You said in your post that modular/coyote hasn't gone as fast NA as a Honda

Edit: looks like Hio is actually the first to say it. And he's an idiot that blindly follows the interweb without actually validating what he posts

 

look hio, you are using catch phrases.

static CFM on a flow bench is only part of the story, and can in fact hurt power.

lets say, you have a port on a 4.6 modular. lets say that port flows 265 cfm.

does that mean it makes a lot of power? NOPE. it has 222 cc'c. so it flows great but never accelerates the air column. it makes no torque or power.

ANY port with sufficient wall thickness can be ported to flow a million(not literally) cfm. the limitation being the valve head size and orientation. shrouding etc. most older higher lifts have valves that are too large and unshrouded enough to flow a good number but make **** for power.

what evades you and others like you is catch phrases that are misleading.

you cant see through the static high lift number to ask yourself,"why the **** does a coyote compete with a SIX POINT TWO liter v8 of any valve arrangement with 300 cfm?

answer. air column dynamics. low lift flow and air column momentum.

you continue to incorrectly point to static cfm as the answer to why your choice in brand name is superior.

more cubic inches do a few things with exactly the same head and cam.


increase torque

lower the rpm band the engine makes roughly the same HP.

limit the rpms.

you are on the losing end of an age old agument. BTW tumble port heads need MORE cfm than swirl port heads because the air column is trying to shoot past the intake valves. that is an example of dynamics. swirl port heads need more timing that tumble ports because the mixing is less homogeneous. one port has air/ fuel, the other just air.


if he has me ignored please repost for him to correct his incorrectness.

 

Hio still has no clue then gets real upset and lashes out when he feels stoopid. LOL

 

I agree you lose no matter what your in.

No...that's the thing. With more pressure behind the smaller hole it can do better than the bigger hole.

That alone is the reason their cfm bs is debunked. You're just not smart enough to figure that out. Proof is in your post.

It's all out there. Wouldn't be to hard to get it there.

I know you never offer proif of anything you do.
Pour coyote
Well....after you long *** post on **** that really didn't need to be gotton into i can tell your comprehsion is not what it should be.

I already said there is lots of other factors.

Actually i pay lots of attention to mid lift #s. Been over that before to. Pay attention you dumb old ****. Maybe even post something up you did besides copy and paste some crap.

Here's whats happening. I'm trump and yall are hillarys.


More of what's happening.

Zl1 makes 64hp per lb of boost
Zr1 makes 63 hp per lb of boost

Gt500 makes 44hp per lb of boost.

Now talk about about efficiency

 

Hp/lb/boost

This will replace hammer's hp/L joke for sure.

 

@Hio
Uhh.. If youre talking hp/psi of boost, you need to know NA numbers of each motor. You're not stating that these motors make all their power from boost pressure, right? But, your usual narrative states that LS makes more power NA than any mod motor. By a lot. So the mod motor starts way behind NA, but comes out on top under boost. Seems like it gained the most power on boost. That sounds like... Efficiency?

 

Nailed it

 

Hio grasping at straws trying to keep his argument alive, trying to bring hondas into the mix. Lmao.

 

Man Hio is getting bludgeoned in here.

 

LOL. No ****
Troof
I almost feel sorry for the little tike....almost.

 

So, does a Blower/Turbo have a higher hp potential on a bigger or smaller engine...

 

Pretty much the same due to the CFM potential.

But LS doesn't seem to do as well for some reason....


PS. Hi redfire!

 

I would say, if you took the exact same engine and stroked it larger, then yeah it will have more potential.

I don't think you can make a blanket comparison between a hypothetical "small" and "large" engine due to the many variances (i.e. efficiency) between platforms and designs.

 

What I see more often than not, is the smaller motor will get the most out of a turbo, while the bigger motor won't. It has to do with turbine selection and backpressure. Less so to do with the compressor.

 

In any instances where flow is similar (like this example) the smaller engines will have more potential hp with a given blower/turbo. Islander pointed that out unknowingly I assume, but bigger cubes with "equal" flow, you need to feed 1.2 liters extra every revolution or suffer reduced rpm and reduced power output. That's pretty basic ****... no matter the make.

 

that's assuming the compressor is big enough... would say that's the case here where a pulley change causes boost taper on the vette?

 

lol lil' tyke ur funny.

you google the words i typed and show me any article i 'cut and pasted' from.


proof. dont need it. dont care. lolz.

 

Larger cubes would have the advantage with the same properly set up turbo, it wouldn't have as much pressure and have a wider power band.

Assuming that the smaller cube motor can handle the extra pressure at the same CFM with the same properly set up turbo....results should be similar at peak.

They rate turbos for HP.

 

I've been meaning to ask you, is your screen name AWPer because of Counter Strike? Lol

 

so which is it? The same? Or properly setup?