I hate Evos
10-29-2005, 04:05 PM
#83
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HyperliteSS, What's up brother. From what I know, there are not many if any at all, normally aspriated 4 bangers out there that can at least keep up with a stock LS1. Don't worry. Turbo 4 bangers are tons of fun. I drove an STi last week at a subaru dealership. Wow! I loved it! But It's just not the same as my Camaro. As much as I wanted to buy that STi, I would never sell out and trade in my Z28. There's something very special about the roar, the idle, the torque,and the integrity of a V8. They have been around forever and will alway be! Every sunday from Feb to Nov. enforces the superiority of one of this country's greatest creations- the small block V8 (big blocks are o.k. too!) When NASCAR starts running turbo 4 bangers then you can worry! Just be patient, save up and rebuild the internals. 30 years from now you'll still be getting the thumbs up on the road. That means more than pulling an evo.
10-29-2005, 04:16 PM
#84
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 nascar20
HyperliteSS, What's up brother. From what I know, there are not many if any at all, normally aspriated 4 bangers out there that can at least keep up with a stock LS1. Don't worry. Turbo 4 bangers are tons of fun. I drove an STi last week at a subaru dealership. Wow! I loved it! But It's just not the same as my Camaro. As much as I wanted to buy that STi, I would never sell out and trade in my Z28. There's something very special about the roar, the idle, the torque,and the integrity of a V8. They have been around forever and will alway be! Every sunday from Feb to Nov. enforces the superiority of one of this country's greatest creations- the small block V8 (big blocks are o.k. too!) When NASCAR starts running turbo 4 bangers then you can worry! Just be patient, save up and rebuild the internals. 30 years from now you'll still be getting the thumbs up on the road. That means more than pulling an evo.
10-29-2005, 05:07 PM
#85
HAHAHA..nascar
anyways..my friend's EVO shot out flames and it was stock with turboback exhaust. When you have a turbo, the manifold and the exhaust temps get pretty hot. When you let off the throttle the PCM retards the ignition timing which doesnt let the fuel fully burn before it leaves the combustion chamber so it ignites in the exhuast system and makes for a cool light show.
Rally cars use this technology to keep their turbo's spooling while they are off throttle. The PCM richens the fuel mixture and retards timing off throttle, making explosions in the manifold that keep the turbo spinning while they are on their brakes.
sorry if someone already posted this information but i didnt read past the first page
edit: i just read past the first page...holy COW...shitlinging contest.
anyways..my friend's EVO shot out flames and it was stock with turboback exhaust. When you have a turbo, the manifold and the exhaust temps get pretty hot. When you let off the throttle the PCM retards the ignition timing which doesnt let the fuel fully burn before it leaves the combustion chamber so it ignites in the exhuast system and makes for a cool light show.
Rally cars use this technology to keep their turbo's spooling while they are off throttle. The PCM richens the fuel mixture and retards timing off throttle, making explosions in the manifold that keep the turbo spinning while they are on their brakes.
sorry if someone already posted this information but i didnt read past the first page
edit: i just read past the first page...holy COW...shitlinging contest.
Last edited by Var; 10-29-2005 at 05:14 PM.
10-29-2005, 06:12 PM
#86
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
i watch nascar every onc ein a while...aren't they going to some toyota v8s? os is that in the trucks?
10-29-2005, 06:16 PM
#87
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 nascar20
Right now, toyota's are runnin' in the Craftsman Truck Series. I have nothing but respect for that. The boys down south i think had a problem with that. By far the best comercials on tv are the toyota comercials with Darell Waltrip. Don't be suprised if you see the camry running with the cup cars in the near future. Toyota knows where the party is and they want to play too.
10-29-2005, 06:21 PM
#88
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
are they using a pushrod motor?
10-29-2005, 07:00 PM
#89
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 nascar20
I am not positive but i would bet they are. NASCAR is very strict at keeping the playing field even in every category.
10-29-2005, 07:06 PM
#90
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 8,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MetallicBluews6
Actually I do have a degree in Psychology. When I read the introduction it just seemed immature to me thats all. No big deal. I do get his point though.
10-29-2005, 07:31 PM
#91
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 8,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
a turboback exhaust and a good tune will get you damn close to..if not mroe than 70whp. you think the driveline loss on a evo is 33percent? are you on crack? 276hp at the crank...that would produce 185whp....last I checked...they don't produce that. they produce 230whp around. evos don't have cams? once again..you being stupid...one of the major mods people do to evos is hks 272 cams. who said the evo is the almighty import? also..try shoving 30psi down a stock ls1/ls2/ls6/ls7. one more thing..tell me a car that comes with forged internals for a base price of 28k? I think the next would be the 03/04 cobra...but they went for more than 28k.
EDIT- Sorry you did say stock, my bad man.
Last edited by brad8266; 10-29-2005 at 07:53 PM.
10-29-2005, 07:41 PM
#92
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 8,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just showed your ignorance. He said that of the potential power an engine could make at the FLYWHEEL, a lot of that potential power is lost by exhaust and cooling, which will leave you with the power after loss at the flywheel, which then more is lost through the drivetrain. Example: If a motor produced enough energy to make 500HP, it may only make 350 at the flywheel due to energy loss via enhaust and cooling, then the drivetrain loss is there as well which may leave you with 310 at the wheels.
You apparently think engines are 100% efficient since you think that a motor that produces 500HP of potential energy will actually put out 500HP at its flywheel. So much energy is lost by the motor before the flywheel. Maybe you should stop being so ignorant and talking ****. So I hope that answers your ingenious inquiry as to why the vette does not dyno 103HP. Maybe you need to go get some education before you run your mouth.
Like stated before though all motors suffer this type of loss.
You apparently think engines are 100% efficient since you think that a motor that produces 500HP of potential energy will actually put out 500HP at its flywheel. So much energy is lost by the motor before the flywheel. Maybe you should stop being so ignorant and talking ****. So I hope that answers your ingenious inquiry as to why the vette does not dyno 103HP. Maybe you need to go get some education before you run your mouth.
Like stated before though all motors suffer this type of loss.
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
by this logic a 345bhp Corvette will only produce:
345 / 100 x 30 = 103.5rwhp
So how do they dyno at 300+rwhp
The only think to do is
at you 
already have, and there's enough info on the web in books shops and else where that proves DOHC technology outperforms OHV push rod technology. It's not the Evo engine parsay but it's basic design principle.
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))
No because you evidently can't READ. Hence it says QUOTE and has someone elses name there too. They are quotes from someone else.
And as they are all wrong, I (and others) think it's funny.
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?
345 / 100 x 30 = 103.5rwhp
So how do they dyno at 300+rwhp
The only think to do is
at you already have, and there's enough info on the web in books shops and else where that proves DOHC technology outperforms OHV push rod technology. It's not the Evo engine parsay but it's basic design principle.
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))
No because you evidently can't READ. Hence it says QUOTE and has someone elses name there too. They are quotes from someone else.
And as they are all wrong, I (and others) think it's funny.
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?
Last edited by brad8266; 10-29-2005 at 07:55 PM.
10-29-2005, 07:50 PM
#93
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EvilDylan
I cant help but to just laugh at this.
he quickest evo's in the states are in the 9's, but out of the country they are much faster. Consider that they have only had about 2.5 years of development in the states, not bad considering.
he quickest evo's in the states are in the 9's, but out of the country they are much faster. Consider that they have only had about 2.5 years of development in the states, not bad considering.
10-29-2005, 08:00 PM
#94
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
so i guess their forged internals..that come stock are nothing special?
or with 2 lil mods...a turbo back exhaust and a flash and you could have 70 or 80 whp more? for 1500? what mod on a ls1 can give you 70whp for 1500? not to mention..I can do an exhaust and sending out the pcm isn't hard, but if you have to put in a cam..i can't do that myself..so you'd have to add install price to that. but even so...a cam and tune will be around 1500 and thats not even including headers to realize the full potential of the cam.
or with 2 lil mods...a turbo back exhaust and a flash and you could have 70 or 80 whp more? for 1500? what mod on a ls1 can give you 70whp for 1500? not to mention..I can do an exhaust and sending out the pcm isn't hard, but if you have to put in a cam..i can't do that myself..so you'd have to add install price to that. but even so...a cam and tune will be around 1500 and thats not even including headers to realize the full potential of the cam.
10-29-2005, 08:01 PM
#95
This horsepower loss argument doesn't mean anything cause you guys are using different words to say the exact same thing. I think it's just a misunderstanding.
First of all horsepower is not "lost" before the flywheel. It never existed. The engine never made it because the internal combustion process is only about 33% efficient. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVETRAIN LOSS...it's about thermal efficiency.
If the internal combustion engine was more efficient, we'd see more power at the flywheel, and at the wheels. But all modern engine are about the same efficiency..whether it be the LS1 or the 4G63. I dont see why you guys are arguing about this...
if you are comparing which engine is better, then that's a lost cause too that can be argued for years with no resolve.
Some people talk bad about LS1's cause they are pushrod. But they are lightweight, cheap, get good gas mileage, make great power and torque, and it's external dimensions are pretty small compared to an OHC motor of the same displacement. They easily fit into a lot of 4-cylinder engine bays.
I think the displacement of the engine is not as important as it's external dimensions,weight, cost, reliability, driveability,modability, and availbility.
and to add to the Pushrod haters...Sport Compact Car did a "time attack" shootout and one of the rules was "No pushrods". I wonder why...hmmm.
First of all horsepower is not "lost" before the flywheel. It never existed. The engine never made it because the internal combustion process is only about 33% efficient. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVETRAIN LOSS...it's about thermal efficiency.
If the internal combustion engine was more efficient, we'd see more power at the flywheel, and at the wheels. But all modern engine are about the same efficiency..whether it be the LS1 or the 4G63. I dont see why you guys are arguing about this...
if you are comparing which engine is better, then that's a lost cause too that can be argued for years with no resolve.
Some people talk bad about LS1's cause they are pushrod. But they are lightweight, cheap, get good gas mileage, make great power and torque, and it's external dimensions are pretty small compared to an OHC motor of the same displacement. They easily fit into a lot of 4-cylinder engine bays.
I think the displacement of the engine is not as important as it's external dimensions,weight, cost, reliability, driveability,modability, and availbility.
and to add to the Pushrod haters...Sport Compact Car did a "time attack" shootout and one of the rules was "No pushrods". I wonder why...hmmm.
Last edited by Var; 10-29-2005 at 08:11 PM.
10-29-2005, 10:07 PM
#96
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 evo_killer
Lol, uuuuhh nope.. look at 03/04 cobras---forged. Look at $1500 p.o.s. '92-older foxbody mustangs (forged pistons) stock. Does driving around with 4 doors impress you? I guess they come with an extra pair, for after that matchup with an f-body, and get their doors blown. As far as 2 mods for $1500 on an Ls1.....cam and nitrous can be done for less than $1500-done right, and ask ANYBODY on here which would win! You can figure in labor and misc. parts, bla bla bla. OK, for way less than a grand, n2o/fuel pump would give you way more than 70rwhp genius. Also, I was talking about track times, not dyno/bench racing bullsh*t. Who gives a F**k about your hp ratings, etc., when your car is slow? Bottom line: drop $1500 in your evo, I'll drop less $ than you, and beat you.
I don't own a evo... and the arguement about the forged internals...I said it was special..not all cars have it..there are always exceptions to the rule douche. I don't drive around with 4 doors because i own a SS. I guess a car that runs low 13s stock...and with lil mods can go much faster is slow?
10-29-2005, 10:08 PM
#97
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 Var
This horsepower loss argument doesn't mean anything cause you guys are using different words to say the exact same thing. I think it's just a misunderstanding.
First of all horsepower is not "lost" before the flywheel. It never existed. The engine never made it because the internal combustion process is only about 33% efficient. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVETRAIN LOSS...it's about thermal efficiency.
If the internal combustion engine was more efficient, we'd see more power at the flywheel, and at the wheels. But all modern engine are about the same efficiency..whether it be the LS1 or the 4G63. I dont see why you guys are arguing about this...
if you are comparing which engine is better, then that's a lost cause too that can be argued for years with no resolve.
Some people talk bad about LS1's cause they are pushrod. But they are lightweight, cheap, get good gas mileage, make great power and torque, and it's external dimensions are pretty small compared to an OHC motor of the same displacement. They easily fit into a lot of 4-cylinder engine bays.
I think the displacement of the engine is not as important as it's external dimensions,weight, cost, reliability, driveability,modability, and availbility.
and to add to the Pushrod haters...Sport Compact Car did a "time attack" shootout and one of the rules was "No pushrods". I wonder why...hmmm.
First of all horsepower is not "lost" before the flywheel. It never existed. The engine never made it because the internal combustion process is only about 33% efficient. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVETRAIN LOSS...it's about thermal efficiency.
If the internal combustion engine was more efficient, we'd see more power at the flywheel, and at the wheels. But all modern engine are about the same efficiency..whether it be the LS1 or the 4G63. I dont see why you guys are arguing about this...
if you are comparing which engine is better, then that's a lost cause too that can be argued for years with no resolve.
Some people talk bad about LS1's cause they are pushrod. But they are lightweight, cheap, get good gas mileage, make great power and torque, and it's external dimensions are pretty small compared to an OHC motor of the same displacement. They easily fit into a lot of 4-cylinder engine bays.
I think the displacement of the engine is not as important as it's external dimensions,weight, cost, reliability, driveability,modability, and availbility.
and to add to the Pushrod haters...Sport Compact Car did a "time attack" shootout and one of the rules was "No pushrods". I wonder why...hmmm.
because dave coleman doesn't like pushrods..lol. no other reason.
10-29-2005, 10:49 PM
#98
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Var
and to add to the Pushrod haters...Sport Compact Car did a "time attack" shootout and one of the rules was "No pushrods". I wonder why...hmmm.
They had an awd 1g dsm, rebuilt/aftermarket bigger turbo, fmic, fuel syt., etc that went mid-13s!!! wow 
-DSM
10-29-2005, 11:16 PM
#99
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 evo_killer
That's funny! They also did an issue that said "Budget BadBoys" on the cover, (Sept. '05 issue), which featured a slew of 12.90 and slower cars, showing what they could do on a budget. They had an awd 1g dsm, rebuilt/aftermarket bigger turbo, fmic, fuel syt., etc that went mid-13s!!! wow -DSM
They had an awd 1g dsm, rebuilt/aftermarket bigger turbo, fmic, fuel syt., etc that went mid-13s!!! wow -DSM
