Ls1 vs H22 Honda
08-26-2010, 11:50 AM
#101
TECH Resident
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CT
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I am pretty confident I am not a ricer.
I've had my fair share of losses - the race is what I love, if I lose it just gives me a reason to go bigger lol
Last edited by sujomatt; 08-26-2010 at 11:56 AM.
08-26-2010, 12:04 PM
#102
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends on what you're building the car for.
08-26-2010, 01:06 PM
#103
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engine that flows more air (and can hold together without blowing up) will make more power. Period.
08-26-2010, 02:40 PM
#104
08-26-2010, 03:01 PM
#105
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You get more RPM's with the 2.0L and 2.1L over the 2.3L and 2.4L. This is helpful in drag racing where all you need is the upper RPM range, but the loss in midrange power can be hurtful in road racing or not as fun on the street cruising.
It depends on what you're building the car for.
It depends on what you're building the car for.
08-26-2010, 03:20 PM
#106
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-26-2010, 03:46 PM
#107
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily...head design, turbocharging, etc. all are factors when talking about airflow.
All I'm saying is that the engine that stuffs more air into the combustion chamber will make more power, regardless of displacement.
Obviously variables such as thermal efficiency, air/fuel ratios, etc. all can change the ultimate power output, but my point remains.
DSMTalk.com had a 26 page discussion about LS1 vs 4G63, and this very discussion came up (started on page 18 or so).
http://www.dsmtalk.com/forums/showth...169246&page=18
All I'm saying is that the engine that stuffs more air into the combustion chamber will make more power, regardless of displacement.
Obviously variables such as thermal efficiency, air/fuel ratios, etc. all can change the ultimate power output, but my point remains.
DSMTalk.com had a 26 page discussion about LS1 vs 4G63, and this very discussion came up (started on page 18 or so).
http://www.dsmtalk.com/forums/showth...169246&page=18
08-26-2010, 04:40 PM
#108
Teching In
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily...head design, turbocharging, etc. all are factors when talking about airflow.
All I'm saying is that the engine that stuffs more air into the combustion chamber will make more power, regardless of displacement.
Obviously variables such as thermal efficiency, air/fuel ratios, etc. all can change the ultimate power output, but my point remains.
DSMTalk.com had a 26 page discussion about LS1 vs 4G63, and this very discussion came up (started on page 18 or so).
http://www.dsmtalk.com/forums/showth...169246&page=18
All I'm saying is that the engine that stuffs more air into the combustion chamber will make more power, regardless of displacement.
Obviously variables such as thermal efficiency, air/fuel ratios, etc. all can change the ultimate power output, but my point remains.
DSMTalk.com had a 26 page discussion about LS1 vs 4G63, and this very discussion came up (started on page 18 or so).
http://www.dsmtalk.com/forums/showth...169246&page=18
08-26-2010, 05:05 PM
#109
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But would you not agree that there's a certain point where it's far more efficient and cost-effective to go with a larger displacement engine based upon power goals. I mean clearly 400rwhp is achievable with very small engines but is far more easily reached by a larger engine. 800rwhp out of a 2.0L is pretty intense. Doing it with an engine that has 8.4L is far easier and obviously a smaller engine will find it's limit of power making before an engine 2x or 3x it's size.
Ls1 > 4g63
08-26-2010, 06:39 PM
#110
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But would you not agree that there's a certain point where it's far more efficient and cost-effective to go with a larger displacement engine based upon power goals. I mean clearly 400rwhp is achievable with very small engines but is far more easily reached by a larger engine. 800rwhp out of a 2.0L is pretty intense. Doing it with an engine that has 8.4L is far easier and obviously a smaller engine will find it's limit of power making before an engine 2x or 3x it's size.
All I was saying was that the old-fashioned hillbilly argument of more cubes automatically equals more power is silly. The engine that can flow more air will make more power.
As far as maxing out an engine, or going for a crazy HP number, well, most people won't want/need that much power. The 4G63 will work for me because I don't need more than 800whp and never will.
The main reason I like DSM/EVOs is mostly the AWD system, because there's really no other sports cars out there that have AWD and can make power easily.
08-26-2010, 06:51 PM
#111
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-26-2010, 08:31 PM
#112
Teching In
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously, this is generally true.
All I was saying was that the old-fashioned hillbilly argument of more cubes automatically equals more power is silly. The engine that can flow more air will make more power.
As far as maxing out an engine, or going for a crazy HP number, well, most people won't want/need that much power. The 4G63 will work for me because I don't need more than 800whp and never will.
The main reason I like DSM/EVOs is mostly the AWD system, because there's really no other sports cars out there that have AWD and can make power easily.
All I was saying was that the old-fashioned hillbilly argument of more cubes automatically equals more power is silly. The engine that can flow more air will make more power.
As far as maxing out an engine, or going for a crazy HP number, well, most people won't want/need that much power. The 4G63 will work for me because I don't need more than 800whp and never will.
The main reason I like DSM/EVOs is mostly the AWD system, because there's really no other sports cars out there that have AWD and can make power easily.
08-27-2010, 10:00 AM
#113
TECH Resident
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wouldnt believe me if i told you
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily...head design, turbocharging, etc. all are factors when talking about airflow.
All I'm saying is that the engine that stuffs more air into the combustion chamber will make more power, regardless of displacement.
Obviously variables such as thermal efficiency, air/fuel ratios, etc. all can change the ultimate power output, but my point remains.
DSMTalk.com had a 26 page discussion about LS1 vs 4G63, and this very discussion came up (started on page 18 or so).
http://www.dsmtalk.com/forums/showth...169246&page=18
All I'm saying is that the engine that stuffs more air into the combustion chamber will make more power, regardless of displacement.
Obviously variables such as thermal efficiency, air/fuel ratios, etc. all can change the ultimate power output, but my point remains.
DSMTalk.com had a 26 page discussion about LS1 vs 4G63, and this very discussion came up (started on page 18 or so).
http://www.dsmtalk.com/forums/showth...169246&page=18
Its pretty amazing how it stayed rather civil but a lot of ricer arguments were made, some pretty knowledgable guys seemed to cut right to the point however.
Also now the prices are pretty identical if you want a 2g GSX/Tsi or a LS1 fbody so the starting costs are equal.
and LOL at one guy claiming the EVO and terminator run identical 1/4 miles haha
08-27-2010, 09:32 PM
#114
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that whole argument lol
Its pretty amazing how it stayed rather civil but a lot of ricer arguments were made, some pretty knowledgable guys seemed to cut right to the point however.
Also now the prices are pretty identical if you want a 2g GSX/Tsi or a LS1 fbody so the starting costs are equal.
and LOL at one guy claiming the EVO and terminator run identical 1/4 miles haha
Its pretty amazing how it stayed rather civil but a lot of ricer arguments were made, some pretty knowledgable guys seemed to cut right to the point however.
Also now the prices are pretty identical if you want a 2g GSX/Tsi or a LS1 fbody so the starting costs are equal.
and LOL at one guy claiming the EVO and terminator run identical 1/4 miles haha
I think semantics plays a big role (as well as overall scope of engine modding) in the argument.
