BS thread - 2011 GT 11.80's @ 118 with bolt ons
05-12-2010, 08:38 PM
#281
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you dont know what youre talking about at all.
**** me!
bumps in compression ratio show diminishing results as you g from 10:1 to 11:1, 11:1 to 12:1, etc. tweaking cam timing wont make the laws of physics disappear. you can have a "varying dynamic compression ratio" throughout every single RPM but it still wont cause the engine to make more torque than physically possible.
variable valve timing isnt going to create torque out of thin air it will simply start the torque curve sooner and/or prolong it.
yes I have. flat torque curve /= more torque. its funny despite all the cam phasing technology the L99 produces less torque than the LS3. why is that?
proof?
no one has answered the following questions:
have you ever seen a 2.0L make 200 ft lbs of torque?
3.5L make 350 ft lbs?
4.6L make 460 ft lbs?
5.7L make 570 ft lbs?
each of those is like asking a 5.0L to make 500 ft lbs of torque. it just is NOT going to happen. hell you would be lucky to see 450 flywheel torque (stop using retarded 15% driveline losses you dont know how much power the driveline uses up...)
i never thought i would agree with you Pony...but, with the cam timing technology in the new 5.0 i can see it happening.
a simple bump in static compression ratio will move that tq number well above the 400+ mark. not only that but im sure once the tuners get ahold of it, and find out how many ways they can tweek the cam timing system to allow a varying dynamic compression ratio through the powerband, your going to eat the computer that displays your bogus posts zigroid...
a simple bump in static compression ratio will move that tq number well above the 400+ mark. not only that but im sure once the tuners get ahold of it, and find out how many ways they can tweek the cam timing system to allow a varying dynamic compression ratio through the powerband, your going to eat the computer that displays your bogus posts zigroid...
no one has answered the following questions:
have you ever seen a 2.0L make 200 ft lbs of torque?
3.5L make 350 ft lbs?
4.6L make 460 ft lbs?
5.7L make 570 ft lbs?
each of those is like asking a 5.0L to make 500 ft lbs of torque. it just is NOT going to happen. hell you would be lucky to see 450 flywheel torque (stop using retarded 15% driveline losses you dont know how much power the driveline uses up...)
05-12-2010, 08:48 PM
#282
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no one has answered the following questions:
have you ever seen a 2.0L make 200 ft lbs of torque?
3.5L make 350 ft lbs?
4.6L make 460 ft lbs?
5.7L make 570 ft lbs?
each of those is like asking a 5.0L to make 500 ft lbs of torque. it just is NOT going to happen. hell you would be lucky to see 450 flywheel torque (stop using retarded 15% driveline losses you dont know how much power the driveline uses up...)
05-12-2010, 08:50 PM
#283
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_458_Italia
that is the highest specific torque per displacement all motor car ever produced. 400 ft lbs from 4.5L. the same tq/displacement ratio gives you 444 ft lbs in a 5.0L.
you guys should let ferrari know they are ******* things up since the 5.0L is gonna be capable of 100 ft lbs per liter!
that is the highest specific torque per displacement all motor car ever produced. 400 ft lbs from 4.5L. the same tq/displacement ratio gives you 444 ft lbs in a 5.0L.
you guys should let ferrari know they are ******* things up since the 5.0L is gonna be capable of 100 ft lbs per liter!
05-12-2010, 08:52 PM
#285
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the rods arent junk. They will serve the purpose they were intended to just fine. Why would Ford go through the expense of building an expensive all forged bottom end on their dime, just so YOU can make more power out of it. The rods are made of the same material that ford,dodge and chevy use in their naturally aspirated engines. GM also uses them in their Supercharged LSA i believe. Is it as good as a traditional forging?probably not, but stout enough to endure the abuse they were engineered to withstand.
FWIW, my old 97 GST DSM made over 200ft. lbs. tq. w/ 2.0L
I have also seen plenty on 4.6 make over 460ft. lbs.
Cars were FI
Last edited by TwoValveNoWally; 05-12-2010 at 08:56 PM. Reason: more bs
05-12-2010, 08:56 PM
#286
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-12-2010, 09:20 PM
#287
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Greenhaven/ South Sacramento 'Burbs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Technology is a bitch. Of course it won't be able to get near the torque or displacement of a stroker LSx. It's already down 44 cubes from the LS1/6 which is why I've already conceded it won't make as much torque as a stroker N/A to N/A but I think it will definitely hold its own against the "mighty" LSX.
Doesn't matter anyway, guys are going to be supercharging in no time.
05-12-2010, 09:55 PM
#289
you dont know what youre talking about at all.
**** me!
bumps in compression ratio show diminishing results as you g from 10:1 to 11:1, 11:1 to 12:1, etc. tweaking cam timing wont make the laws of physics disappear. you can have a "varying dynamic compression ratio" throughout every single RPM but it still wont cause the engine to make more torque than physically possible.
variable valve timing isnt going to create torque out of thin air it will simply start the torque curve sooner and/or prolong it.
yes I have. flat torque curve /= more torque. its funny despite all the cam phasing technology the L99 produces less torque than the LS3. why is that?
proof?
no one has answered the following questions:
have you ever seen a 2.0L make 200 ft lbs of torque?
3.5L make 350 ft lbs?
4.6L make 460 ft lbs?
5.7L make 570 ft lbs?
each of those is like asking a 5.0L to make 500 ft lbs of torque. it just is NOT going to happen. hell you would be lucky to see 450 flywheel torque (stop using retarded 15% driveline losses you dont know how much power the driveline uses up...)
**** me!
bumps in compression ratio show diminishing results as you g from 10:1 to 11:1, 11:1 to 12:1, etc. tweaking cam timing wont make the laws of physics disappear. you can have a "varying dynamic compression ratio" throughout every single RPM but it still wont cause the engine to make more torque than physically possible.
variable valve timing isnt going to create torque out of thin air it will simply start the torque curve sooner and/or prolong it.
yes I have. flat torque curve /= more torque. its funny despite all the cam phasing technology the L99 produces less torque than the LS3. why is that?
proof?
no one has answered the following questions:
have you ever seen a 2.0L make 200 ft lbs of torque?
3.5L make 350 ft lbs?
4.6L make 460 ft lbs?
5.7L make 570 ft lbs?
each of those is like asking a 5.0L to make 500 ft lbs of torque. it just is NOT going to happen. hell you would be lucky to see 450 flywheel torque (stop using retarded 15% driveline losses you dont know how much power the driveline uses up...)
first, ill direct your attention to the latest edition of GMHTP. they make more power with a smaller cam with a flatter tq curve than the LS3 with a larger cam and a peaker TQ curve...
and yes, any dyno operator knows how much the drivetrain eats up. as a matter of fact, a T5 and a ford 8.8 with 28 inch tires eats up around 13 percent. i know because we had to dyno an engine in and out of its chassis to pass my class....
and your right, there has never been a 358 cubic inch Nascar engine make more than 580 ftlbs....ever.
and the prostock guys dont make over 900 ftlbs on an 500 cubic inch....8.2L engine....
you got us...please, grace us with some more of your infinate wisdom o' lord of the cars.
05-12-2010, 10:54 PM
#293
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKH2RWZdZhM
for your viewing pleasure *** hat...
840 ftlbs out of 8.19L engine.
go ahead and call Dart a liar....
on a side note to everyone else who comprehends simple logic, how awesome is it that they dont even load the dyno untill ~8700 RPM? thats ******* insane.
for your viewing pleasure *** hat...
840 ftlbs out of 8.19L engine.
go ahead and call Dart a liar....
on a side note to everyone else who comprehends simple logic, how awesome is it that they dont even load the dyno untill ~8700 RPM? thats ******* insane.
05-12-2010, 11:54 PM
#294
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why am I not surprised to see you pull such a third grade move?
HAHAHAHAHHAAH...holy ****....AHAHHAHAHAHAHA.......BWAHAHAHHAHAH...SNORT ....AHAHAHHAHAHAHA.....Fart....AHAHAHHAHAHA...holy crap..I can't stop laughing at you.
breathe...
breathe...
ok here it goes.
you have now changed your wording YET AGAIN. before it was no way at 450lbs. and now you're you've asked for 500lbs.? AGAIN...stick to your original claim which was 450lbs out of a 302 motor. ANd don't give me this Sarge said 430-440rwtq crap....you don't use DTL %'s remember?..oh wait, I'll get to that in a minute.
And 15% DTL is complete BS?...I'll agree that it is far from concrete and percentage varies on a variety of things, but it is a widely accepted estimate. THe only reason you don't want ot use it, is because IT PROVES YOU WRONG!!!!!!. IF...IF it is such BS to you, why in the hell do you keep going back and forth between FWTQ and RWTQ??....WHY? oh wait, I answered that already.......cause you change your story to suit what and how you want it.
AND.....now you say 4.6L for 460TQ?....hmm..why just earlier in the thread you said 365RWTQ.
375/.85= WHAT AGAIN?....Oh yeah. 441lbs.ft.
You SIr are nothing more than a brand loyal POS that just had his tramp stamp bowtie filled in purple last night and is proudly displaying it.
Get over yourself........holy crap I'm still laughing at you.
AND...I'm done. I'll let bmw have some fun with you.
no one has answered the following questions:
have you ever seen a 2.0L make 200 ft lbs of torque?
3.5L make 350 ft lbs?
4.6L make 460 ft lbs?
5.7L make 570 ft lbs?
each of those is like asking a 5.0L to make 500 ft lbs of torque. it just is NOT going to happen. hell you would be lucky to see 450 flywheel torque (stop using retarded 15% driveline losses you dont know how much power the driveline uses up...)
have you ever seen a 2.0L make 200 ft lbs of torque?
3.5L make 350 ft lbs?
4.6L make 460 ft lbs?
5.7L make 570 ft lbs?
each of those is like asking a 5.0L to make 500 ft lbs of torque. it just is NOT going to happen. hell you would be lucky to see 450 flywheel torque (stop using retarded 15% driveline losses you dont know how much power the driveline uses up...)
breathe...
breathe...
ok here it goes.
you have now changed your wording YET AGAIN. before it was no way at 450lbs. and now you're you've asked for 500lbs.? AGAIN...stick to your original claim which was 450lbs out of a 302 motor. ANd don't give me this Sarge said 430-440rwtq crap....you don't use DTL %'s remember?..oh wait, I'll get to that in a minute.
And 15% DTL is complete BS?...I'll agree that it is far from concrete and percentage varies on a variety of things, but it is a widely accepted estimate. THe only reason you don't want ot use it, is because IT PROVES YOU WRONG!!!!!!. IF...IF it is such BS to you, why in the hell do you keep going back and forth between FWTQ and RWTQ??....WHY? oh wait, I answered that already.......cause you change your story to suit what and how you want it.
AND.....now you say 4.6L for 460TQ?....hmm..why just earlier in the thread you said 365RWTQ.
375/.85= WHAT AGAIN?....Oh yeah. 441lbs.ft.
You SIr are nothing more than a brand loyal POS that just had his tramp stamp bowtie filled in purple last night and is proudly displaying it.
Get over yourself........holy crap I'm still laughing at you.
AND...I'm done. I'll let bmw have some fun with you.
05-13-2010, 08:01 AM
#296
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO driveline percentage losses are bullshit. they aren't a percentage. a driveline eats up a certain amount of power it doesnt matter if its a 600 hp engine or a 300 hp engine. the driveline isnt magically gonna get harder to turn when a 600 hp engine is in front of it. you guys need to use your heads. tony mamo went from a 550 hp 346 that made ~480 rwhp to a 610 hp 383 that made ~540 rwhp. 70 hp loss at peak in both cases. same car. the losses are probably higher as they spin more RPMS or lower as the RPMs go down but it will always be the same number. driveline percentage loss was made up as a way to inflate hp and tq numbers just like you guys are doing. my old LT1 made 390 rwhp through an automatic. it must have made almost 490 flywheel hp then using the 20% loss, right?
pony65gt, if you actually read my 500 ft lbs reference was in regards to sarge's post when he said 430-440 rwtq out of a 5.0L. I posted up examples of other engines of varying displacements asking if hes ever seen an engine produce the same specific torque as he is guessing from the 5.0L. I have already covered this yet you are further proving your inadequacies. I still say 390 rwtq. If Im wrong it wont be by much.
bww, good job finding pretty much the most badass all motor engine on the planet. it further enforces my point you're not going to see a 5.0L making those numbers when it takes years of research and development as well as millions of dollars to have a prostock engine reach that point. their intake manifolds are perfectly designed and act damn near like forced induction. they are the pinnacle of NA performance... so that means that ford is gonna hit that mark with the 5.0L, right?
I have already posted a link regarding nascar and F1 engines. nascar engines dont make 580 ft lbs.
this is just too comical lol. keep it up guys, I enjoy proving retards wrong.
pony65gt, if you actually read my 500 ft lbs reference was in regards to sarge's post when he said 430-440 rwtq out of a 5.0L. I posted up examples of other engines of varying displacements asking if hes ever seen an engine produce the same specific torque as he is guessing from the 5.0L. I have already covered this yet you are further proving your inadequacies. I still say 390 rwtq. If Im wrong it wont be by much.
bww, good job finding pretty much the most badass all motor engine on the planet. it further enforces my point you're not going to see a 5.0L making those numbers when it takes years of research and development as well as millions of dollars to have a prostock engine reach that point. their intake manifolds are perfectly designed and act damn near like forced induction. they are the pinnacle of NA performance... so that means that ford is gonna hit that mark with the 5.0L, right?
I have already posted a link regarding nascar and F1 engines. nascar engines dont make 580 ft lbs.
this is just too comical lol. keep it up guys, I enjoy proving retards wrong.
05-13-2010, 08:16 AM
#297
IMO driveline percentage losses are bullshit. they aren't a percentage. a driveline eats up a certain amount of power it doesnt matter if its a 600 hp engine or a 300 hp engine. the driveline isnt magically gonna get harder to turn when a 600 hp engine is in front of it. you guys need to use your heads. tony mamo went from a 550 hp 346 that made ~480 rwhp to a 610 hp 383 that made ~540 rwhp. 70 hp loss at peak in both cases. same car. the losses are probably higher as they spin more RPMS or lower as the RPMs go down but it will always be the same number. driveline percentage loss was made up as a way to inflate hp and tq numbers just like you guys are doing.
pony65gt, if you actually read my 500 ft lbs reference was in regards to sarge's post when he said 430-440 rwtq out of a 5.0L. I posted up examples of other engines of varying displacements asking if hes ever seen an engine produce the same specific torque as he is guessing from the 5.0L. I have already covered this yet you are further proving your inadequacies. I still say 390 rwtq. If Im wrong it wont be by much.
bww, good job finding pretty much the most badass all motor engine on the planet. it further enforces my point you're not going to see a 5.0L making those numbers when it takes years of research and development as well as millions of dollars to have a prostock engine reach that point. their intake manifolds are perfectly designed and act damn near like forced induction. they are the pinnacle of NA performance... so that means that ford is gonna hit that mark with the 5.0L, right?
I have already posted a link regarding nascar and F1 engines. nascar engines dont make 580 ft lbs.
this is just too comical lol. keep it up guys, I enjoy proving retards wrong.
pony65gt, if you actually read my 500 ft lbs reference was in regards to sarge's post when he said 430-440 rwtq out of a 5.0L. I posted up examples of other engines of varying displacements asking if hes ever seen an engine produce the same specific torque as he is guessing from the 5.0L. I have already covered this yet you are further proving your inadequacies. I still say 390 rwtq. If Im wrong it wont be by much.
bww, good job finding pretty much the most badass all motor engine on the planet. it further enforces my point you're not going to see a 5.0L making those numbers when it takes years of research and development as well as millions of dollars to have a prostock engine reach that point. their intake manifolds are perfectly designed and act damn near like forced induction. they are the pinnacle of NA performance... so that means that ford is gonna hit that mark with the 5.0L, right?
I have already posted a link regarding nascar and F1 engines. nascar engines dont make 580 ft lbs.
this is just too comical lol. keep it up guys, I enjoy proving retards wrong.
if the nascar engines are making over 800 hp and less than 580 ftlbs of tq, then every engine builder on the nascar circuit needs to be fired.
drivetrain percentages hold water, a drivetrain WILL eat up more power the faster it turns and more power is put thru it. its thermodynamics and physics...think of it this way, swimming, walking, running etc....the harder and faster you try to move (an engine making more power thru the same drivetrain) the more power you use. thats the simplest i can explain it.
now, stop taking back your statments....you said its physically impossible to make a 5.0 5.8 5.7 etc to make corresponding torque numbers....ive seen plenty of LS1 cars making 500 + to the wheels, that equates to 570 ish at the crank. and yes, i used the age old general rule of thumb, 15% DTL.
anymore stupid comments? ill be happy to prove them wrong as well..
did you get your stupid *** to the store yet and read the article about the L99 and LS3? i suggest you do that...
