mentioned the fact that these cars are very very heavy. to me personally I wouldn't bother making a heavy car like that faster by spending more money on it. again, this is my personal preference, obviously not yours and the other 30'000 lol. my point was merely that instead of spending X amount on tuning to make up for one car being lighter than the other, would it not be better to just strip the weight out. surely this is a cheaper and faster way to make the power to weight ratio increase? just to set the record straight i'm not from the orient, i'm from the UK and am also a US citizen lol.
Quote: yes, you get by with smaller cars with smaller engines. you also don't have the luxury of TORQUE. 'nuff said - if I was from Asia I would simply point out that if you take the average American performance car and it's big V8 engine and take your average jap car with it's engine that not only is less than half the physical size and weight but can produce a better power/weight ratio. through the use of things like turbo's they have the added advantage of producing masses of BHP and even more torque... all standard of course, as any car can be made to go fast and handle well.
Here's the Evo's figures.
Power: 405bhp
Torque: 355lbft
0-60: 3.5 seconds
Speed: 175mph
Price: £46,999
0-100 aint on there, but that's around 8-9 secs IIRC... 2nd fastest production car on the planet using the world standard 0-100-0 test.
2MuchRiceMakesMeSick - my car isn't rice, it's Euro and it wouldn't beat your car in a straight line. We could do this all day and go round in circles argueing a hypothetical race that will never happen. For example, my car would not beat yours in a straight line, however round a track it would destroy it (by track I mean one that's not an oval and has more than 2 corners)
I'm sure a Nissan Skyline 400R or a Mitsi Evo FQ400 would rip it a new hole. The FQ400 will beat a Zonda S from 0-100... that fast enough for you from a 2.0 engine? Both of these cars can crack the 13.0 second barrier for fun... infact an Evo 3 with 280bhp does a 12.8 as standard... that's about 7-8 years old IIRC...
cyphur_traq - i didn't come here to pick a fight. I posted on the fact that you cannot simply apply BHP in order to make up a weight deficit due to other factors and mentioned the fact that these cars are very very heavy. to me personally I wouldn't bother making a heavy car like that faster by spending more money on it. again, this is my personal preference, obviously not yours and the other 30'000 lol. my point was merely that instead of spending X amount on tuning to make up for one car being lighter than the other, would it not be better to just strip the weight out. surely this is a cheaper and faster way to make the power to weight ratio increase? just to set the record straight i'm not from the orient, i'm from the UK and am also a US citizen lol.
Quote: yes, you get by with smaller cars with smaller engines. you also don't have the luxury of TORQUE. 'nuff said - if I was from Asia I would simply point out that if you take the average American performance car and it's big V8 engine and take your average jap car with it's engine that not only is less than half the physical size and weight but can produce a better power/weight ratio. through the use of things like turbo's they have the added advantage of producing masses of BHP and even more torque... all standard of course, as any car can be made to go fast and handle well.
Here's the Evo's figures.
Power: 405bhp
Torque: 355lbft
0-60: 3.5 seconds
Speed: 175mph
Price: £46,999
0-100 aint on there, but that's around 8-9 secs IIRC... 2nd fastest production car on the planet using the world standard 0-100-0 test.
2MuchRiceMakesMeSick - my car isn't rice, it's Euro and it wouldn't beat your car in a straight line. We could do this all day and go round in circles argueing a hypothetical race that will never happen. For example, my car would not beat yours in a straight line, however round a track it would destroy it (by track I mean one that's not an oval and has more than 2 corners)
11-24-2004, 11:35 AM
#17
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Got Me SOM
another stupid typical ricer magazine racer. blah Arguing with this guy is like winning the retard olympics.
okay then, is the Z06 quicker than the Evo 8 FQ400, is the Viper? a simple yes or no will suffice, i don't really care if i'm wrong, so give me the figures (not BS manufacturer ones, road tests ideally)
christ, say one thing on here about the cars being too heavy and it promotes this narrow minded backlash.
Out of interest where did you come in the retard olympics?
11-24-2004, 11:48 AM
#18
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long island, NY
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thejesus, What makes you think everyone wants to be driving around in little cars? And how can you say that HP cannot make up for a weight difference? Thats obviously not true. As you have stated, how fast you can go in a straight line is power to weight, so you can either decrease weight OR increase power. How can you say you can't make it faster by increasing power?? Thats asinine. Sure it may be cheaper to strip weight in certain areas but many other areas it's very expensive to lighten a car and there's always a sacrifice. Like maybe I want to keep my stereo, air conditioning, back seat and front sway bar for cornering and bumper inserts for 5mp protection etc etc. You say put lightweight panels on the car?? What the heck does that mean, lol. You mean to strip off the body panels and have someone custom make new fiberglass Fbody panels and have that painted?? LOL!! Any idea how much that would cost!! And you think that would be cheaper than adding a cam and maybe heads?? Get a clue.
PS-Those Euro car's can't compete in terms of price performance w/ America's "porky" offerings.
PSS-Just ONE of the reasons people prefer a more normal size car is the fact that accidents do happen and if you get in a collision would rather be in a porky american car or a japanese go-kart?
PS-Those Euro car's can't compete in terms of price performance w/ America's "porky" offerings.
PSS-Just ONE of the reasons people prefer a more normal size car is the fact that accidents do happen and if you get in a collision would rather be in a porky american car or a japanese go-kart?
Last edited by KB99WS6; 11-24-2004 at 11:56 AM.
11-24-2004, 12:00 PM
#19
TECH Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Corvallis, Or
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure a Nissan Skyline 400R or a Mitsi Evo FQ400 would rip it a new hole. The FQ400 will beat a Zonda S from 0-100... that fast enough for you from a 2.0 engine? Both of these cars can crack the 13.0 second barrier for fun... infact an Evo 3 with 280bhp does a 12.8 as standard... that's about 7-8 years old IIRC...
The 69 ZL-1 Camaro's did a mid 10 quarter factory
The old Cobras were in the 10's also
The Saleen S-7 is in the low 12's high 11's I believe
The new gt-40's are in the 11's
The new v-10 cobra is going to be a 10 second car.
Odds of me racing one of these is about the same as the odds of racing one that you mentioned.
Odds of me racing a honda.......well those are pretty good.
11-24-2004, 12:01 PM
#20
Let me see, where to start on this one. I do believe that a saleen S7 is the fastest production car made available in the states... we here in the U/S don't really care what is sold wherever, if we can't buy it here, it mine as well not even exist... any one care to argue that point.... I didn't think so. After the saleen s7, I think that it goes ford GT, viper, new vette. Any one of those cars wil probably handle as well, or better than your rice crap. Now, if you wanna compare what is capable of what in the aftermarket world... that is really no fair comparison to anything... the wallet purly dictates how fast you can go.
Put it this way... if 4 banger was a better way to go fast.. than why does every top fuel car in the NHRA run a 540CI big block?
In closing, a 4 banger is good for one thing, getting from point a to point b without spending alot of $ in fuel, and for times when you really don't need to go all that fast. People should leave them for that which they were intended for... because they really have no other use.
Put it this way... if 4 banger was a better way to go fast.. than why does every top fuel car in the NHRA run a 540CI big block?
In closing, a 4 banger is good for one thing, getting from point a to point b without spending alot of $ in fuel, and for times when you really don't need to go all that fast. People should leave them for that which they were intended for... because they really have no other use.