I hate Evos
10-30-2005, 12:09 AM
#101
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 8,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats what I tried to explain. Before the HP is even at the flywheel, a massive loss of energy, of you will, occurs, then you get whats left of that energy at the flywheel, then more loss through drivetrain then you finally get wheel power. Good point about the sport compact car test, lol.
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.
10-30-2005, 09:51 AM
#102
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
I think it puts more than 33% of it's power to the ground, else it would only be making circa 99whp on a 300bhp motor.
10-30-2005, 09:57 AM
#103
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=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.
Bingo, thats what I forgot..all the waste out the exsaust itself...
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?
Can you? He said stock. Never the less, the whole boost-as-a-measure of airflow thing is stupid. 30 PSI on a TD05 16G is probably less airflow than 20 PSI on some FP3065 drag monster. That said, try runing 25 psi from virtually any turbo on a stock LS1 and you will be blowing the crap out of things in short order. You will also make like 600 wheel for a short period of time. I would like a video and a ride if anyone chooses to do this.
[QUOTE]
Bingo, thats what I forgot..all the waste out the exsaust itself...
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?
Can you? He said stock. Never the less, the whole boost-as-a-measure of airflow thing is stupid. 30 PSI on a TD05 16G is probably less airflow than 20 PSI on some FP3065 drag monster. That said, try runing 25 psi from virtually any turbo on a stock LS1 and you will be blowing the crap out of things in short order. You will also make like 600 wheel for a short period of time. I would like a video and a ride if anyone chooses to do this.
[QUOTE]
10-30-2005, 10:04 AM
#104
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
10-30-2005, 10:18 AM
#105
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 3,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sparetire
hat said, try runing 25 psi from virtually any turbo on a stock LS1 and you will be blowing the crap out of things in short order. You will also make like 600 wheel for a short period of time. I would like a video and a ride if anyone chooses to do this.
Anything over 20 psi on an FI LS1, and you are well over 1k rwhp given the right oil system, PCV, head bolts, cooling, high octane/race gas, forged internals, etc. of course, OR you will be "blowing the crap out of things."
10-30-2005, 07:12 PM
#107
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
also, you mentioned how the evo's race development here in the states has only been current for the last 2.5 years...but i forgot to point out: the quickest 05 gt is running 9s already~right beside your evo's quickest. how long have they had to r&d the 3v mustangs? and besides, how long has the 4g63 been running the u.s. streets? bottom line, every motor has pros/cons, but in the big scheme of things- 4g63's have far less potential than lsx motors -for drag racing. if they didn't, i'd be saying the opposite. i have nothing against imports- i drive a nissan to work. facts of life.
10-30-2005, 07:19 PM
#108
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
also, you mentioned how the evo's race development here in the states has only been current for the last 2.5 years...but i forgot to point out: the quickest 05 gt is running 9s already~right beside your evo's quickest. how long have they had to r&d the 3v mustangs? and besides, how long has the 4g63 been running the u.s. streets? bottom line, every motor has pros/cons, but in the big scheme of things- 4g63's have far less potential than lsx motors -for drag racing. if they didn't, i'd be saying the opposite. i have nothing against imports- i drive a nissan to work. facts of life.
the quickest 4g63 is running low 8s..high 7s if my mind serves me correctly.
edit: I just looked it up....fastest dsm with a 4g63 is john shepard with a 7.97.
fastest 4g63 powered car is brent rau at a 6.90....whats the fastest ls1?
his 7.97 run
http://www.shepracing.com/videos/Shep797.wmv
http://www.shepracing.com/index.html
Last edited by BrandonDrecksage; 10-30-2005 at 07:35 PM.
10-30-2005, 07:26 PM
#109
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nope, shep's awd still running low 8s. there might be quicker 4g63's out there- i dunno- but sheperd's is a real street car/not tube chassis. as for the quickest full weight ls1/lt1 cars, well you know...
10-30-2005, 07:32 PM
#110
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
nope, shep's awd still running low 8s. there might be quicker 4g63's out there- i dunno- but sheperd's is a real street car/not tube chassis. as for the quickest full weight ls1/lt1 cars, well you know...
10-30-2005, 08:15 PM
#111
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
I edited my post...my question..what is the fastest ls1 powered car...not lt1...ls1. full weight..and tube car?
btw i think it's high 6 second range..but again who cares?
10-30-2005, 08:37 PM
#112
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
That's irrelevant. Having a fast drag car says nothing about which engine is better.
btw i think it's high 6 second range..but again who cares?
btw i think it's high 6 second range..but again who cares?
10-30-2005, 09:20 PM
#113
TECH Senior Member
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
I edited my post...my question..what is the fastest ls1 powered car...not lt1...ls1. full weight..and tube car?
FWIW, the LS1 has run low 8s on a stock crank and block.
10-31-2005, 12:26 AM
#115
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
i'm just making a point since peopel claim the 4g63 is garbage...with no potential.
Whats that shitty Fram oil filter doing on that sweet engine?
10-31-2005, 10:07 AM
#117
FRAM sucks, use WIX And man, any motor can do pretty much anything, it all depends on how much $$ you got in ya pockets. Seriously, the guy who built my car also built a 460ci AWD Pinto...why? because someone wanted one, and moreover, wanted to PAY for one. As to "potential" "most efficient" "most advanced" Who cares? My car uses rather old technology. ie. single cam, pushrods,no knock sensors, etc. etc. etc. but it makes 340hp and it only cost me 3200 delivered to my door including intake manifold, RR 16. upgrade, probe forged pistons, and headers. Did i get the baddest thing on the planet...erm...no, but hell, 340hp out of a brand new motor with a warrenty, im happy. run what you brung, dont sit around saying "so and so with my motor could beat so and so with your motor..." Because guess what? my dad could beat up your dad , so pffft
And man, any motor can do pretty much anything, it all depends on how much $$ you got in ya pockets. Seriously, the guy who built my car also built a 460ci AWD Pinto...why? because someone wanted one, and moreover, wanted to PAY for one. As to "potential" "most efficient" "most advanced" Who cares? My car uses rather old technology. ie. single cam, pushrods,no knock sensors, etc. etc. etc. but it makes 340hp and it only cost me 3200 delivered to my door including intake manifold, RR 16. upgrade, probe forged pistons, and headers. Did i get the baddest thing on the planet...erm...no, but hell, 340hp out of a brand new motor with a warrenty, im happy. run what you brung, dont sit around saying "so and so with my motor could beat so and so with your motor..." Because guess what? my dad could beat up your dad , so pffft
10-31-2005, 10:10 AM
#118
btw, i prolly make at least 275 rwhp and that means over 800hp is TRULY being created by my beastly little 302, WAVER IN AWE!!!!!!!! (that is an interesting thought, and yeah, it makes since, but please, PLEASE, dont tell any ricers about the laws of thermodynamics...then we would have MUCH **** to listen to about 1000hp neons and the like.)
10-31-2005, 02:25 PM
#119
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by evo_killer
also, you mentioned how the evo's race development here in the states has only been current for the last 2.5 years...but i forgot to point out: the quickest 05 gt is running 9s already~right beside your evo's quickest. how long have they had to r&d the 3v mustangs? and besides, how long has the 4g63 been running the u.s. streets? bottom line, every motor has pros/cons, but in the big scheme of things- 4g63's have far less potential than lsx motors -for drag racing. if they didn't, i'd be saying the opposite. i have nothing against imports- i drive a nissan to work. facts of life.
10-31-2005, 02:33 PM
#120
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bboyferal
Heh, on an LS1, for 600 rwhp, all you need is 10 psi, not 25.
Anything over 20 psi on an FI LS1, and you are well over 1k rwhp given the right oil system, PCV, head bolts, cooling, high octane/race gas, forged internals, etc. of course, OR you will be "blowing the crap out of things."
Anything over 20 psi on an FI LS1, and you are well over 1k rwhp given the right oil system, PCV, head bolts, cooling, high octane/race gas, forged internals, etc. of course, OR you will be "blowing the crap out of things."
But that said, yeah, its really interesting how it takes more to run high boost on a big motor, but the big motor needs less boost for a given goal. IMHO the ideal displacement is somewhere in the 330CI range (with an oversquare motor) to make the best all around race machine.