I hate Evos
11-03-2005, 05:08 PM
#141
TECH Addict
Originally Posted by B T
<<<<<<<<
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))
Wow, looky here ----->The Chevy small-block engine has been produced in 10 different displacements ranging from 262 to 400 cid. The production engine topped out at an amazing 375 hp, but race tuners have wrung upwards of 900 hp out of the package in its time.
http://www.circletrack.com/thehistoryof/58038/
It has pushrods and it's NASCAR.
Geezus that was really hard.
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))
Wow, looky here ----->The Chevy small-block engine has been produced in 10 different displacements ranging from 262 to 400 cid. The production engine topped out at an amazing 375 hp, but race tuners have wrung upwards of 900 hp out of the package in its time.
http://www.circletrack.com/thehistoryof/58038/
It has pushrods and it's NASCAR.
Geezus that was really hard.
So in bhp/litre terms it's MASSIVLY behind. Which is what my whole point was....
Even if you assume 350ci could make 900bhp n/a, thats 5.7 litres.
900 / 5.7 = 157.89bhp per litre
compared to
900 / 3 = 300bhp per litre
11-03-2005, 05:08 PM
#142
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Var
I think the displacement of the engine is not as important as it's external dimensions,weight, cost, reliability, driveability,modability, and availbility. 
In many ways the LS based engine is lightyears AHEAD of the OHC design....
11-03-2005, 05:16 PM
#143
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
Yes it must be real hard. As that article only states 900bhp in passing but fails to mentions how it got there. It does however mention mention capcity (engines rangin from 262-400ci), all you'll notice are significantly bigger than 3.0 litres and it's pretty obvious the smaller ci's where not used to produce 900bhp.
So in bhp/litre terms it's MASSIVLY behind. Which is what my whole point was....
Even if you assume 350ci could make 900bhp n/a, thats 5.7 litres.
900 / 5.7 = 157.89bhp per litre
compared to
900 / 3 = 300bhp per litre
So in bhp/litre terms it's MASSIVLY behind. Which is what my whole point was....
Even if you assume 350ci could make 900bhp n/a, thats 5.7 litres.
900 / 5.7 = 157.89bhp per litre
compared to
900 / 3 = 300bhp per litre
True it is!
Massively would be a realitive term I think.
I see it also has more moving parts with a greater chance of failure.
Then there is always that nasty $COST$ factor.
11-03-2005, 05:43 PM
#144
TECH Addict
Originally Posted by B T
>>>>
True it is!
Massively would be a realitive term I think.
I see it also has more moving parts with a greater chance of failure.
Then there is always that nasty $COST$ factor.
As for moving parts - well maybe. A push rod drive train has far more stress due to increased mass than a OHC design, so there's plus and minus points for both.
In large cc V8's OHV is GREAT and works. But ultimayly is limited.
Remember 4 cylinder engines used to be OHV too, but OHC and DOHC produce more power more reliably. The same follows with V8's only the thresh hold is much higher due to capcity.
11-03-2005, 07:23 PM
#145
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
yes there are many factors. Cost it but one.
As for moving parts - well maybe. A push rod drive train has far more stress due to increased mass than a OHC design, so there's plus and minus points for both.
In large cc V8's OHV is GREAT and works. But ultimayly is limited.
Remember 4 cylinder engines used to be OHV too, but OHC and DOHC produce more power more reliably. The same follows with V8's only the thresh hold is much higher due to capacity.
As for moving parts - well maybe. A push rod drive train has far more stress due to increased mass than a OHC design, so there's plus and minus points for both.
In large cc V8's OHV is GREAT and works. But ultimayly is limited.
Remember 4 cylinder engines used to be OHV too, but OHC and DOHC produce more power more reliably. The same follows with V8's only the thresh hold is much higher due to capacity.
Also you keep comparing a F1 engine with a production pushrod engine....A pushrod configuration with the internals allowing the massive rpms turned by an F1 engine could certainly be made using space age materials and it would likely yield similar results......both designs are dated, about the same actually.....camless now that is new technology.
Last edited by cantdrv65; 11-03-2005 at 07:34 PM.
11-03-2005, 07:48 PM
#146
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
yes there are many factors. Cost it but one.
As for moving parts - well maybe. A push rod drive train has far more stress due to increased mass than a OHC design, so there's plus and minus points for both.
In large cc V8's OHV is GREAT and works. But ultimayly is limited.
Remember 4 cylinder engines used to be OHV too, but OHC and DOHC produce more power more reliably. The same follows with V8's only the thresh hold is much higher due to capcity.
As for moving parts - well maybe. A push rod drive train has far more stress due to increased mass than a OHC design, so there's plus and minus points for both.
In large cc V8's OHV is GREAT and works. But ultimayly is limited.
Remember 4 cylinder engines used to be OHV too, but OHC and DOHC produce more power more reliably. The same follows with V8's only the thresh hold is much higher due to capcity.
I have a quick question for you if you don't mind me asking.
I would like to know what your opinion/ experience/ knowledge is if that 3.0 F1 engine where to be transplanted into a 3500 Lbs. NASCAR backed by the current Trans and final drive gear that is currently being used by NASCAR V8 engine that woulde be making 900 BHP.
How would it accelerate compared to the V8 currently used?
I realize it has more than enough rpm to max out the gearbox but would it pull/accelerate as quickly to top speed as the V8?
Thanks!
BT
11-03-2005, 08:02 PM
#147
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few points:
1) As far as useable long term reliability on a 4G63. I am currently starting my build up for my 1G DSM. It will have a 4G64 crank for 2.3L and make about 300 WHP on 91 octane. I have 0 concerns about the engine handling this kind of power every day for my 30 miles each way commute to work, sometimes with heavy traffic. The car on high boost/race gas will probably be good for 400 wheel. Again, 0 concerns about the motor handling this. I aint **** in the DSM world.
The fact is that matirieals engineering and small volume high quality manufacturing have created a world where people who know what they are doing can make a 500hp 2L thats relaible. My car will be running stock mitsu crank from a 4G64, stock rods off a 90 Talon, a stock Evo 3 Turbo, stock block, 100% stock head, and stock manifolds. The pistons are likely going to Wisecos, as the extra strole would smash stockers into the head. Nevermind what I could do with all aftermarket stuff. www.ffwdconnection.com comes to mind as a great example of what twisted but knowledgeable minds can do with 2L.
2)Race engines are a horrible gage of reliability for normal engines. Race teams trade longevity for power within tight restrrictions the way we dont have too. NASCAR qualifying engines are a great example. Those things are shaved down to minimal rotational weight to a point where they will not last much longer than the 2 laps or so they are needed. Try using one in a race and it will blow before your next tire stop. The Race motors however, will take hours of 7000 RPM punishment (contrary to what most people think, OHV can rev pretty high. NASCAR and TOP-Fuel draging get right into the 9XXX range all the time.)
Shoot, Formula 1 engines are timebombs. They dont last more than a few hours.
Basicly, race teams sacrifice longevity by the boat load for just a bit more power, which makes the diff between also rans and champs.
3)HP/Litre is a pretty arbitrary measure of performance. hp/weight on engine makes much more sense. Or hp/overall engine dimesions. Take a look at a VQ35 froma 350Z compared to a basic LS1. The Nissan has much better hp/Litre. But look at the amount of power per unit volume of engine. Look at power to weight ratios. The LS1 owns it. You'll rarely see real DSMers talking about hp/litre, even though many of us could probably win those types of pissing matches hands down when bench racing freinds. We dont care. Racing teams dont even care much. They care about power to weight and getting as much out of an engine as possible within (mostly
) the rules.
1) As far as useable long term reliability on a 4G63. I am currently starting my build up for my 1G DSM. It will have a 4G64 crank for 2.3L and make about 300 WHP on 91 octane. I have 0 concerns about the engine handling this kind of power every day for my 30 miles each way commute to work, sometimes with heavy traffic. The car on high boost/race gas will probably be good for 400 wheel. Again, 0 concerns about the motor handling this. I aint **** in the DSM world.
The fact is that matirieals engineering and small volume high quality manufacturing have created a world where people who know what they are doing can make a 500hp 2L thats relaible. My car will be running stock mitsu crank from a 4G64, stock rods off a 90 Talon, a stock Evo 3 Turbo, stock block, 100% stock head, and stock manifolds. The pistons are likely going to Wisecos, as the extra strole would smash stockers into the head. Nevermind what I could do with all aftermarket stuff. www.ffwdconnection.com comes to mind as a great example of what twisted but knowledgeable minds can do with 2L.
2)Race engines are a horrible gage of reliability for normal engines. Race teams trade longevity for power within tight restrrictions the way we dont have too. NASCAR qualifying engines are a great example. Those things are shaved down to minimal rotational weight to a point where they will not last much longer than the 2 laps or so they are needed. Try using one in a race and it will blow before your next tire stop. The Race motors however, will take hours of 7000 RPM punishment (contrary to what most people think, OHV can rev pretty high. NASCAR and TOP-Fuel draging get right into the 9XXX range all the time.)
Shoot, Formula 1 engines are timebombs. They dont last more than a few hours.
Basicly, race teams sacrifice longevity by the boat load for just a bit more power, which makes the diff between also rans and champs.
3)HP/Litre is a pretty arbitrary measure of performance. hp/weight on engine makes much more sense. Or hp/overall engine dimesions. Take a look at a VQ35 froma 350Z compared to a basic LS1. The Nissan has much better hp/Litre. But look at the amount of power per unit volume of engine. Look at power to weight ratios. The LS1 owns it. You'll rarely see real DSMers talking about hp/litre, even though many of us could probably win those types of pissing matches hands down when bench racing freinds. We dont care. Racing teams dont even care much. They care about power to weight and getting as much out of an engine as possible within (mostly
) the rules.
11-03-2005, 08:05 PM
#148
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by B T
>>>>
I have a quick question for you if you don't mind me asking.
I would like to know what your opinion/ experience/ knowledge is if that 3.0 F1 engine where to be transplanted into a 3500 Lbs. NASCAR backed by the current Trans and final drive gear that is currently being used by NASCAR V8 engine that woulde be making 900 BHP.
How would it accelerate compared to the V8 currently used?
I realize it has more than enough rpm to max out the gearbox but would it pull/accelerate as quickly to top speed as the V8?
Thanks!
BT
I have a quick question for you if you don't mind me asking.
I would like to know what your opinion/ experience/ knowledge is if that 3.0 F1 engine where to be transplanted into a 3500 Lbs. NASCAR backed by the current Trans and final drive gear that is currently being used by NASCAR V8 engine that woulde be making 900 BHP.
How would it accelerate compared to the V8 currently used?
I realize it has more than enough rpm to max out the gearbox but would it pull/accelerate as quickly to top speed as the V8?
Thanks!
BT
11-03-2005, 08:15 PM
#150
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sparetire
Few points:
1) As far as useable long term reliability on a 4G63. I am currently starting my build up for my 1G DSM. It will have a 4G64 crank for 2.3L and make about 300 WHP on 91 octane. I have 0 concerns about the engine handling this kind of power every day for my 30 miles each way commute to work, sometimes with heavy traffic. The car on high boost/race gas will probably be good for 400 wheel. Again, 0 concerns about the motor handling this. I aint **** in the DSM world.
2)Race engines are a horrible gage of reliability for normal engines. The Race motors however, will take hours of 7000 RPM punishment (contrary to what most people think, OHV can rev pretty high. NASCAR and TOP-Fuel draging get right into the 9XXX range all the time.)
Shoot, Formula 1 engines are timebombs. They dont last more than a few hours.
Basicly, race teams sacrifice longevity by the boat load for just a bit more power, which makes the diff between also rans and champs.
3)HP/Litre is a pretty arbitrary measure of performance. hp/weight on engine makes much more sense. Or hp/overall engine dimesions.
1) As far as useable long term reliability on a 4G63. I am currently starting my build up for my 1G DSM. It will have a 4G64 crank for 2.3L and make about 300 WHP on 91 octane. I have 0 concerns about the engine handling this kind of power every day for my 30 miles each way commute to work, sometimes with heavy traffic. The car on high boost/race gas will probably be good for 400 wheel. Again, 0 concerns about the motor handling this. I aint **** in the DSM world.
2)Race engines are a horrible gage of reliability for normal engines. The Race motors however, will take hours of 7000 RPM punishment (contrary to what most people think, OHV can rev pretty high. NASCAR and TOP-Fuel draging get right into the 9XXX range all the time.)
Shoot, Formula 1 engines are timebombs. They dont last more than a few hours.
Basicly, race teams sacrifice longevity by the boat load for just a bit more power, which makes the diff between also rans and champs.
3)HP/Litre is a pretty arbitrary measure of performance. hp/weight on engine makes much more sense. Or hp/overall engine dimesions.
And if the argument is simply hp/litre top fuel easily owns every other race engine. 
With its two valve pushrod design...lolAs for the DSM 2.0 liter, when you add forced induction its not a 2.0 liter at all now is it? As a mentioned before a 1.4L 2 cylinder 2-valve pushrod modified chevy wacked off smallblock has made over 1800hp with forced induction and powered a recent salt flat land speed record....
11-03-2005, 08:38 PM
#152
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=cantdrv65]
HAHA yes!
It would never get any TRACTION!
Originally Posted by B T
Thank you! [/QUOTE
Of course by the same token a Nascar small block would be useless in an F1 car...
[/QUOTEOf course by the same token a Nascar small block would be useless in an F1 car...
HAHA yes!
It would never get any TRACTION!
11-04-2005, 06:48 PM
#153
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cantdrv65
I agree with all the above points. And if the argument is simply hp/litre top fuel easily owns every other race engine. With its two valve pushrod design...lol
As for the DSM 2.0 liter, when you add forced induction its not a 2.0 liter at all now is it? As a mentioned before a 1.4L 2 cylinder 2-valve pushrod modified chevy wacked off smallblock has made over 1800hp with forced induction and powered a recent salt flat land speed record....
And if the argument is simply hp/litre top fuel easily owns every other race engine. With its two valve pushrod design...lolAs for the DSM 2.0 liter, when you add forced induction its not a 2.0 liter at all now is it? As a mentioned before a 1.4L 2 cylinder 2-valve pushrod modified chevy wacked off smallblock has made over 1800hp with forced induction and powered a recent salt flat land speed record....
My motor will be a 2.3, not a 2.0, if thats what you mean. But there are plenty of people making 400 whpish on totaly stock bottom end 2 Litre 4g63s. The Evo bottom end can easaly handle 500 whp. Hence why I am unworried about pushing the envelope. My car would have been pushing the envelope maybe a decade ago, but not now 