Can you refute the facts Noyzee? Why don't you take time out and find the correct calculation for hp at different rpm's. All I did was show you different correlations between cars at different points. How am I stirring up ****? Please inform me!

 

You talk to much and know to little. You cant compair the power,curve,and tq of a turbo or twin turbo ls1 to a little 4 banger turbo!
The ls1 starts off as a monster, then ad a turbo, and it is out of hand. A Jap **** starts out as a Tad poll and barlly grows to be a frog!
Dont go throwing caculationd around like 100000000 hp @ 1 rpm= the double square rt of 3 times the flux capacitor bla bla.
Fact it LS1 is the *****. Put a turbo on it(or n2o or SC,power adder) And it is UNBELIEVABLE!!
No one here wants to caculate the HP of a 4 banger, we want wheel pulling,Ball streching, gear snapping, tire spinning, POWER!!!!!!
Not a Math class.

 

I didn't calculate the power curve ratio of a 4cyl you arrongant,dislexic ***. .

Heres an example I mentioned:

(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP

(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp

What does that look like? What is bigger?

I never said torque was not important.

You compensate the lack of displacement or cylinders by the amount that you rev your engine! Thats why you see nascar,bikes,race cars,etc rev to 10,000 plus rpms. You can not argue with physics. I gave you a simple mathmatical equation, that clearly states my arguement.

I think I know where the whole misunderstanding is coming from here. The point I'm trying to advocate is that there is no reason to look at the torque. If you want an engine that produces 1000hp a@ 8,500rpm you will need 617ft/lbs of torque. The misunderstanding is that you are thinking that I'm saying you will never need torque at all. This is not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that you can throw out your torque numbers, they are unimportant. Now for the car to make X amount of horsepower it will need Y amount of torque at Z rpm. So you will need torque to make horsepower. However the torque, as a number, is useless to brag about. It is useless to say "Oh yeah, well my car makes 400ft/lbs of torque. Now if that same person was to say "My car makes 400ft/lbs of torque at 8000rpm" its a different story. But thats only because that means he's making 609RWHP. Which is definitely a force to be reckoned with. So in the end I think we were arguing totally different points (atleast I hope I've caught the problem here). I'm saying Torque as a number means nothing but rather that horsepower is what you should pay attention to because that is what makes your car go down the track. You're saying that torque is necessary for an engine to make good horsepower. So in the end we're both correct. Obviously the better your torque, the better your horsepower. But high torque is nothing without a good amount of RPMs. I'm just tired of V8's throwing their torque numbers around when it doesnt prove anything.

__________________

 

Horsepower is horsepower no matter where it peaks. Where it peaks is simply an indication of where your motor is making it's best torque.

A motor pulling 600hp @ 5000RPM is just as capable as a motor pulling 600hp @ 10,000RPM. The latter motor is just going to have about twice the gearing, which in the end equals the same amount of torque going to the pavement (it's torque that causes the actual acceleration), and the same speeds when shifting.

 

So you are saying that two identical cars, with identical setups, would yield the same horsepower at different rpm's. Ex: if one makes there peak power at 5000 and the other at 10,000(like you said), the one revving at 10,000 would clearly make more power, due to the fact there is more volume of air being forced into.

 

Which turbo setup are you guys running? I was looking at them awhile back and just wondering which ones are worth it.

 

A motor pulling 600hp @ 5000RPM is just as capable as a motor pulling 600hp @ 10,000RPM.

That is all I said, nothing more.

Obviously two identical setups aren't going to make peak hp at such drastic different RPMs. Anyone short of a moron is going to understand that.

Somebody needs a bit more physics background. That statement is patently false. It takes only so much air and so much fuel to make X amount of HP. 600hp @ 5000RPM is flowing just as much as 600hp @10,000RPM

My YZF-R1 makes 150hp peak @ about 11,000RPM. It's flowing just as much air at that point as your average econobox engine that makes 150hp @ 5000RPM. It's also got an engine about half the size, and the actual velocity of the air is much faster, but the approximate volume flowing through those two engines is very close to equal. The other difference is my bike is only making about 70ft/lbs of torque, whereas the car is making twice that or more. However, with gearing, I can put as much torque to the wheels as that car (though in practice they are not geared that drastically because a 400lb bike doesn't need so much torque).

 

Right. but i meant Peak TORQUE.

I'll use the "how stuff works" example:

"When the animation pauses, you can see that the Caterpillar engine produces 1,650 lb-ft of torque at 1200 rpm, which is 377 hp. At 5,600 rpm, the Mustang engine also makes 377 hp, but it only makes 354 lb-ft of torque."

So torque is very relative to RPMS to make power..

but if you the same car, one making 600HP at 6k rpm, and one making 200 at 9k rpm....

then it's no contest, the more hp the better the engine period.

Rpms can make the difference in Power by takin not so great torque stretchinging it to high rpms, THEREFOR making Power..

i mean..a 500hp 5.0 stang (lets say 5500rpm) and a 300hp @ 9000rpm Rx-7 (let's pretend they are the same weight) won't make for a very close race at all..

now if i would have said, 500tq 5.0 (at 5500rpm) and a 300tq rx-7 (at 9000rpm) then obviously the RX-7 would be making Much more power, because it's HP would be Peaking GOD knows where.

rpms are kind of a band-aid for lack of torque..yeah high rpms are good..

but there's no reason why you can't have high torque with it....if u don't then that lack of GUTS period.

the New ls7/ls2 c6 vette engine (still pushrod) will rev to 8k no problem...

and it will STILL have the low end torque necessary for a quick ET. (more than the ls6 even)

 

I think we're echoing each other Excal.
I also think we've gotten a bit off topic as well.

 

yeah Rpms don't matter as much when talking hp (as opposed to tq), since HP is ALREADY factoring in rpms vs TQ.

and to get back to topic, the 2003-4 eclipse pretty much blows. lol

 

[QUOTE=jRaskell]


"Somebody needs a bit more physics background. That statement is patently false. It takes only so much air and so much fuel to make X amount of HP. 600hp @ 5000RPM is flowing just as much as 600hp @10,000RPM"




No jraskel, your statement is false. Plug in your numbers into my equation and see what you come up with.

You just answered my question to. The reason why your bike and a civic make the same amount of power, is becuase your revving the hell out of it. How do you think BMW made 1500hp, out of a 1.5 liter? Due you think they could have made it with revving at 6000? Think again!

 

regardless of flow having an extra 4krpms in your powerband (at least in a racing application) is a definite plus.

but on a car u plan to actually drive, like honda noted onthe s2000..having to wind it out to 9krpm so u can get out of the -medium trim- accord powerband didn't really work.

so supposedly no it's gettin bumped to 2.2 l, and gettin it's peak at lower rpm. improving 1/4 mile performance and 0-60 too..also it will help the oil consumption.

 

I saw no equation posted in this thread that covered airflow through an engine for a given amount of horsepower.

However, to use my real world example. My 1000cc YZF-R1 (it's actually 996 or 998cc but let's stick with a round number for comparison), displaces 500cc of volume for each revolution (4 stroke). So let's assume 100% volumetric efficiency (even through realistically it's in the 80-95% range, and will vary throughout the entire RPM range). At 10,000 RPM, that's going to be 5000 liters of volume (volume, not air) displaced every minute.

A 2.0L engine running at 5,000 RPM is going to be displacing 1L per revolution, or 5000 liters of volume per minute. Same as above. Now, the total volume of air is not going to be drastically different. It's not a direct correllation to the amount of air required to make a certain amount of power, but the connection isn't all that tough to see.

 

The s2000 is getting a bump in displacement, but look to see if it is faster? It ran .2 seconds slower(check out super street magazine).

2003-(0-60) is 5.9 sec. While 3rd gear finishes at 64mph
2004-(0-60) is 6.1 sec. While 3rd gear finishes at 58mph.

See the difference. How do you think this would affect the out come of a race, with the two cars in question. With .2(20%) more of displacement, doesn't seem like its winning over any 2003 s2000.

 

GSX + 10 psi = 14's

LS1 + 10 psi = 10's

The smaller the motor the more power you need to make with boost to match a bigger displacment engine.

 

600 hp is 600 hp,
And if you call me an *** again their will be hell to pay mr mad scientist!
I agree with the statment gsx=blow ls1= #1!!!!!

 

You are comparing apples to grapefruits now! That has no correlation to this topic.

If you want to go that route, then why haven't any ls1's been in the 7's yet? Or how about 6's? The 4g63 has done both!

I could build a b18c motor with(in a civic):
10:1 compression piston
crower rods
b20 block(2.0)
edlebrock intake manifold
gsr tranny
built top end(with cams)
full t4 turbo kit

And run 14psi with full interior and run mid to low 11's. Possibly crack a 10.9. I've seen it happen and been in the car.

 

I told you once, you talk to much. sometimes you look like a fool. Why stick up and make 4 bangers look good on this sie?. we are here to talk about the LS1 hence the name LS1TECH. go somewhere ealse to talk Import. stay here to talk Real Muscle!!!

 

4 cylinder imports run a lot of boost to make up for cubic inches. It's not a slam it's an observation. When a 4 cylinder 8:1 engine makes like 100 flywheel hp you start off with a lower base power level.

 

Noyzee! Are you not on any other site, or are you just on this one? Your being a complete narrowminded,arrogant ******* if you feel that way.

You think I forgot. Has anyone hit 7's or 6's yet in there ls1! Should be alot easier I would think, since you have 3 times the displacement and twice the motor. RIGHT. RIGHT!

O and please don't bring up the fact that there are v8's running 4 and ****! That has nothing to do with an ls1 base platform!