solve a debate, 1000 hp.....
#61
TECH Addict
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
We've been over this. No, they're not. Not even when money is no object. They have advantages and disadvantages. That's it. They're superior only if you're racing in a displacement-limited class. Or your idea of superiority is less NVH.
OHV engines are, all other things being equal, smaller, lighter, and less expensive.
OHV engines are, all other things being equal, smaller, lighter, and less expensive.
![Sleepy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_zzz.gif)
You've never been able to respond to any questions I've posed to you or been able to backup any claims you've made with data or references. So I'm not even going to bother responding.
#62
TECH Addict
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
Yes and no.
What is dismissed, rightly, as "ricer bs" is the idea that a HP/L is a meaningful measure of an engine. In fact, an engine could have less HP/L and yet be smaller, lighter, cheaper, and make more power. It could be in every meaningful way better and still lose in a contest of HP/L. (This is no abstract "well it could be" discussion, either. There are actual engines out there that fit that scenario)
Nobody dismisses that OHC can make more power per liter. What is dismissed is the idea that that statement is in any way meaningful outside of displacement-limited racing classes.
In other words, specific output is not a useful, meaningful, or intelligent way to compare engines. Anyone who does so, outside of a very limited context, is revealing their ignorance.
Thus, "Ricer Math."
What is dismissed, rightly, as "ricer bs" is the idea that a HP/L is a meaningful measure of an engine. In fact, an engine could have less HP/L and yet be smaller, lighter, cheaper, and make more power. It could be in every meaningful way better and still lose in a contest of HP/L. (This is no abstract "well it could be" discussion, either. There are actual engines out there that fit that scenario)
Nobody dismisses that OHC can make more power per liter. What is dismissed is the idea that that statement is in any way meaningful outside of displacement-limited racing classes.
In other words, specific output is not a useful, meaningful, or intelligent way to compare engines. Anyone who does so, outside of a very limited context, is revealing their ignorance.
Thus, "Ricer Math."
Same physical size and weight for the most part, a tad taller and wider maybe for the DOHC heads but nothing worth crying over.
Would specific output still be meaningless?
Lsx OHV = stock ~65bhp/litre. Street modified 95bhp/litre
Lsx DOHC - stock ~70-80bhp/litre. Street modifed 114bhp/litre
BTW who cares about production cost. A Mustang has a OHC and is cheaper than OHV GTO or Fbody (when in production).
#63
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
![Sleepy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_zzz.gif)
You've never been able to respond to any questions I've posed to you or been able to backup any claims you've made with data or references. So I'm not even going to bother responding.
#64
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
Would specific output still be meaningless?
YES!
The better engine would be better due to more HP/Lb, more overall HP, and other metrics. HP/L would still be a useless metric. Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.
#65
TECH Addict
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
*clears throat*
YES!
The better engine would be better due to more HP/Lb, more overall HP, and other metrics. HP/L would still be a useless metric. Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.
YES!
The better engine would be better due to more HP/Lb, more overall HP, and other metrics. HP/L would still be a useless metric. Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.
Your metric of HP/lb is pretty pointless. As it means you should go for the engine with the lest weight and most power. I think you'd end up with a motorbike 1200cc engine. They make great hp/lb. But sadly would be rather pathetic in a muscle car.
So who's being more "Ricerish" then?
#66
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
Your metric of HP/lb is pretty pointless. As it means you should go for the engine with the lest weight and most power. I think you'd end up with a motorbike 1200cc engine. They make great hp/lb. But sadly would be rather pathetic in a muscle car.
So who's being more "Ricerish" then?
So who's being more "Ricerish" then?
But if you did, then it's just a matter of putting enough of them in there. (provided they fit)
#67
TECH Addict
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
I'd be interested if you could back up that claim about the best HP/lb being a motorbike engine. I doubt that is true.
But if you did, then it's just a matter of putting enough of them in there. (provided they fit)
But if you did, then it's just a matter of putting enough of them in there. (provided they fit)
EDIT:
Radical SR8
72° V8 cylinder 2.6-litre
32 valve quad cam Max. Power: 363bhp @ 10,300 rpm
Max. Torque: 200 ft lbs @7,000 rpm
Bore: 81mm
Stroke: 63mm
Compression Ratio: 11.0:1
Weight: 95kg (209lb)
This is a V8 made from 4 motorcycle engines. So I guess a regular motorcylce engine would weigh 50-70lb as this is 4 times the size and only weighs 209lb.
More power than a stock Ls1 and less than half the weight, plus it's really small as well.
![](http://www.powertecengineering.com/images/s_v8eng.jpg)
BTW - it's an OHC
![Winky](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_wink.gif)
Last edited by 300bhp/ton; 10-05-2006 at 08:58 AM.
#68
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bessemer City NC
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
Well did GM own 100% of Lotus? I’m not sure they did, as part of the company is still privately owned today. The rest being Proton. But regardless, Lotus Engineering is/was a British company based in Britain.
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
Personally I think the LT5 is fab engine. And after a little research it appears that it actually weighed pretty much the same as the LT1.
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
I hear what you say, although a Mustang is actually about £23-26k here. So the same numbers as in the US just a different currency. It all goes back to not really being able to compare prices trans-Atlantically.
On price I have no idea. But performance wise it’s hard to compare the NSX. Remember when it was launched in the early 90’s it had more power than a Corvette (TPI was it, 250bhp?) and was well on par with Porsche and Ferrari.
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
I think a C6 will setup you back about £45,000 not £33,000 in the UK.
Last edited by mattkimsey; 10-05-2006 at 01:49 PM.
#69
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
I hear what you say, but I can't help feeling its a rather naive viewpoint.
1. If you wanted to use a DOHC large displacement V8 for Top Fuel use, which engine would you use?
Well you see there aren't any in production. So that's the real reason behind it. Lack of availability not lack of ability.
2. Where is top fuel drag raving most common?
America, and what engines are plentiful and affordable in the USA? Yes large displacement OHV engines.
Not too sure where the world speed record comes from? I mean piston engines haven't been used for such attemps in decades. Jet and Rocket powered vehicles like the Thrust SSC are the current record holders.
But that aside, again where does this high speed attempts take place? America (Bonoville) so what large displacement engines are readily avialable at affordable prices? Yes OHV. And if you wanted to use a large displacement OHC which one would you choose?
1. If you wanted to use a DOHC large displacement V8 for Top Fuel use, which engine would you use?
Well you see there aren't any in production. So that's the real reason behind it. Lack of availability not lack of ability.
2. Where is top fuel drag raving most common?
America, and what engines are plentiful and affordable in the USA? Yes large displacement OHV engines.
Not too sure where the world speed record comes from? I mean piston engines haven't been used for such attemps in decades. Jet and Rocket powered vehicles like the Thrust SSC are the current record holders.
But that aside, again where does this high speed attempts take place? America (Bonoville) so what large displacement engines are readily avialable at affordable prices? Yes OHV. And if you wanted to use a large displacement OHC which one would you choose?
now If you want to compare Tthat to somthing production you might want to think of prostock
#70
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
More power than a stock Ls1 and less than half the weight, plus it's really small as well.
#71
TECH Addict
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
The LT5 was 602lbs -- the LT1 was 452lbs. Needless to say, that is a big difference mostly because it adds weight to the front of an already front heavy car and it shifts the weight upward. The LT5 also used an aluminum block whereas the LT1 was iron....still it was much heavier. The LT5's weight was right in line with Ford's current 580lb DOHC 4.6. In comparison, the LS1 is flyweight at 390lbs.
And again for the LS1, fully dressed it's well over 400lb.
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
In America the Mustang V6 costs $19,410 for the V6 version — that’s £10,600. In other words, £385 less than the cheapest Vauxhall Astra in the UK. Even V8 Mustang costs $24,995 or £13,667 — £1,623 less than the cheapest Ford Mondeo.
Items may cost more, but by contrast we are also paid more. So typically one unit of currency will purchase the same amount of goods.
And a new Stang does cost £23-26k here. I was looking at buying one. And in fact its where I found my z/28 as it had been p/x for a new Stang.
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
In 1991, the ZR1 was making 380hp and it would've dominated a NSX in just about any performance comparison.
Go and read any proper writeup or report of the NSX and it will always be looked upon as a 911 rival. And in 1991 it certainly had the driver involment and performance to rival a Cerrar 2 and was in the same price category. The ZR-1 was a US only model and not part of the world market. So not meaning any discredit to it, but I wouldn't have thought Honda would have given any real thought to it.
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
As far as power, several mags tested the NSX between '91 and '96 and the 1/4 times were between 13.8 and 14.4. They also tested the ZR1 and ran 12.8 - 13.1. The base Vettes between '90 and '95 ran the same times as the same year NSXs.
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
The '96 C4 Vettes with 330hp were as fast as any NSX than has came here. As far as handling, the NSX and C4 are both run A-stock in SCCA and the C4 dominates the class.
Aerton Senna
Maybe for one that has all the options, but they start about £33000. $44,000 for a base 'Vette + ~10% duty + 5% shipping + 17.5% VAT + ~£3000 to get SVA'd. Total: ~£33,500[/QUOTE]
GM offically imports 'x' number and sells them at select GM dealers. But there are lots and lots of private American car importers these retail for ~£45k. But maybe I'll have to look into it. As I do rather fancy a C6.
![Grin](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_grin.gif)
#72
TECH Addict
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by MadSpeed
Umm.... Top fuel has nothing to do with what production cars use.. Top Fuel is ALL CUSTOM aftermarket stuff
now If you want to compare Tthat to somthing production you might want to think of prostock
now If you want to compare Tthat to somthing production you might want to think of prostock
Actually producing an engine from scratch and developing every component. Know that's a different ball game althogether.
One day it will happen and we will see a large displacement DOHC being used to it's potential. Just sadly not yet.
#74
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
Only if you want a completly meaning less measure, yes.
And meanwhile you think HP/L is meaningful.
Honestly, step back from whatever it is that is preventing you from thinking about this seriously and use your brain for a second. You seem perfectly able to use it in other circumstances; why not on this topic? Is there something they put in the water over there that makes everyone an HP/L zombie?
Honestly, it is a totally useless and amateurish way of looking at engines.
#75
TECH Addict
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Think about it this way, in a 3000-3500lb vehicle what has a greater affect on performance.
1. An extra 100bhp?
2. 100lb less weight?
Hp/lb in terms of the engine itself is totally pointless in the big picture. An Fbody weighs an average of 3500lb with a 400lb motor. So the weight of the motor only accounts for a little over 25% of the TOTAL vehicle weight. If the engine is made 100lb heavier or lighter it will not have a dramatic affect on the over performance of the vehicle. Nor will it have a massive affect on the bhp/ton ratio either. Althogh the engines own specific hp/lb would have dramatically changed. An extra 100bhp would make a massive difference by comparison.
No if you are talking about a flywieght vehicle weighing only 1320lb, then yeah an extra 100lb will make a bigger difference. But typically such cars don't use such an engine so it's pretty academic.
The only time I can your metric being usuable is if you physically attached the wheels to the engine and said to hell with the rest of the car.
1. An extra 100bhp?
2. 100lb less weight?
Hp/lb in terms of the engine itself is totally pointless in the big picture. An Fbody weighs an average of 3500lb with a 400lb motor. So the weight of the motor only accounts for a little over 25% of the TOTAL vehicle weight. If the engine is made 100lb heavier or lighter it will not have a dramatic affect on the over performance of the vehicle. Nor will it have a massive affect on the bhp/ton ratio either. Althogh the engines own specific hp/lb would have dramatically changed. An extra 100bhp would make a massive difference by comparison.
No if you are talking about a flywieght vehicle weighing only 1320lb, then yeah an extra 100lb will make a bigger difference. But typically such cars don't use such an engine so it's pretty academic.
The only time I can your metric being usuable is if you physically attached the wheels to the engine and said to hell with the rest of the car.
#76
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
The only time I can your metric being usuable is if you physically attached the wheels to the engine and said to hell with the rest of the car.
Bottom line is that is does have its uses.
Unlike HP/L. Which is just flat rubbish.
#77
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'm not sure I have much to contribute here, but it seems like you guys are arguing the same thing. If you can see that horsepower per pound is a good measurement in a lightweight application, then what’s the difference in an f-body? 100 pounds will still affect track times and the handling of the car. I'm not sure why you’re arguing hp/l is a good measurement because it only seems to measure efficiency, instead of overall horsepower for a given weight which seems is more applicable. On the previous page I saw your ls7 example. Sure, it's more efficient to only use 5.0L to make the same horsepower as 7.0 liters, but that makes no difference in anything, weight does. You said in your previous post that it would not make a major difference, but for the sake of going as fast as you can and handling the best it can, then all of the weight matters and 100 pounds off the nose of a car can make a big difference.
I'm not sure if I missed it or not, but why do you think hp/l is a good measurement? Is your reasoning that you can get more horsepower into a smaller space (car)?
I'm not sure if I missed it or not, but why do you think hp/l is a good measurement? Is your reasoning that you can get more horsepower into a smaller space (car)?
#78
TECH Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Corvallis, Or
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
3500lb with a 400lb motor. So the weight of the motor only accounts for a little over 25% of the TOTAL vehicle weight.
![Engarde](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies3/engarde.gif)
#79
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bessemer City NC
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
As I said you CAN NOT directly compare prices.
Items may cost more, but by contrast we are also paid more. So typically one unit of currency will purchase the same amount of goods.
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
The NSX was never ever intended to compeat with the ZR1. Also the ZR1 was massivly expensive for a Corvette compared to a regular C4. Plus the NSX was a special edition, it was just the regular model.
Go and read any proper writeup or report of the NSX and it will always be looked upon as a 911 rival. And in 1991 it certainly had the driver involment and performance to rival a Cerrar 2 and was in the same price category. The ZR-1 was a US only model and not part of the world market. So not meaning any discredit to it, but I wouldn't have thought Honda would have given any real thought to it.
People always seem to forget the latter NSX, not sure why. The early ones where not as fast, they received some updates but looked the same. However the latter ones don't have pop-up head lights. These where the fastest, and to be honest in average hands are a very good match up for even a C6. They are very easy to drive with loads of grip due to mid engine layout.
Handling does not = grip. and never has. Handling is about feel and control. Ayrton Senna sorted the handling out on the car. So if it was good enough for one of the worlds best race drivers then I'm pretty sure it's good enough for me.
Go and read any proper writeup or report of the NSX and it will always be looked upon as a 911 rival. And in 1991 it certainly had the driver involment and performance to rival a Cerrar 2 and was in the same price category. The ZR-1 was a US only model and not part of the world market. So not meaning any discredit to it, but I wouldn't have thought Honda would have given any real thought to it.
People always seem to forget the latter NSX, not sure why. The early ones where not as fast, they received some updates but looked the same. However the latter ones don't have pop-up head lights. These where the fastest, and to be honest in average hands are a very good match up for even a C6. They are very easy to drive with loads of grip due to mid engine layout.
Handling does not = grip. and never has. Handling is about feel and control. Ayrton Senna sorted the handling out on the car. So if it was good enough for one of the worlds best race drivers then I'm pretty sure it's good enough for me.
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
GM offically imports 'x' number and sells them at select GM dealers. But there are lots and lots of private American car importers these retail for ~£45k. But maybe I'll have to look into it. As I do rather fancy a C6.
![Grin](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_grin.gif)
#80
TECH Addict
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 87formy
I'm not sure if I missed it or not, but why do you think hp/l is a good measurement? Is your reasoning that you can get more horsepower into a smaller space (car)?
Over HP and weight, or rather power to wieght is more important (hence my username).
But in terms of determining what an engine is capable of bhp/litre is very useful. This is not relative to an actual car, just the powerplant.
My point is the engine with the most displacement and the best specific out will be able to produce the most power.
So take two engines with the same displacement (say 7.0 litres) but one has the ability to be 20-25% more specific output, which one will be the most powerful?
Easy, the highest specific output will be. Now in terms of specific output, multivalve engines that can handle high rpms are the most efficent. In otherwords a DOHC unit.
So logically and mathamatically speaking a large displacment DOHC 'should' outperform a 2v OHV engine of the same displacement.
Sadly there are not currently any production engines that meet this creteria. So in it's absense some people seem to think it's impossible, although it has been proven many times.
In an overall package, weight, hp, size and many other factors are all important. But that wasn't the point being made.