I hate Evos
10-26-2005, 03:54 AM
#61
TECH Addict
Originally Posted by Nwmembr19
if you dont think an engine only uses about 30 percent of the power made maybe you need to retake physics. I believe 30 percent goes out the exhaust and 30 percent is wasted through the cooling system. Now out of the measurable horsepower that you get from an engine usually 12 to 20 percent gets used up getting the power to the ground. which only leaves about 30 percent that actually gets used.
345 / 100 x 30 = 103.5rwhp
So how do they dyno at 300+rwhp
The only think to do is
at you 
Originally Posted by Nwmembr19
try making an argument when you actually know what you are talking about dumbass.
Originally Posted by Nwmembr19
No wait why dont you tell me how the evo is a modern marvel of engineering again you ****** tool.
A Formula 1 engine only has 3 litres and 10 cylinders yet porduces over 900bhp. Show me ANY pushrod OHV engine that produces the same specific output without using FI or NOS, only racing grade fuel? (BTW divide 900 by 3 to get the specific out put (bhp/capcity))
Originally Posted by Nwmembr19
and go flash your bs in physics degree somehwere else. I mean why do you have that as your sig?
And as they are all wrong, I (and others) think it's funny.
Originally Posted by Nwmembr19
Funny how chaman and I who hold no bachelor degree of physics know more about an internal combustion engine than you. Maybe you shouldn't lie about degrees you dont hold. Or go to a better school. Try the second law of thermodynamics. It might help you understand.
OK, calling you out if you know so much, and according to your theory (top of post) why does the Corvette dyno ~300rwhp and not ~100rwhp as your theory would predict?
10-26-2005, 04:34 AM
#62
TECH Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll just add this for teh comment earlier about the Mach beating an Evo. When I had just a turboback exhaust, I could beat my buddies Mach with an exhaust and drag radials, so really thats all about the driver. Once I got my reflash 21-22psi along with the TBE I could beat him easily from a dig.
10-26-2005, 09:42 AM
#64
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nwmembr19
haha yeah i know maybe they should marry an evo. I dont want to know what they do with the shifter and tailpipes.
And wtf is this, Marry an EVO? Are you in 4th grade?
OMG Yuo R t3h funnie, shifter and tail pipes!! WUT WULD THEY DO! OMG ITS 2 FUNNIE 2 EVEN THINK ABOWT LOLZORZROFLMAO
10-26-2005, 09:44 AM
#65
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Central jersey, nj
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nwmembr19
if you dont think an engine only uses about 30 percent of the power made maybe you need to retake physics. I believe 30 percent goes out the exhaust and 30 percent is wasted through the cooling system. Now out of the measurable horsepower that you get from an engine usually 12 to 20 percent gets used up getting the power to the ground. which only leaves about 30 percent that actually gets used.
try making an argument when you actually know what you are talking about dumbass. you dont think an ls series engine cant take 30 psi you must not be aware that the new record for an ls powered vehicle is 6.8 with 32 psi from twin 80mm. So now i have proven you wrong again moron. Also i did not say the engine had no camshafts. Can you read?
I said the engine is nowhere near revolutionary as you are trying to imply. I said if the engine didn't have any camshafts and had electronically controlled valves or something to that effect then maybe it would deserve all this praise.But untill then just like the other guy said all engine are inefficient and only produce marginal power when considering how much is lost.
PLease tell me what you are laughing at so that i can clear something up for the low intelligence that your brain possesses. No wait why dont you tell me how the evo is a modern marvel of engineering again you ****** tool. Why dont you go preach your obviously wrong physics and go flash your bs in physics degree somehwere else. I mean why do you have that as your sig? is it because you think you are superior. You want people to think you know what you're talking about. Go troll somewhere else. Maybe somewhere that people believe you and all of the so called knowledge you possess. Funny how chaman and I who hold no bachelor degree of physics know more about an internal combustion engine than you. Maybe you shouldn't lie about degrees you dont hold. Or go to a better school. Try the second law of thermodynamics. It might help you understand.
try making an argument when you actually know what you are talking about dumbass. you dont think an ls series engine cant take 30 psi you must not be aware that the new record for an ls powered vehicle is 6.8 with 32 psi from twin 80mm. So now i have proven you wrong again moron. Also i did not say the engine had no camshafts. Can you read?
I said the engine is nowhere near revolutionary as you are trying to imply. I said if the engine didn't have any camshafts and had electronically controlled valves or something to that effect then maybe it would deserve all this praise.But untill then just like the other guy said all engine are inefficient and only produce marginal power when considering how much is lost.
PLease tell me what you are laughing at so that i can clear something up for the low intelligence that your brain possesses. No wait why dont you tell me how the evo is a modern marvel of engineering again you ****** tool. Why dont you go preach your obviously wrong physics and go flash your bs in physics degree somehwere else. I mean why do you have that as your sig? is it because you think you are superior. You want people to think you know what you're talking about. Go troll somewhere else. Maybe somewhere that people believe you and all of the so called knowledge you possess. Funny how chaman and I who hold no bachelor degree of physics know more about an internal combustion engine than you. Maybe you shouldn't lie about degrees you dont hold. Or go to a better school. Try the second law of thermodynamics. It might help you understand.
10-26-2005, 09:47 AM
#66
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok an engines THERMAL efficiency is around 30% but guess what, thats with ANY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE. Including ALL LSx motors.
So your argument that the evo's engine isnt really that impressive because it's only using 30% of it's TOTAL power and energy output is really completely irrelevant because guess what. The LSx is EXACTLY the same. so blow it out your *** ya dork.
So your argument that the evo's engine isnt really that impressive because it's only using 30% of it's TOTAL power and energy output is really completely irrelevant because guess what. The LSx is EXACTLY the same. so blow it out your *** ya dork.
10-26-2005, 09:57 AM
#67
TECH Addict
Originally Posted by EvilDylan
ok an engines THERMAL efficiency is around 30% but guess what, thats with ANY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE. Including ALL LSx motors.
So your argument that the evo's engine isnt really that impressive because it's only using 30% of it's TOTAL power and energy output is really completely irrelevant because guess what. The LSx is EXACTLY the same. so blow it out your *** ya dork.
So your argument that the evo's engine isnt really that impressive because it's only using 30% of it's TOTAL power and energy output is really completely irrelevant because guess what. The LSx is EXACTLY the same. so blow it out your *** ya dork.
Didn't realise they where talking about energy transfer, but as you say it's the same for all internal combustion petrol engines. Diesels have much greater efficency, even the triple expansion steam engine actually has a better energy transfer rate than ANY petrol engine.
10-26-2005, 10:05 AM
#68
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think the most efficient internal combustion engine in the world is a diesel that makes 90,000 hp and is at around 52% efficient.
Why dont you go get on that engine's nuts nwmember, and chaman. Or better yet, why dont you marry it OMG THAT WAS FUNNIE!!
Why dont you go get on that engine's nuts nwmember, and chaman. Or better yet, why dont you marry it OMG THAT WAS FUNNIE!!
10-26-2005, 06:15 PM
#70
Originally Posted by EvilDylan
ok an engines THERMAL efficiency is around 30% but guess what, thats with ANY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE. Including ALL LSx motors.
So your argument that the evo's engine isnt really that impressive because it's only using 30% of it's TOTAL power and energy output is really completely irrelevant because guess what. The LSx is EXACTLY the same. so blow it out your *** ya dork.
So your argument that the evo's engine isnt really that impressive because it's only using 30% of it's TOTAL power and energy output is really completely irrelevant because guess what. The LSx is EXACTLY the same. so blow it out your *** ya dork.
Go and read it again without a **** in your mouth
10-27-2005, 11:49 AM
#75
and 300bhp/ton you make good arguments but you love to bring in F1 engines and such, which I know your trying to make a point, but honestly how does that even apply as those are engines that have been built and tested for god knows how long and have god knows how much research/technology/ money in them, so they have no relevance to production engines such in LSX powered vehicles and EVO's. Im sure those engines wont run 100,000 miles with just basic maintenence done to them like an LSX or EVO engine will.
10-27-2005, 02:04 PM
#76
TECH Addict
Originally Posted by 98Z28MASS
and 300bhp/ton you make good arguments but you love to bring in F1 engines and such, which I know your trying to make a point, but honestly how does that even apply as those are engines that have been built and tested for god knows how long and have god knows how much research/technology/ money in them, so they have no relevance to production engines such in LSX powered vehicles and EVO's. Im sure those engines wont run 100,000 miles with just basic maintenence done to them like an LSX or EVO engine will.
)Your quite right F1 engines are totally different. But the key point was the type of engine. Is they are all OHC not push rod OHV. I guess it's a bit like a live rear axle and IRS, they both do the same thing essentially. But in a totally different manor.
A Formula 1 engine uses the basic engineering concepts that most modern 4 cylinder engines use, they just happen to be a few rungs further up the ladder. Where as the LSx is on a totally different ladder. But both ladders lead to the same destination.
10-28-2005, 11:11 AM
#77
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
no. although I doubt a tuned Evo engine wil last 100,000 miles either (no offense Evo guys, but I've had FI and an engine rebuild )
Your quite right F1 engines are totally different. But the key point was the type of engine. Is they are all OHC not push rod OHV. I guess it's a bit like a live rear axle and IRS, they both do the same thing essentially. But in a totally different manor.
A Formula 1 engine uses the basic engineering concepts that most modern 4 cylinder engines use, they just happen to be a few rungs further up the ladder. Where as the LSx is on a totally different ladder. But both ladders lead to the same destination.
)Your quite right F1 engines are totally different. But the key point was the type of engine. Is they are all OHC not push rod OHV. I guess it's a bit like a live rear axle and IRS, they both do the same thing essentially. But in a totally different manor.
A Formula 1 engine uses the basic engineering concepts that most modern 4 cylinder engines use, they just happen to be a few rungs further up the ladder. Where as the LSx is on a totally different ladder. But both ladders lead to the same destination.
10-29-2005, 04:23 AM
#79
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical story of how a father told his son the V8 can and never will lose....the son lost to the 4g63...instead of crying to daddy...he vents on LS1tech....As far as evildylan goes...you guys should be thankful hes telling you all this info about evos. I gotta DSM of my own...and ive ran alot of people on the street (those lasers will fool u everytime)...you just cannot match the "money to power ratio" of a 4g63 in an evo or DSM......P.S HyperliteSS im awaiting to hear your next story "I hate DSMS too"
10-29-2005, 11:03 AM
#80
Originally Posted by firebirdvert305
Typical story of how a father told his son the V8 can and never will lose....the son lost to the 4g63...instead of crying to daddy...he vents on LS1tech....As far as evildylan goes...you guys should be thankful hes telling you all this info about evos. I gotta DSM of my own...and ive ran alot of people on the street (those lasers will fool u everytime)...you just cannot match the "money to power ratio" of a 4g63 in an evo or DSM......P.S HyperliteSS im awaiting to hear your next story "I hate DSMS too"
You mean, he lost to an evo and posted the kill in the LS1tech.com KILL stories section? I'm not sure if you read the original post, but it doesn't sound anything like what you said. He admitted he lost, and said he had to step it up cause the evo was quick ....
