big engine and nothing else [Archive] - Ultimatecarpage.com forums

guyt_x

06-11-2003, 11:16 PM

ozexige

06-12-2003, 12:37 AM

hmmmmmm.........I think I read this somewhere else ....... now let me see ...... zzzzzzzzz

Kudosdude

06-12-2003, 01:04 AM

Give us a quick list of the engines that sit at the top of the performance tree in SALOON cars.

I think you'll find they all have large capacities.

Oh and how big was the McLaren F1 engine?

P.S. I like small engines, the R1 motorbike engine is fantastic, but big engines have their place too 0.02c

motormaniac

06-12-2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Kudosdude
Give us a quick list of the engines that sit at the top of the performance tree in SALOON cars.

I think you'll find they all have large capacities.

Oh and how big was the McLaren F1 engine?

P.S. I like small engines, the R1 motorbike engine is fantastic, but big engines have their place too 0.02c

evo 7, evo 8?

wrx sti?

all these car accelrate to 62 in around 4.5 secs

tell me abt an american saloon which does that at around the same engine capacity and price

;)

Kudosdude

06-12-2003, 02:53 AM

They are turbocharged, they are also geared to do that speed. AND they drink like fish. I don't know anyone that gets above 25mpg in their evo's.

guyt_x

06-12-2003, 03:02 AM

you make a good point about price
I didnt even think about price

the money you save you can spend on mods which you dont really need cos non american cars are so fast.....

and the McLaren F1 enginewas only a 5.7 litre motor which still holds the guisness book of recordsfor the most powerfull engine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

motorhead

06-12-2003, 10:16 AM

motorhead

06-12-2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Kudosdude
They are turbocharged, they are also geared to do that speed. AND they drink like fish. I don't know anyone that gets above 25mpg in their evo's.
go teach that motormaniac some proper shit about cars and yeah it drinks like a dipsomaniac(that sounds better than a fish)

motorhead

06-12-2003, 10:18 AM

i don'y know anyone who gets above 15MPG in terms of the combination of urban and extra urban

motormaniac

06-13-2003, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by motorhead
go teach that motormaniac some proper shit about cars and yeah it drinks like a dipsomaniac(that sounds better than a fish)

well,

the combined consumtion for the evo 8 is 13 liters per 100 km

that's damn good

motormaniac

06-13-2003, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
you make a good point about price
I didnt even think about price

the money you save you can spend on mods which you dont really need cos non american cars are so fast.....

and the McLaren F1 enginewas only a 5.7 litre motor which still holds the guisness book of recordsfor the most powerfull engine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thanks

it 6.1 liters

still very little for the fastest car in the world

anyway

as guyt_x said

u can juz stuff a big engine in and make a fast car

result: buggatti veryon

using brains

result: Maclaren F1

point is ppl

u can juz stuff a w-16 into a 8-litre car and call it the fastest car in world

but using a 6 litre v-12 and making the fastest car in world

that a acheivement

guyt_x

06-13-2003, 03:20 AM

motormaniac has just stood up and confirmed that
he has a brain

motorhead

06-13-2003, 09:34 AM

why you comparing the veyron to the mclaren f1 - one is a luxury super sports car the other is a light weight super sportscar - they are of totally different leagues - the veyron actually in fact was never intented to be the fastest production car in the world but ferdinand piech wanted to resserruct bugatti with a very special kind of car and he has done it ultra well.and you think its easy stuffing a 8l w16 in the veyrons roof is it - think again - there was much more development done in ther veryron than in the mclaren f1 - well obviously because its newer much more features and my godness the gagets and gizmos which the mclaren sadly does not have.

motormaniac

06-16-2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by motorhead
why you comparing the veyron to the mclaren f1 - one is a luxury super sports car the other is a light weight super sportscar - they are of totally different leagues - the veyron actually in fact was never intented to be the fastest production car in the world but ferdinand piech wanted to resserruct bugatti with a very special kind of car and he has done it ultra well.and you think its easy stuffing a 8l w16 in the veyrons roof is it - think again - there was much more development done in ther veryron than in the mclaren f1 - well obviously because its newer much more features and my godness the gagets and gizmos which the mclaren sadly does not have.

ok

well

compare the maclrean f1 gtr to the veryon

the inteior of the maclaren is Fablous, mind blowing

the seats r made of the best leather avaiable

the veryon inteior is bullshit compared to the gtr

and the veryon was intended to be the fastest car in the world for ur info

they do not juz stuff w-16 into cars that r intended to be "just a normal supercar"

again u being bias towards the buggati

pls do not let what u like affect ur judgements

crisis

06-18-2003, 12:43 AM

The Japanese answer to everything is to make cars smaller. Bolt the same turbo from a Jap car onto a V8 and watch the fireworks.

guyt_x

06-18-2003, 04:16 AM

shame people lease dont embares yourself by making silly goose comments.

MKielbasa

06-23-2003, 07:34 PM

Where to start.. where to start.

The evo and sti are bad examples of engineering. They took a moderatly small engine and boosted the hell out of it:

The same logic which says a car with a large engine is bad should also dictate that a car which needs 19.6 pounds of boost is a pile of crap.

You are also overlooking so many things: Cost being a main one. It costs a lot more to pull 600hp out of a 6.0L N/A engine. It is NOT a feat of engineering, it is merely an indication that McLaren has a lot of money to throw around. Bugatti's 8L W16 probably costs much less to manufacture, even WITH the four turbo chargers. The W16 will also have a more usable torque curve.

A honda s2000 makes 240HP out of a 2.0L engine.
80's Corvettes do the same out of a 5.7L engine.

Which one is more drivable ? The 5.7L, it makes power accross its entire powerband. In order to drive the Honda on the street you have to keep it around 4-5000 RPM just to keep up with the flow of traffic.

There are three ways to make horse power: High displacement, High RPM, and high boost. NONE of the three produces a good USEABLE amount of power on its own.

High RPM means the engine needs to be wound out to far
High boost provides a very uneven power delivery, and is not good for every day use
High displacement generally produces lower power per L than the other two options, BUT the power it does produce is much more usable.

You keep discounting the Bugatti because they just "stuffed" a huge engine into a light car. The fact is that the powerplant it's self is much better than the McLaren's engine.

There are far more important things to consider when building a power plant then just hp/L. When you understand that, you will really understand performance cars.

guyt_x

06-23-2003, 11:13 PM

no i mean really

-------------------------------------
You keep discounting the Bugatti because they just "stuffed" a huge engine into a light car. The fact is that the powerplant it's self is much better than the McLaren's engine.
-------------------------------------

no listen carefully stupid

this is from the guinness book or world records....

come now say it with me g u i n n e s s book of world records.
------------------------------
Most Powerful Car
The most powerful standard production car ever made is the McLaren F1, which develops 627 b.h.p.
------------------------------
you see me copying and pasting that from the guisness book of world records makes you really dumb and ignorant.

I hop after this you will wear a sign that says im ignorant and stupid.

and about the cars with boost... turbo technology has come along way stupid.... but im not going to try explain why cos you to dumb to understand it.

MKielbasa

06-24-2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
no i mean really

-------------------------------------
You keep discounting the Bugatti because they just "stuffed" a huge engine into a light car. The fact is that the powerplant it's self is much better than the McLaren's engine.
-------------------------------------

no listen carefully stupid

this is from the guinness book or world records....

come now say it with me g u i n n e s s book of world records.
------------------------------
Most Powerful Car
The most powerful standard production car ever made is the McLaren F1, which develops 627 b.h.p.
------------------------------
you see me copying and pasting that from the guisness book of world records makes you really dumb and ignorant.

I hop after this you will wear a sign that says im ignorant and stupid.

and about the cars with boost... turbo technology has come along way stupid.... but im not going to try explain why cos you to dumb to understand it.

Ok. I'm going to use your logic:

The Mclaren f1 is a piece of shit. They needed a 6.0L engine to produce 650HP. Geeze. F1 cars produce over 700hp out of a mere 3.0L. They should have put one of those engines in the McLaren because that would make it better.

My synopsis? Your 13. You have the comprehension skills of a 13 year old. You have the arguments of a 13 year old. You use phrases like a 13 year old (Silly goose? wtf is that?). It's past your bed time. Go to school, learn how to be a big boy, and come back here.

That record in the book of records is from 1993 when the F1 first came out. Go buy some european car mags and read up on the Cerbera Speed 12.

It is powered by a 7.9L engine that produces 803 horse power in street trim. The car also weights less than 2500 pounds.

It out performs the F1 in every way. Why isn't it in the book of records? TVR didn't want to tarnish its image, and they also don't produce enough of them to consider them a "production" car.

Turbo tech has come a long way? I know this, I drive a turbocharged car. 19.6pounds of boost is insane on a FACTORY car. Go read the latest Car and Driver, one of the things they mentioned about the new STi is that it has an unsmooth power band. If you can't understand why power delivery being smooth is a good thing, you shouldn't be talking about cars in the first place.

motorhead

06-24-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by MKielbasa
Ok. I'm going to use your logic:

The Mclaren f1 is a piece of shit. They needed a 6.0L engine to produce 650HP. Geeze. F1 cars produce over 700hp out of a mere 3.0L. They should have put one of those engines in the McLaren because that would make it better.

My synopsis? Your 13. You have the comprehension skills of a 13 year old. You have the arguments of a 13 year old. You use phrases like a 13 year old (Silly goose? wtf is that?). It's past your bed time. Go to school, learn how to be a big boy, and come back here.

That record in the book of records is from 1993 when the F1 first came out. Go buy some european car mags and read up on the Cerbera Speed 12.

It is powered by a 7.9L engine that produces 803 horse power in street trim. The car also weights less than 2500 pounds.

It out performs the F1 in every way. Why isn't it in the book of records? TVR didn't want to tarnish its image, and they also don't produce enough of them to consider them a "production" car.

Turbo tech has come a long way? I know this, I drive a turbocharged car. 19.6pounds of boost is insane on a FACTORY car. Go read the latest Car and Driver, one of the things they mentioned about the new STi is that it has an unsmooth power band. If you can't understand why power delivery being smooth is a good thing, you shouldn't be talking about cars in the first place. f1 cars use twin rotor engines - like in mazda rx7 and rx8 - they need very small amounts of displacement for high HP output

motorhead

06-24-2003, 11:06 AM

ok actually not really - they use normal cylinder engines - sorry my mistake

motorhead

06-24-2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by MKielbasa
Where to start.. where to start.

The evo and sti are bad examples of engineering. They took a moderatly small engine and boosted the hell out of it:

The same logic which says a car with a large engine is bad should also dictate that a car which needs 19.6 pounds of boost is a pile of crap.

You are also overlooking so many things: Cost being a main one. It costs a lot more to pull 600hp out of a 6.0L N/A engine. It is NOT a feat of engineering, it is merely an indication that McLaren has a lot of money to throw around. Bugatti's 8L W16 probably costs much less to manufacture, even WITH the four turbo chargers. The W16 will also have a more usable torque curve.

A honda s2000 makes 240HP out of a 2.0L engine.
80's Corvettes do the same out of a 5.7L engine.

Which one is more drivable ? The 5.7L, it makes power accross its entire powerband. In order to drive the Honda on the street you have to keep it around 4-5000 RPM just to keep up with the flow of traffic.

There are three ways to make horse power: High displacement, High RPM, and high boost. NONE of the three produces a good USEABLE amount of power on its own.

High RPM means the engine needs to be wound out to far
High boost provides a very uneven power delivery, and is not good for every day use
High displacement generally produces lower power per L than the other two options, BUT the power it does produce is much more usable.

You keep discounting the Bugatti because they just "stuffed" a huge engine into a light car. The fact is that the powerplant it's self is much better than the McLaren's engine.

There are far more important things to consider when building a power plant then just hp/L. When you understand that, you will really understand performance cars. the s2000 is more of a track car not like the 80s vettes - and you can't compare a current car to a 80s car - good ponts about power delivery though - s2000 is more for the adreanelin seeking people - like me - so maybe i should go get one

MKielbasa

06-24-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by motorhead
the s2000 is more of a track car not like the 80s vettes - and you can't compare a current car to a 80s car - good ponts about power delivery though - s2000 is more for the adreanelin seeking people - like me - so maybe i should go get one

I wouldn't say so. An s2000 is for people who go out on the weekend and carve up long windy canyon roads. People who don't need the low end power.

Take two cars, make them the same performance wise:

0-60, top speed, cornering etc. Make them the same size and weight.

Have one produce A horsepower, and B torque.
The other produces A-25 HP, and B+75 torque.

The A-25Hp car will give a more exciting ride. More seat of the pants feel.

motorhead

06-24-2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by MKielbasa
I wouldn't say so. An s2000 is for people who go out on the weekend and carve up long windy canyon roads. People who don't need the low end power.

Take two cars, make them the same performance wise:

0-60, top speed, cornering etc. Make them the same size and weight.

Have one produce A horsepower, and B torque.
The other produces A-25 HP, and B+75 torque.

The A-25Hp car will give a more exciting ride. More seat of the pants feel. but b will have more pulling power thus like you and i understand lower revs but the power remains and more weight can be pulled at lower revs and at that same gear -right

Nildo

06-24-2003, 05:38 PM

Mkielbasa,
you are right in naming the TVR speed twelve as the most powerful car (for a little while yet....btw, isn't it a 7.7 litre motor?), and also close about the displacement/rpm/boost power production (although that is a little too simple. Bore-stroke ratios etc come into it, for example), but I dont understand how you arrived at the conclusion that the Mc F1 engine was a piece of crap. A few points:
1. Engine was designed in 1992
2. Unlike Formula 1 motors (3 litres 700 hp) the F1 needed to meet emissions laws, lowering potential power output. And does anyone want a car that revs to 16000 rpm? With their low torque/high revs delivery, the vehicle would need to be very light.
3. The engine was actually designed, according to Gordon Murray, solely to produce a peak torque of 450 lb/ft. The fact that, in 1992, the engine not only produced that and more, plus 627 hp was very impressive.
4. 105 hp per litre was very high back then.
5. Even if the motor isn't good enough for you, it was good enough to win Le Mans

Equally, I disagree with your statements about STI and Evo. The point is a small, relatively cheap, light engine (leading to a light car with acceptable handling). Thanks to ball bearing turbo chargers, their boost characteristics need not impede performance too much, particularly in the Evo

crisis

06-24-2003, 06:37 PM

You guys fall into two camps. One group loves small jap turbo cars and are probably influenced by Gran Turismo and other computer games not to mention science fiction like Fast and Furious. The others love big V8s and are most likely US citizens. Your predjudice for either of these to the extent that you dump on the others makes for interesting? arguments but in the end is illogical. That both types of cars exist, sell and continue to be developed proves the popularity and relevance of both types. Instead of making comments like "when are the yanks going to wake up and realise you dont need a big engine to produce X output", be grateful that there is the choice. There are fantastic examples of both types. While one type may at this minute be the fastest, most powerful etc etc, there is always someone bigger out there somewhere.

MKielbasa

06-24-2003, 09:37 PM

Nildo, I was merely pointing out for the benifit of the origonal thread starter that there is more to an engine then high HP/L.
I love turbocharged cars and have nothing against them. However as I see it, by his logic no car should need 19 pounds of boost to produce power. The STI and EVO are great vehicles, but they are not superior over say, a corvette, just because they use smaller engines.

The McLaren is/was a great vehicle for its time. I personally feel it is WAY to worshiped by many in the online community in general.
Sure it was an engineering feat, but in many circumstances that just isn't enough. I was more taken aback by the origonal thread poster's worship of the F1 taking place while saying the Veyron has a crap motor because of it's displacement.

The thread was directed (or so it seems to me) at all american vehicles, not just sports cars. Therefore it seems to me that more than just large hp/L needs to be considered. This is where the started fell short. His arguments lack any consideration of the practicality of an engine, in any given respect.

I do realize I dumbed down my explination of displacement/boost/RPM, but from reading some of the posts posted by the thread starter, I felt it would be needed.

guyt_x

06-24-2003, 11:06 PM

funny how only the american members make stupid points completely off the subject while other members actually consider the points posted.

fact: any one can get power out of a huge engine, it takes brains to create that same amout of power from a smaller engine.

The only reason most non americans have even heard of all your crap cars is due to the fact that the movie industry is flooded with american films.

stick to dragging in strait lines or going around your oval track, with your huge motors whichin the end of the day still dont put out as much smaller european motors do.

now dont humiliate american cars again by comparing the mclaren F1 which is a PRODUCTION CAR to some proto-type
seven point eight litre fairy tale car.

p.s I shouldnt even tell you this but if mclaren had to make a car with a 7.8 litre motor NOW! not from 1985 it would proburaly go back in time it would be so fast.

Wouter Melissen

06-25-2003, 01:05 AM

What exactly is your problem with large V8s? What is the big disadvantage of them over other engines?

guyt_x

06-25-2003, 01:13 AM

why build a car with a huge engine?

#1 all it does is add more weight (ok american cars are as heavy as shit anyway so who cares)

#2 your fuel economy goes out the window(only countries who can bully other coutries for cheap oil can afford it)

#3 and while techology every creep into american cars using less cc's and still get the same power (most times more than crappy american v8's)

Wouter Melissen

06-25-2003, 01:37 AM

motorhead

06-25-2003, 01:54 AM

very true wouter - but you have to hand it to the japanese for building small engines with high HP outputs - damn right about feul economy but in america where it is $1 per gallon WHO CARES - in japan they had horsepower restictions to 290 and all the cars accelerated in like 4.0sec flat or the most 5.0sec(GTRs, NSXs, evos WRXs and now the 350z) they all were very fast and americans had to make do with 5 6 7 litre engines - but then again their cars have more standard and optional KIT, they weight heavier, they are obviously bigger dimentionally and some of them look better - both cars are for totally different classes - americans cars like you said are for cruising along the country side just enjoying the V8 burble and the cool breeze(if yours is a convertible - if not the AIR CON - HEHE)the japanese love to take it to the track for all out acceleration and top speeds and super fast lap times - they love twisty bits of roads(thats why there is 4 wheel drive)and love controlled oversteer - don't know why JAP people love oversteer but its fun anyway

guyt_x

06-25-2003, 02:01 AM

why dont you go meander down some strait lonely road in the desert nice like a good little getto pimp daddy

Wouter Melissen

06-25-2003, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
why dont you go meander down some strait lonely road in the desert nice like a good little getto pimp daddy

It's hard to admit you are wrong, isn't it?

guyt_x

06-25-2003, 05:11 AM

shame

Kudosdude

06-25-2003, 05:54 AM

V8 engines aren't as heavy as you think, that is a big misconception. Displacement does not add weight. It's ancillilaries like turbochargers that add a lot of weight.
It's legislation that has forced many Japanese companies to keep displacement down; more displacement means more tax in Japan. The EVOs and Imprezas are mere competition derived cars where the regulations dictate the 2 litre limit. That's why the Japanese have specialized in building small high power engines. I have first hand experience with the fuel consumption of an EVO; it's horrendous, the range is limited to like 200 km on a 40 litres tank.
The V8s used by American companies are built for smooth cruising. They excell at that. These engines use about half the parts most Japanese 4 cylinder engines use and they are built to sustain hours and hours of driving through the desert.

You are comparing different engines like they were all built under the same legislation and for the same purpose, which is far from the truth. It's like bashing a Piper prop-airplane for not going supersonic.

Correct.

Horses for courses.

I find the ignorance in some replies understandable (patriotism etc.) . . .

Okay some simple facts from machines at the top of their respective groups (not your regular hum-drum cars).

A 5.7 litre LS6 has 405 bhp. I have it on EXCELLENT authority that these will do 30 miles to the gallon on the highway. Official figures give 28+

A 2.0 litre turbocharged EVO VIII with 271 bhp manages 26 mpg freeway (also good authority). Official figures 28.

On engine weights (an ish I'm afraid, official figures are not available). LS6 = 226 kg. EVO = 170kg.

Any-one that wishes to dispute these MUST provide evidence. My facts are based on it.

Nildo

06-25-2003, 05:20 PM

Nice work Kudosdude, figures don't lie. What I don't really get though, is why American manufacturers favour v8s over 10's and 12's. Sounds like a stupid question stupid right? But at the capacity they build a v8 in engineering terms more cylinders could be used to make the engine much more efficient/powerful, due to the engines ability to rev. This is my big criticism of US cars. Big engines are fine, but why not build a big engine while using brains?

Of course, no point going to the other extreme and building a small motor for the sake of a small motor either.

crisis

06-25-2003, 07:00 PM

In the wash up both high tech forced induction 4 cylinders and low tech V8s give the same result. Good performance in the cars they power. As Ive said before you will find the turbo 4s powering smaller cars and V8s powering generally larger ones. guyt_x can choose what he wants to drive and if he likes small cars, buy a turbo 4. Others like bigger cars. Chevs alloy V8s like the LS1 are light and rev high for V8s (6000rpm) They are simple and cheap to produce and not so uneconomical as he may think. I returned 10l per 100km average on a 2000km interstate trip that included a bit of driving around towns and a fair bit of lead footing. A stock 4 cylinder cannot hope to match the power and torque available from a modern V8. They need high tech vvt turbos, intercoolers and need to be driven at their limit to produce the legendary perfomance everyone quotes. the result is a trade off in fuel economy. despite what guyt_x thinks theres no such thing as a free lunch. It isnt only air thats forced into the motor quicker when a turbos is working hard. Any extras also expose the engine to more possibilities of failure. Theres nothing wrong with turbo 4s and theres nothing wrong with big V8s.

guyt_x

06-25-2003, 11:04 PM

if you look at bmw and what they get out of there bigger motors.

So if you gonna still use large capacity engine's thats fine but then get the motor to do somthing a smaller 2.0 litre cant.

bmw refuse to use turbo's and are producing great engines which blitz american engines in "power output to capacity" ratio

if you gonna go big make it do something

crisis

06-26-2003, 01:11 AM

BMW E60 530 3.00lt 6cyl 172kw 300nm Germany
Chev Monte Carlo 3.7lt 6cyl 179kw 380nm US
Ford Mondeo 3.00lt 164kw 275nm UK

Im no fan of the Chev Monte Carlo but there is **** all difference when you consider the relative costs.

Where to now Guyt_x

guyt_x

06-26-2003, 06:30 AM

there 0-100 speeds?

and tops speeds?

Nildo

06-26-2003, 04:45 PM

BMW 330 (bit lighter than 530, same motor) 0-100 6.4
And it looks nice and is very comfy getting there.
On capacity terms, the chev monte is close to the ferrari 360 challenge stradale. Only the ferrari engineers (like I said before!) use more cylinders for equal capacity. The result? 317 kw.
Of course ferrari is a pretty extreme example, but there is nothing in that engine GM couldn't replicate if they tried.

BPx

06-26-2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Kudosdude
Correct.

Horses for courses.

I find the ignorance in some replies understandable (patriotism etc.) . . .

Okay some simple facts from machines at the top of their respective groups (not your regular hum-drum cars).

A 5.7 litre LS6 has 405 bhp. I have it on EXCELLENT authority that these will do 30 miles to the gallon on the highway. Official figures give 28+

A 2.0 litre turbocharged EVO VIII with 271 bhp manages 26 mpg freeway (also good authority). Official figures 28.

On engine weights (an ish I'm afraid, official figures are not available). LS6 = 226 kg. EVO = 170kg.

Any-one that wishes to dispute these MUST provide evidence. My facts are based on it.

Where are you getting that weight for the LS6? This LS1 http://www.sallee-chevrolet.com/ChevySmallBlockV8s/LS1.html only weighs 390lbs, 176.9kg, and even though that's an out-of-crate weight (no fluids), there's no way fluids will add that much weight to an engine. Plus the fact that the LS6 is nearly identical to the LS1, a weight gain like that is impossible. This engine kit is for a complete engine, too.

Kudosdude

06-27-2003, 01:42 AM

The engine weights (dressed) are here (http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/z06/ls1ls6.html)

Engine weights are very subjective; I have used the heaviest listing I could find to try and remove any chance of Bias.

I have to admit the LS6 is my favourite engine.

BPx

06-27-2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Kudosdude
The engine weights (dressed) are here (http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/z06/ls1ls6.html)

Engine weights are very subjective; I have used the heaviest listing I could find to try and remove any chance of Bias.

I have to admit the LS6 is my favourite engine.

I've seen this page before. Looks like they're weighing the engine with the transmission on it. The giveaway is where they have two separate weights for "Auto" and "Manual". There's nothing on the engine that needs to be changed for the car to be auto or manual, it's likely they are just including the transmission.

henk4

06-27-2003, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Kudosdude
The engine weights (dressed) are here (http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/z06/ls1ls6.html)

Engine weights are very subjective; I have used the heaviest listing I could find to try and remove any chance of Bias.

I have to admit the LS6 is my favourite engine.

Just looked at the specs of the LS6. It starts off with "overhead valves, pushrods". I went for a visit to my antique dealer in order to find out what pushrods are. He told me that only in very old American engines these things are still being used to manipulate the valves. Anywhere else in the world the Overhead Camshaft has made pushrods redundant.

BPx

06-27-2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by henk4
Just looked at the specs of the LS6. It starts off with "overhead valves, pushrods". I went for a visit to my antique dealer in order to find out what pushrods are. He told me that only in very old American engines these things are still being used to manipulate the valves. Anywhere else in the world the Overhead Camshaft has made pushrods redundant.

You do realize the pushrod design is newer than the OHC design, and has less moving parts? That's how it ends up weighing less, and having a smaller physical size. As for the last line "ohc has made pushrods redundant"-- go look up "redundant". Doesn't quite fit well there.
As far as technology goes, it's right up there with any other engine made in 2003.

guyt_x

06-27-2003, 03:40 AM

opinions are one thing but if you gonna state a fact about a car or specs please get it right.

It doesnt take much to go to the manufacturer's site and check something before u have read, and if its a hunch then please state so otherwise we are get people making comments on things that arnt true and it all gets very mixed up

Kudosdude

06-27-2003, 04:08 AM

BPx - Spot on facts there, however, the biggest problem with pushrods is their physical weight/inertia not such a problem with todays materials.

All they need now is more than 2 valves per cylinder . . .

P.S. Any other references on the engine weights? If it only weighs 176 kg that is a light V8.

BPx

06-27-2003, 04:17 AM

There is a company that makes heads for 454 Chevys that are actually 4 valves per cylinder... Although, how much do you a trust a single pushrod under that much stress?
I don't have any more links to engine weights (I've never actually had to look any others up). But, I do know of a page on the internet that has tons of weights for most older engines and a few new things, I haven't had the link for a year or two now, but I'm sure it's still floating around somewhere.

Kudosdude

06-27-2003, 05:37 AM

This (http://www.angelfire.com/ar/dw42/engfyi.htm) one has A LOT

While this (http://www.team.net/sol/tech/engine.html) has a shorter list.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of either of the above but the first seems very well researched.

henk4

06-27-2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by BPx
You do realize the pushrod design is newer than the OHC design, and has less moving parts? That's how it ends up weighing less, and having a smaller physical size. As for the last line "ohc has made pushrods redundant"-- go look up "redundant". Doesn't quite fit well there.
As far as technology goes, it's right up there with any other engine made in 2003.

No I did not know that, can you elaborate? As Kudosdude was saying inertia is the big problem with pushrods, they have to go up and down, (just like the pistons) that's why people thought of getting rid of them. At this moment in time I cannot think of any engine currently in production that is not fitted with either one or two OHC's, (except in the USA but may be there are other examples) so obviously the weight problem is not of great importance and is very well compensated for by the better characteristics of the engine. Even modern relatively slow revving diesel engines (max 4500 revs or so) are all fitted with OHC's which is a way surprising as weight is considered to be a problem for diesel engines.

MKielbasa

06-27-2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by henk4
No I did not know that, can you elaborate? As Kudosdude was saying inertia is the big problem with pushrods, they have to go up and down, (just like the pistons) that's why people thought of getting rid of them. At this moment in time I cannot think of any engine currently in production that is not fitted with either one or two OHC's, (except in the USA but may be there are other examples) so obviously the weight problem is not of great importance and is very well compensated for by the better characteristics of the engine. Even modern relatively slow revving diesel engines (max 4500 revs or so) are all fitted with OHC's which is a way surprising as weight is considered to be a problem for diesel engines.

Mere simplicity. A pushrod design is much simpler than any form of OHC. On an DOHC V engine you need four cams, the work involved for timing alone is restrictive.

There is nothing wrong with OHC, but in some instances it just makes more sence to go OHV.

henk4

06-27-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by MKielbasa
[B
There is nothing wrong with OHC, but in some instances it just makes more sence to go OHV. [/B]

As far as I know engine builders feel that in almost all instances it makes more sense to go for OHC. Any clues why?

the_freek

06-27-2003, 11:49 AM

has no one heard of the DODGE SRT-4?

a V8 in a heavy car, and a V6 in the same, heavy car. the V8 may get better gas mileage than the V6, because the V6 has to work harder to get going. think about it.

American cars cant handle. Corvette Z06. 1G on the Skidpad is shitty handling?

LT-5Fiero

06-27-2003, 12:00 PM

people when are the yanks going to realise now that power and speed are produced using technology and clever ideas(there is where americans fall the most short).

Ideas yes, technology no. Those ideas propelled a 1960s General Motors design and formulated it with a 4-banger and optional V6, both of them very rudimentary in design, no technology, just good ole pushrods, and formed a beast of a car in the emissions strangled 1980s, a beast that could outhandle "high performance" European and Japanese cars that ranged from 8 times to as much as 12 times as much as that old tech GM did.

you have subaru's and skyline's nocking the shit out of american boats on a stock level and little honda's doing it with a couple of modes. and still pulling of the whole handling thing off

Then tell me, who and what won this past LeMans 24Hrs? Wasn't a Skyline or a Subaru or a damn Honda, nor was it a Porsche or BMW or anything. I'll let you research it and see how stupid you are. Also find out who holds the most consecutive wins at LeMans, once again not a Japanese or European manufacturer...

I wount even think of comparing european cars becuase there is just no comtest.

Enzo Ferrari himself thought the same thing until The Ferrari Slayer showed him up at LeMans, ending factory-supported Ferraris in LeMans from that day forward.

Also dumbass, research and come back to me with what two American icons (driver and car) and tuner created a full-bodied car and took it to the Bonneville Salt Flats and outsped the McLaren F1 by 14.7 MPH. By full-bodied I mean full stock body with some aerodynamic mods to keep it planted on the ground at 254.7 MPH, stock wheels, racing tires, complete with stereo and A/C and comfortable seats.

Answers (Since I know you are too stupid to look them up yourself):

1) 1984-1988 Pontiac Fiero
2) Dodge Viper
3) Ford GT40
4) 1988 Chevrolet Callaway Sledgehammer Corvette

Callaway said they could mass produce the Sledgehammer and sell it at Chevy dealers.

LT-5Fiero

06-27-2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by the_freek

American cars cant handle. Corvette Z06. 1G on the Skidpad is shitty handling?

1988 Pontiac Shelby Fiero GT 1.07G on the skidpad, 65 MPH slalom (Faster than some Porsches and Acuras and Ferraris), yet that is shitty handling I guess....

PyroManiac

06-27-2003, 12:05 PM

Heres something a big engine can do that a marginally smaller engine CAN'T do, a flat torque curve, which is very advantageous due to the fact that the flatter the torque curve, the more evenly the power is distributed throughout the available RPM, the Dodge Viper's 8 liter V10 is a prime example of this. Large displacement also gives a large amount of torque, that’s why you don’t see puny engines hauling 5k pounds. Do NOT give me that bullshit "torque isn't relevent," I'm quite sure I could shut your mouth real quick.

If you still believe that "big displacement means a heavier engine," chew on this:
http://www.falconerengines.com/v12hi_spec.htm
Heres an AMERICAN V12, 600 cubic inches, 522lbs (dry I think), 1000hp on race gas at a :hold your breath: 6500-7000 rpm.

Compare THAT to the Mclaren F1's V12, it weighs roughly 540lbs, wet.

The Falconer V12 is also probably 20 times more reliable than the F1's, its been used in airplanes and high speed water craft, those of which require extremely reliable engines. I don't think anyone would like to stall out at 20k feet pushing 400 miles per hour. Oh yeah, don't bitch about it being an airplane engine, it is available for street use, and has been used in street legal cars.

Try getting 2k-5k plus horsepower out of a small displacement engine without using exotic materials, it’ll be damn near impossible. Top Fuel engines, believe it or not, require every bit as much technology and attention to detail as a Formula 1 engine, if not more, since the slightest fluctuation in fuel pressure can mean the difference between an all out win or a ticking time bomb.

Heres some American engines that are as high tech as anything else you can bring up
LS1/6
LT5
The entire Vortec lineup
XV12/16
Northstar 1st and 2nd gen.

Also, You people also say that big displacement doesn't require thinking? You are wrong, you couldn't be any more wrong than that, its just that simple.

And I hope you guys don't think that new equals high tech, and high tech equals OHC, you would have just contradicted yourself, further making yourself look like a major moron.

You haven’t seen the last of me, its only just begun.

Tahoeman

06-27-2003, 12:48 PM

holy shit ive never seen so much mis-information in one thread in all my life, now let me get started

first of all

1. HP/L means JACK SHIT, im tired of all you damn ricers running around "oooooh my honda makes 100 hp per liter!!!" big deal, the only thing that says is that its strung out and has less headroom to make more power. HP/L doesnt give any indication about gas mileage, or weight, or anything, its a worthless stat, the only reason it even exists is due to displacement tax in certain countries, which isnt even a valid way to determine if a car pollutes more than another. (the whole reason the tax was put in place)

2. Just because an engine has more displacement doesnt make it heavy, a 5.0 block actually weighs close to the same, if not less than the SR20DET, and doesnt take up more room either. bet none of you stupid ricers knew that did you?

3. all this "pushrod is ancient technology" bullshit needs to stop now, overhead cams are just as old. OHC, is what makes your tiny little engines so big, and weigh so much. OHV is a much more compact design, when i find the picture, i'll post one of a ford dohc 4.6 liter sitting next to a pushrod 5.0, and you'll see how huge the difference in size is. Another thing that totaly proves that pushrod designs are in no way inferrior, is the chevy LS1/LS6 engines in the corvette line. the LS1 makes an easy 350 hp, weighs maybe 100 more lbs than the 1.6 liter sitting in your 17 second civic. and the vetts and F-bodys they are in get 20+ mpg for regular driving and 30 or more on the highway. now tell me one thing chevy did wrong? would putting a smaller dohc engine in their vetts make it better? no not at all, to extract that kind of power, then engine would have to rev a lot higher, sacrificing low end power, and then have to be geared differently and end up getting WORSE gas mileage and having a weaker powerband, not to mention, the engine would likely weigh the same or more, whats the advantage in that? The LS6 makes 405 hp!!! 405 hp!!! and STILL gets 20 mpg in town and 30 on the highway!! thats not much if any worse than a V6 accord with almost half the hp. now tell me why dohc designs are so much better again??

4. Handling, you people kill me, seriously, sure if you have a tiny ass economy car, that doesnt weigh much its going to naturaly handle better. but saying that american cars cant handle is the most stereotypical thing ive heard. you want proof?? the $50K corvette z06 can beat the 120k NSX-R and the 160k Ferrari 360 modena around the Nurburgring track, that is the 02/03 model, the 04 has improved handling, and made it around in under 8 minutes, which is very very rare, beating both the NSX-R and modena by more than 10 seconds. on the Hockenheim Club Circuit, an 01 z06 with 20 less hp than newer ones, beat a modena, and lost to an NSX-R by 3 tenths of a second, the new one would beat it without much trouble. and you know those F-bodys that all you ricers say handle like trailor houses? they can pull 68 mph on the slalom. and dont forget the SRT-4 which out-accellerates and out handles the WRX for less money

now would you dumbass ricers please shut up

PyroManiac

06-27-2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by guyt_x
why build a car with a huge engine?

#1 all it does is add more weight (ok american cars are as heavy as shit anyway so who cares)

#2 your fuel economy goes out the window(only countries who can bully other coutries for cheap oil can afford it)

#3 and while techology every creep into american cars using less cc's and still get the same power (most times more than crappy american v8's)

Oh Jesus Christ... Every point you made right there is wrong.

henk4

06-27-2003, 01:25 PM

[QUOTE][i]

Then tell me, who and what won this past LeMans 24Hrs?

The past 24 Hrs was won by a Bentley. It is powered by an AUDI V8, 4 litre twin turbocharged.
The next three placings were powered by the same engine, the fifth spot was taken by the Panoz
The GTS class was won by the Ferrari 550, V12
The GT class was won by Porsche, flat 6.

Can you explain what made you state that the Viper won? They never won overall, but did register a lot of class wins.

The GT40 did not make Ferrari withdraw from factory support, after the 1967 defeat there were rules changes that forced protoypes to have 3 litre engines only and sportscars (25 plus production levels) could have five litre engines, which made the 5 litre GT 40 eligible. Ferrari had only the 312P. Ferrari returned with the 512 but could not win against the Porsche 917. When the 5 litre class was banned as well the 312 PB was the all conquering prototype in 1972, but just failed to win Lemans.

Just to sum up, if your asking questions be prepared that your answer might not be correct.

fastbird94

06-27-2003, 01:32 PM

You guys are f-ing idiots. I am totally agreeing with PyroManiac and TahoeMan because they are the only ones that have any brains. All you guys are pathetic. You drive around in your piece of shit rice burners with your loud crap ass exhaust with a couple mods that make your front-wheels burn rubber. GEt real, if a Corvette, Mustang, or another big 5.0L came up behind you you wouldnt be talking like you are. These things can handle as well. They have heavy duty suspension and they dont weigh as much. They are way more realiable than ur 4-cylinders, and produce more power and rumble than your mods will ever do to your honda. Espcially you Guy_t_X or whatever the hell your name is, you act like your a real tough guy, get your facts straight before you go dissing a car company. ALSO, i have a Sunbird with a 3.1L automatic, no mods, and high-way raced a suped civic and smoked him.

Tahoeman

06-27-2003, 09:04 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guyt_x
[B]
fact: any one can get power out of a huge engine, it takes brains to create that same amout of power from a smaller engine.

yeah well next time you pull up to a stop light in your civic, and try to race a z28, and he dusts the living hell out of your car by such a large margin that you piss your pants, if hes not so far in front of you that you can still see him, follow him to where hes going and tell him that your car is better because it has brains.

guyt_x

06-28-2003, 04:46 AM

now to smoke a small civic with a lumbering 3.1l automatic(no brains to drive this car just a heavy foot) and like you said it was on the highway hence you didnt have to turn left or right, you should have got a shaved chimp to drive your car cos thats all the talent it takes to drive an automatic on the highway.

and a 2.0 litre Subaru will eat your gass guzzling V8 tanks.

and try take the blinkers off and stop thinking like americans

fastbird94

06-28-2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
now to smoke a small civic with a lumbering 3.1l automatic(no brains to drive this car just a heavy foot) and like you said it was on the highway hence you didnt have to turn left or right, you should have got a shaved chimp to drive your car cos thats all the talent it takes to drive an automatic on the highway.

and a 2.0 litre Subaru will eat your gass guzzling V8 tanks.

and try take the blinkers off and stop thinking like americans

2.0L subaru wouldnt touch a big v-8. They're not gas guzzling either they get almost the same or alittle less MpG than ur 4 cylinder. I bet you havnt even hit 160km/h in your whole life and your talking like your Mario Andretti. get a life bud everyone on this site hates your guts cause you have no f-ing clue what your talking about, ALL of your "facts" are incorrect, and your arguing against over 100 ppl. Your a loser.

To smoke a small civic? This thing was the civic coupe not hatchback and it was all tricked out. I still smoked the living hell out of it and my cars only a v-6 no mods so why are you even trying to compare 4 cylinders to an 8 when a 6 can already smoke you??

Tahoeman

06-28-2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
now to smoke a small civic with a lumbering 3.1l automatic(no brains to drive this car just a heavy foot) and like you said it was on the highway hence you didnt have to turn left or right, you should have got a shaved chimp to drive your car cos thats all the talent it takes to drive an automatic on the highway.

and a 2.0 litre Subaru will eat your gass guzzling V8 tanks.

and try take the blinkers off and stop thinking like americans

lol, its pretty bad when the only way you can diss cars is by saying "oh yeaaah!! well... well... my car takes BRAINS!!!!" you dumbass, oh and for the record, a chevy Z28 pulls better slalom speeds than an RSX type S, bet you didnt know that did you???

i also bet you didnt know that that 2 liter subaru you're bragging so much about gets the SAME in town gas mileage as a vette or F-body, and gets WORSE on the highway, "ohh but how is that possible" you ask? its because in all reality displacement has jackshit to do with anything, put that in your pipe and smoke it you dumb ****ing ricer

Rob

06-28-2003, 11:41 AM

Guyt x, You can't compare an American engine to an European, they both have a totally different history. American engines are big, because America is a relative new country, with enough space, the roads are made for big cars with big engines, to drive nice and smooth to your destination.
European cars are smaller because European roads are older and smaller, so European cars are smaller to, and a small car only needs a small engine.
So American cars always have been big and they still are, and who cares, they have to travel long distances petrol costs almost nothing so why wouldn't you put a big V8 in it? If I would live in a country like that I would buy a V8 engined car too. A V8 engined car is much more relaxed to drive.
But in Europe a V8 engined car is not very practical, it's to expencive and to big for a small car, thats why only expencive big cars like BMW, MB and Jaguar are using such engines, owners who can afford one, can afford the petrol also.

Tahoeman

06-28-2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Rob
Guyt x, You can't compare an American engine to an European, they both have a totally different history. American engines are big, because America is a relative new country, with enough space, the roads are made for big cars with big engines, to drive nice and smooth to your destination.
European cars are smaller because European roads are older and smaller, so European cars are smaller to, and a small car only needs a small engine.
So American cars always have been big and they still are, and who cares, they have to travel long distances petrol costs almost nothing so why wouldn't you put a big V8 in it? If I would live in a country like that I would buy a V8 engined car too. A V8 engined car is much more relaxed to drive.
But in Europe a V8 engined car is not very practical, it's to expencive and to big for a small car, thats why only expencive big cars like BMW, MB and Jaguar are using such engines, owners who can afford one, can afford the petrol also.

does no one read anything i post????? more engine displacement doesnt necessarily mean an engine will be a lot bigger, or even get worse gas mileage!! i mentioned in the post before this, the 5.7 liter hauling an F-body or vette around, not only gets the same in town gas mileage as a WRX, but it gets BETTER on the highway!!, it also makes 100+ more hp, and is in a heavier car. and you know what else? after the turbo plumbing the 2.0 in the wrx weighs maybe 50 lbs less than an LS1. also, the lumina i have for a work car has a 3.1 liter v6 in it, makes maybe 140 hp, if you set it next to a civic, and pop both hoods, they look almost exactly the same size, the v6 is just a little wider because the civic has an inline 4, but the 4 is a little taller. but my v6 has twice the displacement, and i bet the civics engine weighs just as much due to the dohc system it has, my car also gets the same gas mileage. HP/L MEANS JACK SHIT WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rob

06-28-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
does no one read anything i post????? more engine displacement doesnt necessarily mean an engine will be a lot bigger, or even get worse gas mileage!! i mentioned in the post before this, the 5.7 liter hauling an F-body or vette around, not only gets the same in town gas mileage as a WRX, but it gets BETTER on the highway!!, it also makes 100+ more hp, and is in a heavier car. and you know what else? after the turbo plumbing the 2.0 in the wrx weighs maybe 50 lbs less than an LS1. HP/L MEANS JACK SHIT WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't say V8's have a bad gas mileage, I mend to say the are less economical than a 1.8 or 2 litre 4 cilindre engine. European traffic is pulling up, braking, pulling up, brake again. If you do that with a V8 engine you gas mileage is worst than if you do that with an 1.8 L engine, and petrol is about 1 euro a litre in holland.

Tahoeman

06-28-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Rob
I don't say V8's have a bad gas mileage, I mend to say the are less economical than a 1.8 or 2 litre 4 cilindre engine. European traffic is pulling up, braking, pulling up, brake again. If you do that with a V8 engine you gas mileage is worst than if you do that with an 1.8 L engine, and petrol is about 1 euro a litre in holland.

i think youd be suprised. after gearing, and powerband and everything are taken into account there isnt much difference, when you dont even have to shift above 1400 with longer gears, its not going to be much worse than having a 2 liter engine with shorter gears you have to rev twice as high to get the exact same thing accomplished

PyroManiac

06-28-2003, 12:35 PM

Nildo

06-28-2003, 04:44 PM

The mantra "hp/l means nothing" isn't entirely true. Yes, in the case of the s2000, high power per litre doesn't make the car great. But lets look at an american icon. The viper has great torque production (as it should, with the displacement it has) but the developers should be aiming for a higher power/litre.
I'm not going to be a wanker and suggest that 500 hp isn't enough, but if the engine was designed with a few more smarts then it certainly could be more.
Just so I understand, why all the ohc argument? OHV is ok for certain applications, but OHC allows all sorts of valuable features like cam phasing, to make the most of a given displacement at any time.
Pyro, you make a bit of an error, stating that the viper's torque curve is a big advantage. The viper hits peak torque very early on. The torque curve also isn't really flat. It is stable only to about 5000 revs, when it plummets. Which is fine, but not conducive to high peak power, since power is developed through a combination of revs and torque, and the later peak torque arrives (or is maintained), the higher the power.
As I said, having peak torque arrive too late you get the other extreme, all power no torque, which is nasty to drive and not especially fast. Like the s2000.

PyroManiac

06-28-2003, 05:44 PM

Tahoeman

06-28-2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Nildo
The mantra "hp/l means nothing" isn't entirely true. Yes, in the case of the s2000, high power per litre doesn't make the car great. But lets look at an american icon. The viper has great torque production (as it should, with the displacement it has) but the developers should be aiming for a higher power/litre.
I'm not going to be a wanker and suggest that 500 hp isn't enough, but if the engine was designed with a few more smarts then it certainly could be more.
Just so I understand, why all the ohc argument? OHV is ok for certain applications, but OHC allows all sorts of valuable features like cam phasing, to make the most of a given displacement at any time.
Pyro, you make a bit of an error, stating that the viper's torque curve is a big advantage. The viper hits peak torque very early on. The torque curve also isn't really flat. It is stable only to about 5000 revs, when it plummets. Which is fine, but not conducive to high peak power, since power is developed through a combination of revs and torque, and the later peak torque arrives (or is maintained), the higher the power.
As I said, having peak torque arrive too late you get the other extreme, all power no torque, which is nasty to drive and not especially fast. Like the s2000.

the fact that the vipers engine has such a monsterous powerband makes its redline irrelevant, it can take advantage of longer gears due to the fat powerband it has.
The viper isnt really a car that should be factored into this argument though. why? dodge didnt sit around and design an engine for it, they picked a truck engine up off the shelf, dropped it in a sports car, tweaked it a little bit, and bam, you have the viper. dodge could have easily gone to the drawing board and designed an engine for it, that was smaller, but they had the engine, so they figured why not. i mean if you dont think dodge could do it another way, just look at the hemi, it makes 345 hp from 5.7 liters. its not tweaked for sports car use, its made for a truck. if they tweaked a hemi, just like they tweaked the engine in the viper, they could probably achieve the same output, they just chose not to. and im sick of this "american car companies dont have brains!!" you think slapping a turbo charger on a car takes brains? you think adding higher performance parts takes brains?

also, now im going to give you an example, of 2 totaly different ways to achieve the same hp, i'll give you 2 real world examples, and i want you to tell me which one sounds like it makes more sense. my examples? the vette z06 and the ferrari 360 modena. both make right around 400 hp, both have right around the same acceleration performance (vette is a little quicker)and top speed (360 is a little faster) the vette is a little more biased towards accel and the 360 is more towards top speed, though if they were geared to achieve the same top speed they would likely accelerate almost identicaly. now, the way both cars achieve this is completely different from each other, the ferrari uses a DOHC 5 valve vvt super high reving 3.6 liter V8, (makes peak power at 8500 rpm) the z06 has a OHV 5.7 liter v8 that makes peak power at 6000 rpm. now, the engine in the ferrari probably costs as much to make as the corvette z06 itself does to buy. the LS6 is also much more reliable. the 3.6 liter in the ferrari is actually just as bulky as the LS6 because of the DOHC's and it weighs roughly the same too. also, once they are in the cars what happens? the vette gets double the gas mileage. now, i want you to tell me ANY advantage that comes from the ferrari's engine design. it revs higher? sure, but thats to make up for its lack of displacement. is it smaller? no, is it lighter? if so it was only because ferarri used lighter more expensive materials, not for any other reason. better gas mileage? not by a long shot. more reliable? no, many more moving parts and higher stress. cheaper? no. ferrari didnt need a super hightech high reving small displacement engine to achieve the same performance. it did it because it could. just like dodge stuck that truck engine in a car, because it could. if you stuck an LS6 in the modena, it would perform the exact same, be more reliable, and get better gas mileage.

bottom line HP/L means NOTHING.

PyroManiac

06-29-2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Tahoeman

The viper isnt really a car that should be factored into this argument though. why? dodge didnt sit around and design an engine for it, they picked a truck engine up off the shelf, dropped it in a sports car, tweaked it a little bit, and bam, you have the viper.

Wrong. Dodge did NOT tweak a truck engine. Chrysler owned Lamborghini at the time, so they sent their V10 (which at the time wasn't in production) to the Italian company to work their high performance magic on the engine. The only thing that is common between the truck's V10 and the Viper's V10 is the block.

Tahoeman

06-29-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by PyroManiac
Wrong. Dodge did NOT tweak a truck engine. Chrysler owned Lamborghini at the time, so they sent their V10 (which at the time wasn't in production) to the Italian company to work their high performance magic on the engine. The only thing that is common between the truck's V10 and the Viper's V10 is the block.

thats what i mean though, it started off as a truck engine, they didnt build an engine specificaly for the viper, just took a design they already had and went from there.

PyroManiac

06-29-2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
thats what i mean though, it started off as a truck engine, they didnt build an engine specificaly for the viper, just took a design they already had and went from there. Ah, my mistake, It sounded to me as you made it out like they just put the truck V10 in the Viper, with just a few tweaks, and sold it.

Tahoeman

06-29-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by PyroManiac
Ah, my mistake, It sounded to me as you made it out like they just put the truck V10 in the Viper, with just a few tweaks, and sold it.

yeah my bad, i shouldnt have written it that way

Tahoeman

06-29-2003, 01:24 PM

uh oh... guyt_x, whered you go??? whats the matter?? decided you couldnt argue once facts started comming out??? thats what i figured.

BPx

06-29-2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
uh oh... guyt_x, whered you go??? whats the matter?? decided you couldnt argue once facts started comming out??? thats what i figured.

Hah, the tragedy of it all.

ozexige

06-29-2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by BPx
Hah, the tragedy of it all.

Ah yes.......
poor little 'gut' .......
what a sad story of philistinism if ever there was one.
Some other descriptions include;

"Got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't watching."

"A photographic memory, but with the lens cover glued on."

"A prime candidate for natural deselection."

"A room temperature IQ."

"An individual of two minds: one is lost and the other is out looking for it."

"Bright as Alaska in December."

"Donated his brain to science before he was done using it."

"Fell out of the family tree."

"Gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming."

"Got a full 6-pack, but lacks the plastic thingy to hold it all together."

"He brings a lot of joy whenever he leaves the room."

"He certainly takes a long time to make his pointless."

"He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier."

"He has a knack for making strangers immediately."

"He would argue with a signpost."

"He's been working with glue too much."

"He's so dense, light bends around him."

"I would like to go hunting with him sometime."

"If brains were taxed, he'd get a rebate."

"If he were any more stupid, he'd have to be watered twice a week."

"If you give him a penny for his thoughts, you'd get change."

"If you see two people talking and one looks bored, he's the other one"

"If you stand close enough to him, you can hear the ocean."

"Not the sharpest knife in the drawer."

"One neuron short of a synapse."

"One-celled organisms outscore him in IQ tests."

"Some drink from the fountain of knowledge; he only gargled."

"The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead."

"When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell."

"Takes him 2 hours to watch '60 Minutes.'"

In simpler terms (just for 'gut') yoa'll dumb as frog on a slow boil.

:D

IBrake4Rainbows

06-29-2003, 10:08 PM

dunno where you got those from but it sums up Guyt_x in one sentence. GOOD WORK!!!

henk4

06-30-2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by MKielbasa
Mere simplicity. A pushrod design is much simpler than any form of OHC. On an DOHC V engine you need four cams, the work involved for timing alone is restrictive.

There is nothing wrong with OHC, but in some instances it just makes more sence to go OHV.

Thanks for that explanation, but I was more interested in the historic development op the OHC engine. Can you sum up how we came from the side valve to the OHV? Was the OHC the first solution to get rid of the side valve?

Another point I like to make reading the posting is that the superiority of OHC engines by some of you is just being played down because these a not normally fitted in US made cars.

I once more looked at the specs of the celebrated LS6 and then went to look for a european made V8, in this case the Audi 4,2 litre fitted in the A8. I could also have taken a BMW or Mercedes engine. The Audi engine is fitted with 4 OHC's, but is designed for normal day to day use and has no turbo, while as far as i know the LS6 is best highest output version that is available in the Corvette.

If you compare the output of these two engines you will notice that the LS6 has 36% more displacement.
The LS06 (2002 spec) pumps out 405 BHP at 6000 revs, the Audi does 340 at 6500 revs.
Torque of the LS6 is 400 lb/ft at 4800 revs, the Audi has 317 at a comfortable 3500 revs.
If for sake of the argument we increase the Audi figures by 36% to make up for the displacement difference it would produce about 460 BHP and 430 lb/ft of torque. May be people will differ in opinion here but it looks like there is something to be gained in applying modern technology.
I have not checked the weight of the engine. Motorhead knows all about Audi's so he might come up with the correct figure.

MKielbasa

06-30-2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by henk4
Thanks for that explanation, but I was more interested in the historic development op the OHC engine. Can you sum up how we came from the side valve to the OHV? Was the OHC the first solution to get rid of the side valve?

Another point I like to make reading the posting is that the superiority of OHC engines by some of you is just being played down because these a not normally fitted in US made cars.

I once more looked at the specs of the celebrated LS6 and then went to look for a european made V8, in this case the Audi 4,2 litre fitted in the A8. I could also have taken a BMW or Mercedes engine. The Audi engine is fitted with 4 OHC's, but is designed for normal day to day use and has no turbo, while as far as i know the LS6 is best highest output version that is available in the Corvette.

If you compare the output of these two engines you will notice that the LS6 has 36% more displacement.
The LS06 (2002 spec) pumps out 405 BHP at 6000 revs, the Audi does 340 at 6500 revs.
Torque of the LS6 is 400 lb/ft at 4800 revs, the Audi has 317 at a comfortable 3500 revs.
If for sake of the argument we increase the Audi figures by 36% to make up for the displacement difference it would produce about 460 BHP and 430 lb/ft of torque. May be people will differ in opinion here but it looks like there is something to be gained in applying modern technology.
I have not checked the weight of the engine. Motorhead knows all about Audi's so he might come up with the correct figure.

While I'm not sure about the historical development you are asking for, I do know one thing. OHC design is actually older than a cam in block design.

I will say this though, I think it is more about demographic than anything else. Pushrod engines tend to create more low end power than a DOHC engine of the same displacement.
Since American's are big into drag racing, have many long flat roads, and also have a huge truck/SUV market, it makes sence to build engines which push hard from the low end, but run out of breath (so to speak) in the higher end of the RPM range.

henk4

06-30-2003, 10:06 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MKielbasa
While I'm not sure about the historical development you are asking for, I do know one thing. OHC design is actually older than a cam in block design.

I will say this though, I think it is more about demographic than anything else. Pushrod engines tend to create more low end power than a DOHC engine of the same displacement.
Since American's are big into drag racing, have many long flat roads, and also have a huge truck/SUV market, it makes sence to build engines which push hard from the low end, but run out of breath (so to speak) in the higher end of the RPM range. [/QUOTE

I think you have a point here, but what your describing are the charateristics of diesel engines (not for drag racing though), and this is an area that has been almost fully neglected in the USA. These things pull like hull from idle but will stop at 4000 or so revs. May the the latest Audi A8Tdi, (see this site) gives some clues. All modern diesel engines however are also fitted with OHC, some even DOHC with four valves. (my own 2 litre (SOHC) car does 290 NM at 1750 rpm and weighs about 1350 kg and is just in the middle class in the 2 litre range). So even in the type of engines that actually would fully suit the US market, engine technology has developed into the OHC area.

fastbird94

06-30-2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
uh oh... guyt_x, whered you go??? whats the matter?? decided you couldnt argue once facts started comming out??? thats what i figured.

Thats what i had in mind too.:o

PyroManiac

06-30-2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by henk4

If you compare the output of these two engines you will notice that the LS6 has 36% more displacement.
The LS06 (2002 spec) pumps out 405 BHP at 6000 revs, the Audi does 340 at 6500 revs.
Torque of the LS6 is 400 lb/ft at 4800 revs, the Audi has 317 at a comfortable 3500 revs.
If for sake of the argument we increase the Audi figures by 36% to make up for the displacement difference it would produce about 460 BHP and 430 lb/ft of torque. May be people will differ in opinion here but it looks like there is something to be gained in applying modern technology.
I have not checked the weight of the engine. Motorhead knows all about Audi's so he might come up with the correct figure. I fail to see your point. Also, I find it saddening that people still used the hp/l argument. For the sake of argument, why don't we increase the Audi's cylinders to 16 so we can compare it to the VW W16. No? It doesn't prove anything? Yeah, same for your attempt to prove a point.

henk4

06-30-2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by PyroManiac
[B]I fail to see your point./B]

then read again carefully and may be you will see it. I could not find a European V8 of the same size as the LS6, (the Mercedes AMG version uses a supercharger, to obtain a much higher output than the LS6), so I had to use the relatively small Audi engine. When I compared the figures I was not so much surprised about the BHP/litre but more about the difference in revs at which maximum torque is obtained, I would have assumed that the Audi would need much higher revs, but obviously the LS6 is already quite peaky. May be we should compare the torque curves, but I don't have that for the Audi.

Guibo

06-30-2003, 12:59 PM

The Audi has variable valve timing and intake, doesn't it? That might explain it. Supposedly, the new C6 Corvette will incorporate a variable valve timing mechanism, derived from the Cadillac Sixteen show car.

henk4

06-30-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Guibo
The Audi has variable valve timing and intake, doesn't it? That might explain it. Supposedly, the new C6 Corvette will incorporate a variable valve timing mechanism, derived from the Cadillac Sixteen show car.

Yeah, could be but I honestly do not know. this thread just triggered my interest because people are so adamantly defending the OHV V8. Comparing with the 2l itre turbo engines such as the WRC or the EVO is probably a futile exercise so I thought I had a look what other V8 engines are available outside the USA. Fact is of course that the use of V8's in Europe and Japan is limited to luxury class vehicles, while in the USA it appears to be a bread and butter sort of propulsion (what is the market share of the V8 over there?). By the way, is the NorthStar 32valve engine still available?

Guibo

06-30-2003, 03:30 PM

I'm not sure of the marketshare of V8's, but it is probably much more prevalent here than anywhere else. As a general trend, trucks and SUV's probably sell more than anything else.

Yes, the Northstar 32-valve is still available. That is the workhorse of Cadillac's upper level cars (Seville, DeVille). The CTS-V, though, will have a version of the LS6.

Nildo

06-30-2003, 04:08 PM

To answer Mkielbasa's question:
1. 1880's single 'automatic' valve operated by spring/vacuum forces (effective for 1 cylinder and 300 or so rpm). Seperate cam shaft was included to mechanically close the exhaust valve on every second revolution.
2. 1890's-1900's 2 valve design dropped pressure too much with vacuum operated valves, side valve designed with cam using followers to control valves directly. Valves opened upwards, because they were beside, not above the engine, hence 'side valve'.
3. More efficient and more powerful OHV configuration was then designed. Creating a different combustion chamber shape increased compression by removed need for compression reducing valve chambers. These motors began volume selling in 1930's.
In many 'modern' V8's the cam is still mounted in the centre of the V so that the pushrods can transfer motion to both the rockers and the valves of both heads (one on each side of the engine).
4. DOHC was first used in a 1912 Peugeot GP race car, which was victorious in the French Grand Prix.

These days it is possible to disguise many of the disadvantages of OHV design engines (mainly by using large capacity-their problems would be very obvious in a 2 litre motor, which is why we never see that-hence the HP/L argument on this page) but OHC design is fundamentally more efficient, provided it is correctly designed. It is, as also stated on this page, heavier than the equivalent OHV arrangement, but the actual difference is not as great as has been suggested here.

Lastly, can anyone explain how 'Vette/16 is going to use VVT? I dont get how it would work, since their can be no cam 'overlap' and using one cam would not be very effective. Anybody?

BPx

06-30-2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by henk4
If you compare the output of these two engines you will notice that the LS6 has 36% more displacement.
The LS06 (2002 spec) pumps out 405 BHP at 6000 revs, the Audi does 340 at 6500 revs.
Torque of the LS6 is 400 lb/ft at 4800 revs, the Audi has 317 at a comfortable 3500 revs.
If for sake of the argument we increase the Audi figures by 36% to make up for the displacement difference it would produce about 460 BHP and 430 lb/ft of torque. May be people will differ in opinion here but it looks like there is something to be gained in applying modern technology.
I have not checked the weight of the engine. Motorhead knows all about Audi's so he might come up with the correct figure.

The thing is though, the LS6 can easily produce more power. It's not like they are only limited at that amount. If GM wanted to, they could probably put a smaller V8 into the Corvette, but they probably want to keep with tradition and leave a 5.7L / 350ci (even though it's more like 346ci now) engine in there.
The LS6 was designed to make it's power higher up than the LT1, that's why it has to rev so high (which isn't really TOO high) to make it's peak. Although peaks don't mean as much as the powerband itself... Should check some dynos between the two engines and see how they look.

crisis

06-30-2003, 08:30 PM

If the Corvette is going to have the GenIV motor then it is because that motor will run two cams with pushrods. The cams will be housed in the V and run collapsible lifters that will enable the car to operate on 4 cylinders in cruise for economy and operate on all 8 under acceleration. So much for "low tech" pushrod motors. Thats real innovation.

henk4

06-30-2003, 11:57 PM

This is getting interesting. First, Nildo thanks for the historic update, which, if correct, shows that (D)OHC engines came slightly later than OHV engines. I new about the Peugeot, so I was wondering what OHC engine came prior to that. Wasn't it also the first 4 valve head?
Last night I found some specs about the BMW 745I engine, which has slightly more displacement than the Audi, but has about the same output. It does operate with variable valve timing so probably the Audi also. They both have a 4 valve head.
I am really curious to see how this twin cam arrangement in the new Vette is going to work. Any design pictures available of the Caddy V16?
As far as the possibility of shutting off 4 cylinders is concerned, I thought that the Northstar engine already offered that option, and I have a hunch that some Mercedes engines can do the same.
As far as OHV for small engines is concerned, it was common on most engines produced during the sixties and the seventies and only when the cam chain was replaced by a cam belt (invention of German manufacturer Glas, later to be absorbed by BMW) it became more feasible to apply OHC. Still there were some very high revving (over 9000 rpm) OHV engines used in racing touring cars, such as the FiatAbarth, the Ford Kent engine and the BMC Cooper engine.
The cam belt of my own car will have to be routinely replaced every 160,000 km, (15,000 km from now) which is going to be arelatively costly affair ($600 or thereabouts) so I sympathise with the argument that OHV engines are more simple to maintain.
Finally to add another element to the discussion, I think the recent success of the Ducati 4 cylinder desmo engine in the MotoGP class, already beating the Honda 5 cylinder in shear power, might trigger some engine designers in applying the same principle for cars. (after the aborted Mercedes experiments from the fifties).

PyroManiac

07-01-2003, 08:32 AM

http://www.gminsidenews.com/xv82.htm
http://www.gminsidenews.com/PV__007753__.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/PV__007754__.jpg

A DFI 24 valve 4.3L Pushrod (OHV) V8 with 300hp, dual oil pumps, cam-phasing, and DoD thats the length of a 4 cylinder?

You better believe it.

henk4

07-01-2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by PyroManiac
http://www.gminsidenews.com/xv82.htm
http://www.gminsidenews.com/PV__007753__.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/PV__007754__.jpg

A DFI 24 valve 4.3L Pushrod (OHV) V8 with 300hp, dual oil pumps, cam-phasing, and DoD thats the length of a 4 cylinder?

You better believe it.

Thank you for providing this informative link. It really looks an impressive piece of new technology. Interestingly this engine is very comparable in size to the Audi V8, (still with slightly more displacement) but is still down on both BHP and torque levels.
Somehow I have a feeling that GM wants to maintain with OHV engines at all costs, suiting the demand of the american market.

Its main advantage is obviously its compact size, I don't think an audi V8 could be squeezed into the Signum. On the other hand, given the average size of US build cars, what is the real need of a small size, (apart from the lower weight). Maybe GM is targeting the European market after all?

PyroManiac

07-01-2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by henk4
Maybe GM is targeting the European market after all? Ding ding ding. Correct.
GM is not keeping the pushrod engine alive for the sake of marketing. The average car buyer couldn't give two shits whether or not it has OHC or Pushrods, then again, the average car buyer doesn't know what OHC is. Definitely not marketing.
If you were to compare the size of the Audi V8 to the XV8, the Audi V8 will make the XV8 look like a little 6 cylinder, yet the XV8 has the weight advantage. Also, may I add, power isn't everything, especially in passenger cars, and that hp/l is still irrelevent. But if you would like to continue with the power argument, I'll just argue that the Audi V8 isn't effectively using its size and that the XV8 is larger in displacement, yet significantly smaller in dimension.

guyt_x

07-01-2003, 10:40 PM

but what does it all mean basil?

henk4

07-01-2003, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by PyroManiac
Ding ding ding. Correct.
GM is not keeping the pushrod engine alive for the sake of marketing. The average car buyer couldn't give two shits whether or not it has OHC or Pushrods, then again, the average car buyer doesn't know what OHC is. Definitely not marketing.
If you were to compare the size of the Audi V8 to the XV8, the Audi V8 will make the XV8 look like a little 6 cylinder, yet the XV8 has the weight advantage. Also, may I add, power isn't everything, especially in passenger cars, and that hp/l is still irrelevent. But if you would like to continue with the power argument, I'll just argue that the Audi V8 isn't effectively using its size and that the XV8 is larger in displacement, yet significantly smaller in dimension.

I think you have to realise that selling a V8 in Europe is definitely something else as selling one in the USA. In Europe this is a premium market, only served by top brands, and in this market people know very well about the prestige of DOHC. It would be a hard nut to crack to convince the up-market customer. GM branches such as opel and vauxhall have always played a minor role in this market segments. Opel tried to introduce a Chevy V8 in the Opel Diplomat in the sixties, but this model did not live long and the Omega and Carlton are about to be replaced by the Signum, a stretched version of the Vectra. GM is just considered to be bread and butter.

Is there somebody out there who knows the exact dimensions of the Audi engine? I know the A8 is very light, but that is mainly due to its generous aluminium content.

You may have misunderstood me in your reference to BHP/litre. I am not so keen on absolute power, torque is what I am interested in because that makes a car driveable. This is why diesel technology is currently dominating the European market, combining high fuel efficiency with very driveable cars, certainly in densely populated areas where traffic jams are the order of the day. You may want to check out the Audi A8Tdi on this site to get some more info on the current status of diesel technology. I feel that also because of the predominance of diesel engined car sales in Europe (also in the topmarket sector) even this new GM gem will play a very minor role in sales over here.

May I finally kindly ask you to refrain from childish things like "ding etc" as if I have heard the ringing of the bell. I consider this to be a thread for grown-ups which should be reflected in the level of the contributions.

henk4

07-01-2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by guyt_x
but what does it all mean basil?

this thread is not about Fawlty Towers.

guyt_x

07-02-2003, 12:01 AM

please relax

this is a forum where people disuss cars...

all we do is argue about cars, it is juvinile but its fun.

so have a beer and relax henk4

henk4

07-02-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
please relax

this is a forum where people disuss cars...

all we do is argue about cars, it is juvinile but its fun.

so have a beer and relax henk4

As it just past nine in the morning I am having a very relaxed cup of tea. Are you actually old enough to know what juvenile means?
I hope you have noticed that it is possible to talk about American cars without having to mention that they suck of for that matter that anything american sucks.

PyroManiac

07-02-2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by henk4

May I finally kindly ask you to refrain from childish things like "ding etc" as if I have heard the ringing of the bell. I consider this to be a thread for grown-ups which should be reflected in the level of the contributions.

Sure. But if you consider this a thread for grown-ups, what would be considered childish? The creator of the thread is certainly not "grown-up" especially with his mentality.

Originally posted by henk4

You may have misunderstood me in your reference to BHP/litre. I am not so keen on absolute power, torque is what I am interested in because that makes a car driveable. This is why diesel technology is currently dominating the European market, combining high fuel efficiency with very driveable cars, certainly in densely populated areas where traffic jams are the order of the day. You may want to check out the Audi A8Tdi on this site to get some more info on the current status of diesel technology. I feel that also because of the predominance of diesel engined car sales in Europe (also in the topmarket sector) even this new GM gem will play a very minor role in sales over here.

I am totally aware of diesel technology. GM, Ford, and Dodge/Cummins HD diesel truck engines have monstrous amounts of low-end torque, which is needed in HD trucks. The reason why diesels are not dominating sales in America as they are in Europe is because of the high sulfur content in American diesel fuel, and the "loud and dirty" stereotype leftover from the 80s. But I have read that we will soon be importing European diesel in the coming years.

PyroManiac

07-02-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by henk4
I think you have to realise that selling a V8 in Europe is definitely something else as selling one in the USA. In Europe this is a premium market, only served by top brands, and in this market people know very well about the prestige of DOHC. It would be a hard nut to crack to convince the up-market customer. GM branches such as opel and vauxhall have always played a minor role in this market segments. Opel tried to introduce a Chevy V8 in the Opel Diplomat in the sixties, but this model did not live long and the Omega and Carlton are about to be replaced by the Signum, a stretched version of the Vectra. GM is just considered to be bread and butter.
I see what you're saying, but I question the "prestige of DOHC," sure, it may be used in Formula 1, but then again its also used in "dime-a-dozen" econo cars. Thats not to say Pushrods are better though, they've been used in "dime-a-dozen" econo cars too.

Electromagnetic valves are where its at (or where it will be). :D

MKielbasa

07-02-2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by PyroManiac
I see what you're saying, but I question the "prestige of DOHC," sure, it may be used in Formula 1, but then again its also used in "dime-a-dozen" econo cars. Thats not to say Pushrods are better though, they've been used in "dime-a-dozen" econo cars too.

Electromagnetic valves are where its at (or where it will be). :D

Actually I believe F1 cars already use the electomagnetic (or was it hyrdaulic) valve set up. They no longer have cams.

Tahoeman

07-02-2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
please relax

this is a forum where people disuss cars...

all we do is argue about cars, it is juvinile but its fun.

so have a beer and relax henk4

discuss?? you make a thread devoted to your baseless uneducated dribble, and try to pass it off as fact, and then we blow your head of with REAL facts, theres no discussion going on here.

i find it funny that your sig says "can you handle the truth?" when you're obviously the one who cant

Nildo

07-02-2003, 04:35 PM

Guyt-x if you really want to say why you prefer another type of motor vehicle then do as Tahoeman and Henk suggest. Research your facts, then express your opinion like an adult.

I don't especially like amerian cars. Some are good, but there are better cars out there. Many people who argue the 'HP/L means nothing' line of thought dont realise that you can have both reasonable torque (hence good drivablility) and high power/litre. A good example of this is the British firm TVR which produces some of Europes fastest cars. Rather than produce small capacity highly boosted motors, or big, lazy low revving V8 muscle, TVR produces medium sized (about 270 cubic inches or 4.5 litre) naturally aspirated engines, with all the VVT, multi cams, valves etc.

The result is cars that have generally over 100 hp/l, low weight and strong torque, providing excellent performance right through the rev range. Why argue for high torque at the expense of HP, and why argue for HP at the expense of drivability? You CAN have both with proper engineering!

Tahoeman

07-02-2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Nildo
Guyt-x if you really want to say why you prefer another type of motor vehicle then do as Tahoeman and Henk suggest. Research your facts, then express your opinion like an adult.

I don't especially like amerian cars. Some are good, but there are better cars out there. Many people who argue the 'HP/L means nothing' line of thought dont realise that you can have both reasonable torque (hence good drivablility) and high power/litre. A good example of this is the British firm TVR which produces some of Europes fastest cars. Rather than produce small capacity highly boosted motors, or big, lazy low revving V8 muscle, TVR produces medium sized (about 270 cubic inches or 4.5 litre) naturally aspirated engines, with all the VVT, multi cams, valves etc.

The result is cars that have generally over 100 hp/l, low weight and strong torque, providing excellent performance right through the rev range. Why argue for high torque at the expense of HP, and why argue for HP at the expense of drivability? You CAN have both with proper engineering!

you still have to get around the fact that hp/l is a completely worthless stat though. it doesnt say anything about anything. it has no bearing on what kind of gas mileage a car gets, it has no bearing on how much the engine weighs. why do japanese companies focus so hard on making high hp/l cars?? its not because theres some huge advantage to it, its just because they have displacement tax. even though displacement tax is just as stupid as the hp/l stat itself. because it doesnt mean a car will polute less, or use less gasoline

Nildo

07-02-2003, 05:28 PM

The displacement tax is probably an outdated left over from the era of leaded petrol and carburettors, when a good deal of economy/polution was directly related to capacity. The japanese government obviously has no idea when it comes to vehicles, as they also still enforce that ridiculous power cap of 276 hp. In five years time the average family sedan will come very close to breaking that limit, hamstringing the jap performance market. Oh well, it's their country.....

Of course you are right (take note guyt-x, you can agree with people who generally have a differing opinion to you!) hp/l is a pretty useless stat by itself. When combined with other good statistics it can become a positive. Not in the honda s2000's case though. Look at it like this, a good, well built single cam motor that has high compression, right cams etc can produce around 55 kw per litre. Doesn't mean much. But if the Viper was built not with high tech but just a few serious development dollars thrown it's way it could produce that figure. In that case instead of 335 kw it would have well over 400. When the basics are in place power per litre can matter.

I realise that example is over simplifying the issue, but do you get the basic point? Please?

MKielbasa

07-02-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Nildo
The japanese government obviously has no idea when it comes to vehicles, as they also still enforce that ridiculous power cap of 276 hp. In five years time the average family sedan will come very close to breaking that limit, hamstringing the jap performance market. Oh well, it's their country.....

First off i'd like to say that the "276 hp cap" everyone talks about is a myth. It is not law in Japan. It is self imposed by the manufacturers. They all aggreed on it. They have now aggreed to break that cap.

Secondly, if they really did have a 275hp cap, the logical thing to do would be to increase displacement to up the torque while keeping horse power at 275HP. This would prove for faster cars while staying within the cap. The japs have just chosen to do their stuff smaller and "more efficient"

BPx

07-02-2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by henk4
This is getting interesting. First, Nildo thanks for the historic update, which, if correct, shows that (D)OHC engines came slightly later than OHV engines. I new about the Peugeot, so I was wondering what OHC engine came prior to that. Wasn't it also the first 4 valve head?

Just a small point, everyone engine made today (aside from some stuff for lawnmowers and whatever else) is "OHV". OHV does not signify pushrod (even though some magazines may think it does), it simply means overhead valves. Early on in the automotive industry, some cars did not have overhead valves, and when they came around car performance really increased.
As for DOHC, apparently only in the automotive industry are technological advances where the device becomes larger, more complex, and more expensive. Everyone else is trying to make things smaller, easier to work with, and cheaper.

Tahoeman

07-02-2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Nildo
The displacement tax is probably an outdated left over from the era of leaded petrol and carburettors, when a good deal of economy/polution was directly related to capacity. The japanese government obviously has no idea when it comes to vehicles, as they also still enforce that ridiculous power cap of 276 hp. In five years time the average family sedan will come very close to breaking that limit, hamstringing the jap performance market. Oh well, it's their country.....

Of course you are right (take note guyt-x, you can agree with people who generally have a differing opinion to you!) hp/l is a pretty useless stat by itself. When combined with other good statistics it can become a positive. Not in the honda s2000's case though. Look at it like this, a good, well built single cam motor that has high compression, right cams etc can produce around 55 kw per litre. Doesn't mean much. But if the Viper was built not with high tech but just a few serious development dollars thrown it's way it could produce that figure. In that case instead of 335 kw it would have well over 400. When the basics are in place power per litre can matter.

I realise that example is over simplifying the issue, but do you get the basic point? Please?

i see what you're saying, but even in that case, hp/l is more a matter of "hey look what they did with the displacement they were given, thats cool" , but also with a few more development dollars thrown in they could have tuned a hemi to 500/500 and thrown it in there. even still what does hp/l have to do with it? it doesnt even give a good indication of what kind of stress the engine can take, ie, there are skylines putting out 1000+ hp, thats like 250 hp/l but could you take a chevy 3.8 liter and get 1000 hp from it?? ive yet to see it done. hp/l really is worthless, theres not a single instance where it matters, even in your example. the hp/l doesnt really matter.

oh and also, that power cap you're talking about isnt government enforced, its just a gentlements agreement between the car companies, thats why the supra tt had 320 hp

guyt_x

07-02-2003, 11:33 PM

I would just like to see the americans produce a smaller engined car to competer against the jap cars.

I know because they have cheap fuel there no reall need to.

but subaru, mitsubishi have impressed buyers due to there power out put from small engines.

I do like the viper its not so bad, but it doesnt take a rocket scintist to get power out of a big engine.

but then again why bother america is self contained and doesnt compete in world motor sport, so there is no need to build competitive cars, they just need to keep there people happy.

Guibo

07-02-2003, 11:57 PM

No, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get horsepower out of a large engine. It takes a crapload of money and automotive engineering know-how (are you accusing Lamborghini of lacking engineering prowess?). From the beginning, the Viper was never a priority project. It struggled just to get the green light at its inception in the late '80s.

What kind of development dollars are we talking about? Ferrari had a whole load of development dollars thrown at the Enzo (some of it from parent company FIAT even?), and what's the result? It produces 12 *fewer* hp/l than the S2000, a car that debuted some 3 years ago. How does that happen? Is Ferrari not up to snuff technologically with the Honda boys? Ferrari *can't* beat the S2000's hp/l? Or was it simply a matter of saying "Huh. In the grand scheme of things, 650 hp is enough. 485 lb/ft is enough. What compelling reason do we have to go match what Honda has done?"
I have no doubt Ferrari have the know-how to exceed 120 hp/l with a 6.0-liter engine. Just as Honda have the know-how to exceed 120 hp/l with its own motorcycle engines. (A mid-80's CBR600 makes 138 hp/l, without VVT and all the while breathing through carbs, LOL.) There's always the balance to strike between output and reliability.

Something to think about: the cost to replace the Enzo engine is $200K. Cost to replace the engine in a Viper: $13K, parts & labor (@ $95/hr) . And by domestic American car standards, this is considered pretty pricey. For reference, the cost to rebuild a Ferrari 308 GTB/GTB QV is $12-15K, parts & labor (@ 80/hr).

MKielbasa

07-03-2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
ie, there are skylines putting out 1000+ hp, thats like 250 hp/l but could you take a chevy 3.8 liter and get 1000 hp from it?? ive yet to see it done.

Go do a search for the Buick GN turbo and GNX. Also the Trans Am Turbo. They were out late 80's early 90's IIRC. 3.8L Turbo and they often are seen with extremely high 900+ horsepower numbers.

PyroManiac

07-03-2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by MKielbasa
Actually I believe F1 cars already use the electomagnetic (or was it hyrdaulic) valve set up. They no longer have cams. I believe they're using electromagnetic. Lotus says they have an electrohydraulic system that is production-ready, they're just waiting for a buyer.

Tahoeman

07-03-2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
I would just like to see the americans produce a smaller engined car to competer against the jap cars.

I know because they have cheap fuel there no reall need to.

but subaru, mitsubishi have impressed buyers due to there power out put from small engines.

I do like the viper its not so bad, but it doesnt take a rocket scintist to get power out of a big engine.

but then again why bother america is self contained and doesnt compete in world motor sport, so there is no need to build competitive cars, they just need to keep there people happy.

dude you missed half the thread, the only american vehicles that get noticeably worse gas mileage than japanese cars are SUV's, and the only other reason any other car might get worse, is just because we make cars big enough so that people can actually FIT in them. japan making small engines has nothing to do with fuel consumption, it has to do with displacement tax. and even still, do you see japan making smaller engines every year?? wouldnt advances intechnology make you think theyd get more and more power out of smaller and smaller engines?? no they're slowly making larger engines, thats why all the new civics have 1.7 liters instead of 1.6, its why the VQ30, turned into the VQ35, thats why the NSX went from 3.0 to 3.2 liters, displacement has very little to do with fuel consumption, thats why a 5.7 liter 405 hp 3000 lb vette z06 gets 4 mpg BETTER on the highway than the s2000, pull your head out of your ass already, my God. you're right those car companies may sell a small percentage of cars to people like you who are impressed by them getting more power out of a smaller engine (its actually not rocket sience like you might think), but its just because those people are idiots and dont realize that hp/l has jackshit to do with anything.

Tahoeman

07-03-2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by MKielbasa
Go do a search for the Buick GN turbo and GNX. Also the Trans Am Turbo. They were out late 80's early 90's IIRC. 3.8L Turbo and they often are seen with extremely high 900+ horsepower numbers.

ahh good point, didnt think about that, i was mainly thinking about the newer gen of the 3.8.

Nildo

07-03-2003, 05:09 PM

Actually the japanese power cap isn't exactly just a gent's agreement as commonly thought. The other side to this agreement is that any production car making over 280 powerstroke must have each and every vehicle emmissions tested before sale, an expense and inconvenience that jap manufacturers don't want to bother with. The supra in japan was still claimed at 280 ps....toyota engineers simply lied. As do Nissans engineers and mitsubishi's. There is only so far they can pretend though, which is why we have yet to see much over 320 ps.

The thing about hp/l does not ALWAYS matter. It does matter only when other criteria are already met. If it didn't matter at all then japan wouldn't even have a motor industry. However it is just one statistic, and is far too often used by marketers and besotted fans as some kind of bastion for high performance. Its not the be all or end all.

In a previous thread no one responded to me when I mentioned the ferrari 575 and its power of 515 hp. Compared to the almost equal LS series engines with about 405 at best (we have a version with only 314). Power per litre in one is clearly greater than in the other. What does everyone think? Remember, I'm comparing motors, not the cars, so please don't spout any 4.2-60
or anything.

As for the Enzo/s2000 Ferrari stopped aiming for higher power due to the stress that 660 hp places on components. More power would be essentially useless unless the chassis and ancilliaries were reliably up to the task. Remember that it is a road car, so it was also subject to emissions regulations in about 120 countries or so.

Guibo

07-03-2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Nildo
In a previous thread no one responded to me when I mentioned the ferrari 575 and its power of 515 hp. Compared to the almost equal LS series engines with about 405 at best (we have a version with only 314). Power per litre in one is clearly greater than in the other. What does everyone think? Remember, I'm comparing motors, not the cars, so please don't spout any 4.2-60
or anything.

As for the Enzo/s2000 Ferrari stopped aiming for higher power due to the stress that 660 hp places on components. More power would be essentially useless unless the chassis and ancilliaries were reliably up to the task. Remember that it is a road car, so it was also subject to emissions regulations in about 120 countries or so.

Ferrari V12 vs. Chevrolet V8...simply a matter of throwing engineering and time (read: $$$) into an engine. What's the cost in R&D and production of that V12? How much would one cost? If BMW M5 V8's are anything to go by (around $30K), there's a good chance the Ferrari V12 goes for upwards of $50K. An LS6 crate motor can be had for as little as $7300. That is indicative of the time and effort that went into building it. A lot went into the Ferrari, considerably less went into building the Z06's. There's no arguing that. But there's also no arguing the LS6 is offering nearly 80% of the Ferrari's power at only a fraction of the cost.

OK, now we're getting somewhere with the Enzo and S2000 comparo. Stresses. But not on componentes and ancillaries (trust me, Ferrari has been in the business long enough to know that you need to have components with durability to match engine outputs). I'm talking about stresses *within* the engine itself.
Think of a tiny R/C car engine. Small components. Not a lot of reciprocating mass. Not a whole helluva lot of friction to worry about either. Hp/l? Around 450. 4-stroke motorcycle engine running on standard pump fuel? Larger, yet still not much of a problem to produce 140-150 hp/l. Get into a large automotive V10, and we're talking about heavier connecting rods, heavier crankshaft, heavier pistons (and the associated reciprocating mass). Get it to spin to 9000 rpm? Maybe. But not for long. You *could* do it, though, if you invest enough $$$. Feasible and productive to do so in a production road car? Probably not. The Viper as we know it would be dead. Which is why Dodge knows its limits. Which is why Ferrari knows its limits.
All of this refutes guyt x's assertion that the larger engine always has the advantage. It may have the advantage to ultimately produce more hp, yes. But in terms of producing stratospheric hp/l (as a direct linear relationship to displacement, with all considerations as to engineering and $$$ being equal), it is handicapped by the laws of physics. In short, it's easier to get high hp/l out of small engines than it is to get the same specific output out of much larger engines, all else being equal.
And there are example of this to point to throughout the automotive kingdom. The fact that the Acura RSX Type-S produces more hp/l than a 575M is purely academic. Ditto with the fact that a 2.0-liter Dodge Neon produces more hp/l than the Viper. None of this points to superior engineering whatsoever.

Tahoeman

07-03-2003, 11:38 PM

guyt_x

07-04-2003, 02:07 AM

who cares what the viper costs !!!!!!!! or any other american car for that matter

THEY ARE ALL SUBSIDISED SO YANKS WILL BUY THEM

other wise americans would look else where

PyroManiac

07-04-2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
who cares what the viper costs !!!!!!!! or any other american car for that matter

THEY ARE ALL SUBSIDISED SO YANKS WILL BUY THEM

other wise americans would look else where Why don't you use a little bit of logic and come up with something that has a foundation, instead of that mindless bullshit you've been posting this entire time?

Tahoeman

07-04-2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
who cares what the viper costs !!!!!!!! or any other american car for that matter

THEY ARE ALL SUBSIDISED SO YANKS WILL BUY THEM

other wise americans would look else where

dude, seriously, you're making a complete fool of yourself.

instead of making completely baseless dumbass comments like that, everyone here would have more respect for you if you would just admit you were wrong.

Nildo

07-04-2003, 04:13 PM

Guy, americans build cars with american styling and power. That's why americans buy them.

The ferrari engine would be very expensive to manufacture, I won't refute that. But the reason why is simple economies of scale. If ferrari produced as many motors as toyota does for the camry then they would put effort into developing cheaper production methods, mass produce etc. Since they remain a niche model, there is also some marketing mistique to being able to claim that over half the engine is hand made.

like your response guibo, but when i talk about components i was actually referring to pistons, rods etc. It is true that a smaller engine is simpler to get higher hp/l. Look at the caterham r500! But the viper could still be improved on, which is my basic point. If anybody here disagrees and claims that the viper engine is as good as it ever could be then plain and simple they are dead wrong.

PyroManiac

07-04-2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Nildo
If anybody here disagrees and claims that the viper engine is as good as it ever could be then plain and simple they are dead wrong. I totally agree, but theres a point to it, it allows room for the aftermarket and customers to improve on the Viper's engine. But believe or not, Dodge's engineers keep a very close relationship with the Viper owners, and they show their customers what THEY want, not what everyone else wants. If the customers WANT an improved engine, Dodge will show them an improved engine. If a majority of Viper customers want to see a brand new V10, they will get that brand new V10. I hear they keep closer ties with their customers than Ferrari does.

Tahoeman

07-04-2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Nildo
Guy, americans build cars with american styling and power. That's why americans buy them.

The ferrari engine would be very expensive to manufacture, I won't refute that. But the reason why is simple economies of scale. If ferrari produced as many motors as toyota does for the camry then they would put effort into developing cheaper production methods, mass produce etc. Since they remain a niche model, there is also some marketing mistique to being able to claim that over half the engine is hand made.

like your response guibo, but when i talk about components i was actually referring to pistons, rods etc. It is true that a smaller engine is simpler to get higher hp/l. Look at the caterham r500! But the viper could still be improved on, which is my basic point. If anybody here disagrees and claims that the viper engine is as good as it ever could be then plain and simple they are dead wrong.

no ones disagreeing that the viper engine could probably easily make double the horsepower if dodge put in the dev time and money. but if you've ever driven, or even read reviews of the car, its already damn hard to harness the power one. most magazines will tell you that you need driving lessons if you buy one.

i have a friend who works for a car shop, and all they do is buy wrecked exotic cars and rebuild them, and my friend drives them to auctions. hes driven everything from diablos to a 550 maranello. i asked him which one was the fastest? and he said the viper was the scariest thing hes ever driven, he said he was spinning tires in almost every gear, and he wasnt even driving it hard, he said it scared the living shit out of him. and this is comming from a guy whos driven just about every car you've ever dreamed of. of course it was only an RT/10 that he drove, not one of the new ones. bottom line, dodge could easily get more power out of that thing, but theres no need for it, hell look at SVS, they're working on a 1700 hp variation of the viper, 1700 hp!!! that engine has so much headroom its not even funny. no engine is ever close to as good as it could be out of the factory. no one ever said the viper engine was making as much power as it could, they opted to go the cheaper route and throw a big block in it. not because thats all they could do, but because they could do it. and because its a cheap and very very effective way to get gobs of power.

Car manufacturers have to be responsible you know, they cant just slap a 1000 hp motor in a car and sell it. Example? TVR, the TVR speed 12 weighs about 2000 lbs and had a severly underrated tag of 800 hp (it hit about 970 on the dyno before the dyno broke) if you go to TVR and try to buy one, they'll try their best to talk you out of it. to my knowledge there are maybe 3 people that own one.

for the last time, hp/l means jack shit, what matters is performance. hp/l doesnt measure any kind of performance. period. its just a worthless number, the only time it matters is when you live in a country with displacement tax, thats the ONLY time it matters, it doesnt make the engine better, higher hp/l is much easier to get out of smaller engines, its not some measure of how "smart" a car company is, i bet you didnt know that GM were actually the ones who invented the VTEC system that honda uses. why didnt they use it?? because theres no real need for it unless you really HAVE to use a small displacement engine. the same things from gas mileage to performance, size and weight can be matched by a simple pushrod design with more displacement

Guibo

07-04-2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Nildo
But the viper could still be improved on, which is my basic point. If anybody here disagrees and claims that the viper engine is as good as it ever could be then plain and simple they are dead wrong.

And as mentioned in the post above, that could apply to just about *any* stock production engine. People don't harp on the fact that the SL500 makes 60 hp/l. Yet they (not talking about you in particular, Nildo, but just the critics in general) slag the Viper for having the same specific output. All the while doing so with a larger engine and pushrods. Why the double standard?

And it's true about Viper owners pretty much dictating how the next generation Vipers evolve. Chrylser sent out questionnaires to previous Viper owners, when it set about making the SRT-10. Cupholders? They didn't want it. Traction control & electric nannies? They didn't want it. Any mention of DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder? Nope. They *wanted* it raw. They wanted it fairly unrefined. And that's pretty much why the SRT-10 is the way it is. Not because Dodge *couldn't*. A look at their lower models (Neon, 300M, etc.) tells you they could if they wanted to. Anyway, the entire first year run of SRT-10's gets sold to previous Viper owners and the rest is history.

On the issue of economy of scale...even if Ferrari could produce the same volume of engines as, say, Chevrolet does with its LS6, there's no way it will cost as little as the LS6. Now, if they *could*, then that would be some of the best manufacturing and engineering (in the sense of efficiency) that I have ever seen, and I will tip of the hat to Ferrari for doing it. But the fact still remains that they don't. So the Ferrari's output, while still exemplary considering its size, is not at all surprising, considering the money, time, and effort that goes into making it.
Recall that Gordon Murray had envisioned 300 McLaren F1's, but in the end, he could only build barely over 100 in total. Why's that? Fulfilling his goal of 300, in those economic times, would have been financial suicide. Simply not enough customers for a car built to that high standard willing to pay that price.

VWPassat

07-06-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
shame people lease dont embares yourself by making silly goose comments.

Ok, I had to step in here as I read one Moron from South Africa fight another one from Singapore. You say we are stupid Americans yet name the best car made in South Africa and Singapore, please. Oh, that’s right you don't drive cars built in your countries there aren't any. But if you did let us see what would they be, maybe a FORD since it is the best selling brand in the world. Now you do have European brands as well but lets see how many of your people can afford a MB, or BMW, since you both live in countries where the GDP is some place in the neighborhood of North Dakota I don't think many can. So they buy FORD or a VW. Yes, technology can yield GREAT things like your space programs, oh wait you don't have a space program, or your powerful military, oh I'm sorry you rely on the USA for that too, never mind I guess you cannot do a thing without the help of those stupid Americans can you, so make fun of the cars we drive, not all of us drive big American cars, not all of us watch the most boring racing in the world (nascar), some of us HAVE been to South Africa and think it is one of the most backward countries on the planet. But please don't ever generalize us as being stupid because unlike you I know where you live and I CAN get there one weeks pay and don't have to save for that once in a life time get away.

PS I am sorry moderator for the last comment it was just used to get my point across I mean no harm to anyone. :D

motorhead

07-06-2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by VWPassat
Ok, I had to step in here as I read one Moron from South Africa fight another one from Singapore. You say we are stupid Americans yet name the best car made in South Africa and Singapore, please. Oh, that’s right you don't drive cars built in your countries there aren't any. But if you did let us see what would they be, maybe a FORD since it is the best selling brand in the world. Now you do have European brands as well but lets see how many of your people can afford a MB, or BMW, since you both live in countries where the GDP is some place in the neighborhood of North Dakota I don't think many can. So they buy FORD or a VW. Yes, technology can yield GREAT things like your space programs, oh wait you don't have a space program, or your powerful military, oh I'm sorry you rely on the USA for that too, never mind I guess you cannot do a thing without the help of those stupid Americans can you, so make fun of the cars we drive, not all of us drive big American cars, not all of us watch the most boring racing in the world (nascar), some of us HAVE been to South Africa and think it is one of the most backward countries on the planet. But please don't ever generalize us as being stupid because unlike you I know where you live and I CAN get there one weeks pay and don't have to save for that once in a life time get away.

PS I am sorry moderator for the last comment it was just used to get my point across I mean no harm to anyone. :D why is singapore suddenly in the picture???

VWPassat

07-06-2003, 11:24 AM

Sorry, it was because of maniac.

henk4

07-06-2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by VWPassat
Ok, since you both live in countries where the GDP is some place in the neighborhood of North Dakota...
:D

First one little thing, if the people in north dakota had the same per capita income as they have in Singapore they would be very, very rich.

A few other points as I missed out a couple of days to check the progress of this thread.
Has it occurred to anybody that pre-occupation with hp/litre may have to do with the fact that in motorsport classes are made up according to engine displacement? Participants are trying to get as much horse power our of a given displacement. Whether this is a meaningful parameter for every day cars is another matter, but this is what may have created the fuss. But I fully agree with those how poiny out that it is easier to extract a higher bhp/litre out of a small engine that out of a big one. (look what happened to Formula one when displacement limit went down from 3,5 litres to 3). Already at the end of the sixties the 1000 cc Formula 3 honda engine (DOHC, torsion bar valve springs), produced 150 horsepower.

One other thing is that we have been talking about driveability, and it may not have escaped to some of you that I am rather fond of modern diesel engines in this respect. I just read an interesting statistic about the Phaeton V10Tdi, (2500 kilo's) which needs 4,8 seconds to get from 80 to 120 (kph). Just for comparison a Viper, in fourth gear would take 5,3 seconds to achieve the same.

I'd rather leave the Ferrari engines out of the equation (or else compare the Modena V8 rather than the V12's). These are really small series masterpieces, not meant and designed for mass consumption and prices are certainly high but also contain a considerable element of prestige costs.

Lastly one thing. Ford is the owner of the Jaguar company, which do produce a nice series of DOHC V8's. As far as I know these engines haven't made it into USA made Ford products. Does anybody knows why that could be?

BPx

07-06-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by henk4
Lastly one thing. Ford is the owner of the Jaguar company, which do produce a nice series of DOHC V8's. As far as I know these engines haven't made it into USA made Ford products. Does anybody knows why that could be?

It's probably cheaper to use their Duratec or Zetec engines in the cars they sell here. I thought there were a few Fords with a Jag V8 in them, but I don't know for sure, never really checked.

Nildo

07-06-2003, 05:38 PM

I agree with henk4. Diesels can be very nice to drive, in almost any traffic condition. And also lately some companies have made huge strides in increasing (oh no, I'm going to say it again!) HP/l produced form deisel motors. Many production diesels can now produce over 70 hp/l. Now I know that by itself that figure means nothing, but diesels already have sensational torque delivery, meaning the car can be both quite quick and a pleasant drive. Performance diesels have begun to really take off in Europe, and Ford announced that they will focus on diesel as the new performace motor of choice in the next decade. Does anyone know if Ford US has made the same commitment?

As for the Ford V8's it could be a marketing thing. Not too many jag V8s are the size of GM's (Fords main market competitor), which would, in some peoples eyes (remember the adage 'ain't n substitute for cubes') give GM the definite edge. I know this is very true of Australias V8 market. For Ford to appear competitive-never mind actual efficiency or anything-they need to have similarly large capacity 8s to GM.

henk4

07-07-2003, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Nildo
Performance diesels have begun to really take off in Europe, and Ford announced that they will focus on diesel as the new performace motor of choice in the next decade. Does anyone know if Ford US has made the same commitment?

Ford made a tentative start by introducing the most powerful (non truck) diesel engine, a 6 litres V8 common rail diesel, giving 330 BHP and 76 Nm of torque at 2000 revs. (the Volkswagen V10 has 313 BHP and 76.4 Nm, from 5 litre displacement) It is propelling the Ford Excursion, weighing about 3500 kg, so it may require some guts to get it decently moving.

vader

07-07-2003, 07:46 AM

guyt_x asked for one american car with a small displacement engine that can compete with the imports. Here are five:
Dodge SRT-4; 2.4L turbocharged I-4; 215 HP, 245 lb. ft.
Ford SVT Focus; 2.0L naturally-aspirated I-4; 170 HP, 145 lb. ft.
Saturn Ion Redline; 2.0L supercharged I-4; 200 HP, 200 lb. ft.
Pontiac Vibe GT; 1.8L naturally-aspirated I-4; 180 HP, 130 lb. ft.
Chrysler PT Turbo; 2.4L turbocharged I-4; 215 HP, 245 lb. ft.

All of these are american cars. All except the PT are under $20 large with the PT being just a sliver more. All except the Redline are available now with the Redline coming in late this year or early next. All are capable of running with and beating their imported counterparts. F-bodies and Mustangs will eat any car on this list and their imported counterparts.

henk4

07-07-2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by vader
guyt_x asked for one american car with a small displacement engine that can compete with the imports. Here are five:
Dodge SRT-4; 2.4L turbocharged I-4; 215 HP, 245 lb. ft.
Ford SVT Focus; 2.0L naturally-aspirated I-4; 170 HP, 145 lb. ft.
Saturn Ion Redline; 2.0L supercharged I-4; 200 HP, 200 lb. ft.
Pontiac Vibe GT; 1.8L naturally-aspirated I-4; 180 HP, 130 lb. ft.
Chrysler PT Turbo; 2.4L turbocharged I-4; 215 HP, 245 lb. ft.

All of these are american cars. All except the PT are under $20 large with the PT being just a sliver more. All except the Redline are available now with the Redline coming in late this year or early next. All are capable of running with and beating their imported counterparts. F-bodies and Mustangs will eat any car on this list and their imported counterparts.

Interesting list, although the Focus surely is a "world" car, and most likely designed in the UK or Germany. The "hot" RS version, 220 BHP with turbo is exclusively produced in Germany, at a limited rate of 30 a day. What are F-bodies? Is this the usual abbreviation of the F-word or are we talking something else? (Please bear with me, I am not form the USA)

PyroManiac

07-07-2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by henk4
Is this the usual abbreviation of the F-word or are we talking something else? Hahahah (sorry, that was funny), F-body is another name for the Camaro and Firebird.

henk4

07-07-2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by PyroManiac
Hahahah (sorry, that was funny), F-body is another name for the Camaro and Firebird.

Thank you, I honestly did not know.

ozexige

07-07-2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by vader
guyt_x asked for one american car with a small ............
...........
........... F-bodies and Mustangs will eat any car on this list and their imported counterparts.

Hey 'Darth' (can I call you by your first name?) and to anyone else new to this site - can you please put your LOCATION? I can't speak for anyone else but I really would like to know we're you're coming from (literally).
Thanks for the info on the cars - but living 'underneath' (and we don't mind at all) I'll have to do a little research to find out what half of them are.
:)

Nildo

07-07-2003, 08:14 PM

it certainly helps to know where people are from. i had never heard of most of the cars on that list, except for the ford focus, which is, as henk suggests, a world released vehicle produced in europe.

Can anyone believe that a few stupid remarks by Guyt_x has led to 10 pages of debate?!

guyt_x

07-07-2003, 11:23 PM

but I have at least got people talking ....

mainly about me but still

and vader... could you please fill us in on the performance of these startship battlecruisers of yours?

henk4

07-08-2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Nildo
it certainly helps to know where people are from. i had never heard of most of the cars on that list, except for the ford focus, which is, as henk suggests, a world released vehicle produced in europe.

Can anyone believe that a few stupid remarks by Guyt_x has led to 10 pages of debate?!

Well, knowing where people are from does that change your opinion about what they are saying? I had this debate before with Guy, who was adamant to know from which country I am.
My point is that I am expressing my own opinion and not that of my country, (which has no automotive industry to speak of apart from Donkervoort and Spijker, jeez, now I gave it away).

Talking about the list of small engined US-cars again, I think that besides of the Focus only the PT turbo is available in Europe. (the best selling version is the 2.2 CRDI, fitted with a Mercedes engine) If the other cars are as good as claimed, why aren't these being exported, US$ is low so that would give an opportunity. I can't imagine that demand in the USA is so large that no cars are left for export. Could there be another reason, i.e. that these cars would not up against the competiton?

guyt_x

07-08-2003, 03:53 AM

90% of american cars dont make it to european shores or any other shores, because they are to big and most countries dont have there fuel price.

Tahoeman

07-08-2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
90% of american cars dont make it to european shores or any other shores, because they are to big and most countries dont have there fuel price.

you dumb****ing piece of ignorant shit READ THE ****ING THREAD, american cars get roughly the same gas mileage as the rest of the world. they just happen to have room to fit people, and horsepower to go along with it. you are seriously the most ignorant hardheaded dumbass i have EVER seen

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-08-2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
you dumb****ing piece of ignorant shit READ THE ****ING THREAD, american cars get roughly the same gas mileage as the rest of the world. they just happen to have room to fit people, and horsepower to go along with it. you are seriously the most ignorant hardheaded dumbass i have EVER seen

Amen Tahoeman... Amen. It is beyond the scope of comprehension how ignorant this guy is. :rolleyes:

henk4

07-08-2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
you dumb****ing piece of ignorant shit READ THE ****ING THREAD, american cars get roughly the same gas mileage as the rest of the world. they just happen to have room to fit people, and horsepower to go along with it. you are seriously the most ignorant hardheaded dumbass i have EVER seen

I suggest you start to adopt the noble art of ignoring. I guess your subject just loves to read what you just wrote.

PimpmobileCaddy

07-08-2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by henk4
As far as I know engine builders feel that in almost all instances it makes more sense to go for OHC. Any clues why?

More valves, I guess. More valves allows the engine to drive at higher speeds. VVT also is something OHV's can't pull off.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-08-2003, 11:44 AM

I can give one advantage to the push-rod, non OHC... weight. When you talk about a large displacement engine like the 5.7 L Vette engine, or the 8.3 L Viper engine. If they had DOHC, they would weigh a lot more.

Tahoeman

07-08-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by PimpmobileCaddy
More valves, I guess. More valves allows the engine to drive at higher speeds. VVT also is something OHV's can't pull off.

actually, the engine in the upcomming C6, i supposed to have VVT, and it will be pushrod

henk4

07-08-2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
actually, the engine in the upcomming C6, i supposed to have VVT, and it will be pushrod

May I suggest to do what you asked Guyt to do, which is to read this thread, we dealt with this a week ago, it is not productive to repeat the issue.

PimpmobileCaddy

07-08-2003, 12:54 PM

All right, gayt_x, I've been reading all your posts and have summarized it up in one, simple word.

Ignorance. Total ****ing ignorance.

First of all, mr. gayt, why the **** do you think a car with a smaller engine should work the same way as a car with a bigger engine? A large displacement pushrod V8 does not need a wimpy turbo or some useless VVT because it already has enough fuel, you ****ing car retard. Only small engines need that stuff because they don't have the displacement to pull that shit off.

Secondly, a car with a large displacement and low HP/l has a much better fuel mileage than a huge Ferrari-like engine with high HP/l and VVT.
Look at the mileage on the 8 liter Dodge Viper SRT-10, 10/20 MPG. Compare that to the Ferrari 575M Maranello, a car that just as fast and has less displacement of shall I say, 5.7 liters, but only pulls off an MPG of 8/12.
If a car with a higher displacement wastes more fuel, which is a statement you always claim is true, then why the **** does the Viper pull off a better gas mileage than the the 575M Maranello? The answer is simple. No high HP/L. HP/L is useless for fuel mileage and is only an indicator of how high the RPM levels of a car is. You don't believe what I'm saying between the 2 cars, then check out these links.

http://fast-autos.net/ferrari/ferrari575m.html
http://fast-autos.net/dodge/dodgevipersrt10.html

Not to mention the Dodge Viper is about 1/4 the price of the Ferrari 575M Maranello. If you don't believe the Viper is not fast enough for the 575M Maranello, look at the stats in the 2 pages. The only thing the 575M Maranello has on the Viper is top speed, nothing more. It also handles much better too.
If you think that was a lucky example, then compare the Corvette Z06 to the BMW M5. The ZO6 has a mileage of 19/28 MPG while the M5 has mileage of 13/21 MPG. Why does the Corvette with higher displacement and much, much better racing performance has a better mileage than the M5? Same answer, asshole. High HP/L is a big waste of fuel. It does nothing for fuel mileage.

Thirdly, you always state American cars can't handle because they have big engines. Compare the Viper and the 575M Maranello again. Engine size does nothing to a car's handling. It's a matter of the car's suspension setting and weight. Nothing more.

Lastly, what the **** is a silly goose? Are you a ****ing 12 year old or something? If you ever ran into me, and called me a silly goose in my face, I will knock the shit out of you senseless before you could say goose!

Tahoeman

07-08-2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by henk4
May I suggest to do what you asked Guyt to do, which is to read this thread, we dealt with this a week ago, it is not productive to repeat the issue.

i wasnt the one who brought the question up, i just gave him a quick answer
and can you honestly say that gayT_x running around telling us that smaller displacement is better because it gets better gas mileage, when weve spent the entire thread proving him wrong is in anyway similar to someone trying to guess at why ohv's are better??

stop trying to act cool and just shut up

henk4

07-08-2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
i wasnt the one who brought the question up, i just gave him a quick answer
and can you honestly say that gayT_x running around telling us that smaller displacement is better because it gets better gas mileage, when weve spent the entire thread proving him wrong is in anyway similar to someone trying to guess at why ohv's are better??

stop trying to act cool and just shut up

Look young man, we were having a rather good discussion on the construction features of modern engines. I asked the question why it is that only in the US of A cars are still being produced with OHV engines. Is it because the US of A is right and the rest of the world is wrong? I just wanted to have that issue clarified. I am absolutely not interested in what GuyT is trying to tell, and even less in the way he does it. But of course there are always Americans that will consider even the slightest hint of criticism as a (terrorist?) attack on their way of life and get provoked into the sort of discussions that we absolutely do not need here. I am getting very much tempted to ask the question why in the world the US of A anyway needs cars that will be able to reach the speed limit in less than 6 seconds. (or even quicker depending on the State you are in, or are you still dreaming of Montana?).

Coming back to your comparison of the Ferrari and the Viper, it may have escaped you that in the current FIA GT championship the Ferrari is"smoking" the Viper. Just wondering why that could be. Could it be that the Ferrari has much more in-built capabilities that do not come out for the production car, because it is geared to comfortable, refined long distance high speed driving, which you occasionally can do in Europe, without breaking the law?

So come back to the thread when you have consrtuctive opinions and ideas formulated in a way that we consider to be decent, and which you might call cool.

henk4

07-08-2003, 01:53 PM

just to clarify my previous post, i should also have referred to Pimpmobile's contribution, in particular in the comparison of the Ferrari and the Viper.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-08-2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by henk4

Coming back to your comparison of the Ferrari and the Viper, it may have escaped you that in the current FIA GT championship the Ferrari is"smoking" the Viper. Just wondering why that could be. Could it be that the Ferrari has much more in-built capabilities that do not come out for the production car, because it is geared to comfortable, refined long distance high speed driving, which you occasionally can do in Europe, without breaking the law?

That's a race version... I thought we were talking about cars that we might one day be driving on the street. In which case, although his argument is somewhat discredited by childish profanity, he is correct. Production Viper vs. production Maranello, he is correct, and has a valid point.

And as far as speed limits go, yeah they suck, but radar detectors do wonders. My Escort Passport 8500 was $300 and has paid for itself 2 or 3 times over. I have never been pulled over, let alone given a ticket.

Tahoeman

07-08-2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by henk4
Look young man, we were having a rather good discussion on the construction features of modern engines. I asked the question why it is that only in the US of A cars are still being produced with OHV engines. Is it because the US of A is right and the rest of the world is wrong? I just wanted to have that issue clarified. I am absolutely not interested in what GuyT is trying to tell, and even less in the way he does it. But of course there are always Americans that will consider even the slightest hint of criticism as a (terrorist?) attack on their way of life and get provoked into the sort of discussions that we absolutely do not need here. I am getting very much tempted to ask the question why in the world the US of A anyway needs cars that will be able to reach the speed limit in less than 6 seconds. (or even quicker depending on the State you are in, or are you still dreaming of Montana?).

Coming back to your comparison of the Ferrari and the Viper, it may have escaped you that in the current FIA GT championship the Ferrari is"smoking" the Viper. Just wondering why that could be. Could it be that the Ferrari has much more in-built capabilities that do not come out for the production car, because it is geared to comfortable, refined long distance high speed driving, which you occasionally can do in Europe, without breaking the law?

So come back to the thread when you have consrtuctive opinions and ideas formulated in a way that we consider to be decent, and which you might call cool.

well let me ask you something then, if OHC's are so much better in every way, how come chevy's LS1/LS6 engines are better engines in every way than the majority of these ohc engines you say are so much better? i give you proof that theres nothing wrong with the ohv design. absolute proof, there is no compromise in the LS1/LS6 performance, it has a great torque curve, puts out a lot of power, and gets damn good gas mileage. its not physicaly very large or heavy either. tell me the disadvantage again? it cant rev as high? it doesnt have VVT? but you forget that those are everyone elses answer to not having displacement. i never compared a ferrari and a viper. i compared a zo6 and a ferrari. and considering the viper is dodges first attempt at a supercar, i would hope that ferrari's decades of making exotic cars would come in handy.

and as for my ideas, im not much for ideas, i usually stick to the facts, and if you go back and read (which you obviously havent seeing as that you are correcting me on things i never even talked about) you would see that i have posted plenty of facts.

why you decided all of the sudden to get up and start calling me "young man" and pretend like you know what you're talking about is beyond me.

oh and just because america chooses to make a car a certain way doesnt make it wrong either does it? there are other factors that you obviously never considered, like that some countries have displacement tax (not that its a valid way to tax vehicle purchases) and we dont here in america. though the american car companies are trying to market to these countries with cars like the SRT-4 and SVT focus. but anyway, thats beside the point, if ohv's are so flawed and old and worthless, then you tell me a design flaw in the LS series engines.

Nildo

07-08-2003, 05:01 PM

Henk, knowing the country someone on this page is from does not need to change a persons opinion. I have always preferred japanese built cars in Australia. Why? Because the American based cars we get aren't very good and the Jap cars are more reliable (as a rule, not always the case). I came to this page to learn about multinational motoring, and I realise that not every American, Euro etc. vehicle is available here, meaning there is lots we are not exposed to. We don't get an LS6 engined vehicle here, for example. Knowing where someone is from simply reveals a little about where somebody is coming from, and offers a chance to learn more.

Really, people on this page should not compare fuel economy (or handling) on the various euro barges with american performance cars. The 575 and M5 are both big cars (over 1700 kg) because they are designed to be luxurious first, fast second. Compare those kerb weights with the viper and vette (closer to 1400 kg) and it is obvious that the Euro cars fuel economy and handling will suffer.

A better comparo for these cars would be a TVR, or maybe the BMW CSL M3. Anybody with relevant performance figures for either? I do know the TVR Tuscan S is quicker than the Z06, but not much more than that.

BTW the Gen III LS1 we get here in Australia is not that great (about 314 hp in standard). That is a flawed LS product, although it probably is not used in this form in the US, so it wouldn't matter to you guys.

ozexige

07-08-2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by PimpmobileCaddy
All right, gayt_x, I've been reading all your posts and have summarized it up in one, simple word.

Ignorance. Total ****ing ignorance.

First of all, mr. gayt, why the f...................

...............asshole. High HP/L is a big waste of fuel. It does nothing for fuel mileage.

................ shit out of you senseless before you could say goose!

Hey Caddy - buddy....
we all know he's a dickhead,
he knows he's a dickhead,
his father knows he's a dickhead,
his mother didn't know until much later when they taught her sign language at one of those Area 55 bunkers where they teach monkeys to run the world after the coalition (USA, ANZAC & Brits) wipe out the dickheads of the world -
only joking there - hehe.
And 'Silly Goose' doesn't mean what you think it does - not that I'm defending the wanker.
It literally means silly goose and could be compared with a poof's
('gay person' - not that I've got anything against gays - hehe... why did I say that?)
way of saying mate (pronounced 'maaaaytah').
So enjoy the site and learn some neat stuff (and teach the dickheads of the world - hehe) - it's a great site.

My hat's off to the guys that run it.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-08-2003, 06:11 PM

Well if he's using "silly goose" as a cut-down towards Americans, he simply makes himself look like a complete idiot. Since to his target audience - that being Americans - it is at a 1st grade name calling level that sounds more like a book of fairy tails.

ozexige

07-08-2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
well let me ask you something then, if OHC's are so much better in every way, how come chevy's LS1/LS6 engines are better engines in every way than the majority of these ohc engines you say are so much better? ............

........... if ohv's are so flawed and old and worthless, then you tell me a design flaw in the LS series engines.

Couldn't agree more 'Tahoe'
(great place by the way) LS engines are without peer. (and we can't get them - bugger!)
OHC's scare the shit out of me.....
My first rebuild of an engine was a '81 308 GTSi - almost killed me and my father - literally.

F...king broken belt.

:mad:

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-08-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by ozexige
Couldn't agree more 'Tahoe'
(great place by the way) LS engines are without peer. (and we can't get them - bugger!)
OHC's scare the shit out of me.....
My first rebuild of an engine was a '81 308 GTSi - almost killed me and my father - literally.

F...king broken belt.

:mad:

Isn't Holden an Australian car maker? I do believe you can get an LS1 engine in a few Holdens... the Monaro, the GTO, and GTS

Guibo

07-08-2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by henk4

Coming back to your comparison of the Ferrari and the Viper, it may have escaped you that in the current FIA GT championship the Ferrari is"smoking" the Viper.

That's actually ProDrive that deserve the pat on the back, not Ferrari. Great results from such a small company.

In any event, the Vipers have been racing since what, '96-'97? Numerous Le Mans and Daytona and Sebring and FIA GT class wins, with outright wins at 24 Hours of Spa and Nurburgring. But it's pretty much at the end of its lifecycle as a competitive race car, and has been so for a couple of years now. The SRT-10 based Competition Coupe may herald the return for Dodge/Chrysler, but we'll see. They're more intent on taking the Winston stock car championship at the moment, have little money for any other racing.

guyt_x

07-08-2003, 11:22 PM

when last did america win a world motor sport title... hmmm

if you gonna race against yourselves you always going to win.

swearing is too easy(well for red necks with mullets named billy-bob I supose its the only weapon in there attack, but I supose havign a president that is the laughing stock of the world and living in constant fear of the next attack on american soil cos they stole oil must be hard so I guess swearing is fine for a people who love V8's but make car movies about rice burners
eg 'fast and the furious')

henk4

07-08-2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
well let me ask you something then, if OHC's are so much better in every way, how come chevy's LS1/LS6 engines are better engines in every way than the majority of these ohc engines you say are so much better? i give you proof that theres nothing wrong with the ohv design. absolute proof, there is no compromise in the LS1/LS6 performance, it has a great torque curve, puts out a lot of power, and gets damn good gas mileage. its not physicaly very large or heavy either. tell me the disadvantage again? it cant rev as high? it doesnt have VVT? but you forget that those are everyone elses answer to not having displacement. i never compared a ferrari and a viper. i compared a zo6 and a ferrari. and considering the viper is dodges first attempt at a supercar, i would hope that ferrari's decades of making exotic cars would come in handy.

and as for my ideas, im not much for ideas, i usually stick to the facts, and if you go back and read (which you obviously havent seeing as that you are correcting me on things i never even talked about) you would see that i have posted plenty of facts.

why you decided all of the sudden to get up and start calling me "young man" and pretend like you know what you're talking about is beyond me.

oh and just because america chooses to make a car a certain way doesnt make it wrong either does it? there are other factors that you obviously never considered, like that some countries have displacement tax (not that its a valid way to tax vehicle purchases) and we dont here in america. though the american car companies are trying to market to these countries with cars like the SRT-4 and SVT focus. but anyway, thats beside the point, if ohv's are so flawed and old and worthless, then you tell me a design flaw in the LS series engines.

Thanks for the reaction, yes I did mix up two contributions, and you are not guilty of the Viper/Ferrari comparison. (I did a clarifying post afterwards if you care to read that).

Again you failed to see my point. I am simply looking reasons why in the US of A manufacturers stick to OHV engines. I am not saying that they are wrong, but they have become very uncommon in any country but the US of A. So that is what I am trying to find out. Furthermore, read the whole thread and you will find that we already discussed the LS6 engine, and made a comparison with what I think is a reasonably modern European V8, the Audi A8 engine. I thought the Audi came out better, but that is of course debatable.

I would like to see more figures on fuel consumption. These only make sense if the cars are compared during the same circumstances and doing the same things. I cannot remember having seen any comparative tests where f.i. a Corvette, a Camaro or a Mustang came out with a better mileage than their European counterparts. But I am ready to be convinced if people can show me where to go.

Finally I called you young man, because I do not like to be told to shut up. That's not the purpose of a forum and shows a certain lack of manners which I attributed. but may be erroneously to your age. If you are actually are not young, then I would advise you to grow up.

henk4

07-08-2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6

And as far as speed limits go, yeah they suck, but radar detectors do wonders. My Escort Passport 8500 was $300 and has paid for itself 2 or 3 times over. I have never been pulled over, let alone given a ticket.

You may be surprised and even shocked to learn that radar detectors are or will be banned in all European countries as these prevent the execution of the law.
I tend to agree with this policy. If you want to break the law do it openly and not in a sneaky way.

henk4

07-08-2003, 11:55 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guibo
[B]That's actually ProDrive that deserve the pat on the back, not Ferrari. Great results from such a small company.

Thanks, yes I know that, and as Nildo was saying earlier on in this thread, the Ferrari was not designed as a racing car but much more like a grand tourer with decent long distance driving comfort. (The Viper from the outset is already much more of a racer and yes they did take a lot of wins). The only point I wanted to make is that the current Ferrari (whoever prepared it) with a much smaller engine is capable of beating the Vipers and more recently the Corvette's at LeMans. They are having some problems with the Saleen S7 though, but that is a mid-engined car.

henk4

07-08-2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by ozexige
[So enjoy the site and learn some neat stuff (and teach the dickheads of the world - hehe) - it's a great site.

My hat's off to the guys that run it. [/B]

Thanks I will pass on the compliment.
I do the financial adminstration, does that count too?

ozexige

07-09-2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
Isn't Holden an Australian car maker? I do believe you can get an LS1 engine in a few Holdens... the Monaro, the GTO, and GTS

You're right again - but some of the LS1's they put in Monaro's (HSV's, GTO's) gave them trouble and like most car makers, GMH beat around the bush about fixing them and made it worse.
They'll get it right eventually.
:(

henk4

07-09-2003, 05:10 AM

Here is some homework. I found the results of tests of American and European Sports cars as carried out by Auto Motor und Sport, a fairly high profile German magazine.

I'll give you the car, displacement, BHP, 0-100,top and fuel consumption, in litres per km. (you may have to do the conversion yourself).

Ferrari 360 3586/400 4.6 295 17.5
Porsche 911 turbo 3600/420 4.3 307 16,8
Aston DB7 Vantage 5935/420 5.6 286 17.3
Corvette 5665/344 5.8 281 13.1
Corvette Cabrio 5665/344 5.5 275 14.5
Viper GTS 7990/384 4.7 384 18,8
Ferrari 456 GTA 5474/442 5.8 298 20.2
BMW Mcoupe 3246/325 4.9 250 12.2

Unfortunately for this overview I could not extract kerb weights.

Probably everybody will draw its own conclusions from the list, but I would say that although match in performance with 911 turbo or the Modena, the economy of the Corvette indeed looks great. Comparing the figures though with now discontinued BMW I get the impression that weight is the most determining factor in fuel consumption, which also would explain the position of the 2+2 456.

If people can come with similar lists, we might be able to continue the discussion.

As far as I am concerned I will have to leave it for a while, as I about to visit the same countries that George W. is currently doing. I might bump into him tomorrow, but I don't think he will recognise me.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by henk4
Thanks for the reaction, yes I did mix up two contributions, and you are not guilty of the Viper/Ferrari comparison. (I did a clarifying post afterwards if you care to read that).

Again you failed to see my point. I am simply looking reasons why in the US of A manufacturers stick to OHV engines. I am not saying that they are wrong, but they have become very uncommon in any country but the US of A. So that is what I am trying to find out. Furthermore, read the whole thread and you will find that we already discussed the LS6 engine, and made a comparison with what I think is a reasonably modern European V8, the Audi A8 engine. I thought the Audi came out better, but that is of course debatable.

I would like to see more figures on fuel consumption. These only make sense if the cars are compared during the same circumstances and doing the same things. I cannot remember having seen any comparative tests where f.i. a Corvette, a Camaro or a Mustang came out with a better mileage than their European counterparts. But I am ready to be convinced if people can show me where to go.

Finally I called you young man, because I do not like to be told to shut up. That's not the purpose of a forum and shows a certain lack of manners which I attributed. but may be erroneously to your age. If you are actually are not young, then I would advise you to grow up.

Why would anyone actually care about gas mileage when they are racing? Or accelerating quickly? That isn't the time to compare it. The time fuel consumption matters is on long trips. I consistently pick up 29 miles per gallon out of the Corvette LS1 that is in my ontiac Trans Am. I can show you receipts if I must, otherwise, just take my word for it. That type of gas mileage is amazing out of a car that has that much power.

As far as being sneaky about breaking the law (radar detector)... I guess you think bank robbers should not wear a mask, smile for the camera, and show them the distinguishing tattoo on their shoulder as well?

henk4

07-09-2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
Why would anyone actually care about gas mileage when they are racing? Or accelerating quickly? That isn't the time to compare it. The time fuel consumption matters is on long trips. I consistently pick up 29 miles per gallon out of the Corvette LS1 that is in my ontiac Trans Am. I can show you receipts if I must, otherwise, just take my word for it. That type of gas mileage is amazing out of a car that has that much power.

As far as being sneaky about breaking the law (radar detector)... I guess you think bank robbers should not wear a mask, smile for the camera, and show them the distinguishing tattoo on their shoulder as well?

It is not a big deal to potter along doing 65 miles and getting that sort of mileage. Does that translate to about 8 litres per 100 km?Frankly I am not impressed I will talk to you again if you can do 1200 km with less than 65 litres. (That would be what I would get if I did similar long distance driving)

I did not compare speeders with bankrobbers. Speeders are generally law abiding citizens, at least as far as the law for others is concerned.

Nash

07-09-2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by henk4 I'll give you the car, displacement, BHP, 0-100,top and fuel consumption, in litres per km. (you may have to do the conversion yourself).

Corvette 5665/344 5.8 281 13.1
Corvette Cabrio 5665/344 5.5 275 14.5
Viper GTS 7990/384 4.7 384 18,8[/B]

Those numbers seem to be a little off

Corvette Coupe 5665/350 4.5 281 19mpg
Corvette conv. 5665/350 4.5 281 18mpg
Corvette Z06 5665/405 3.9 ? 19mpg
Viper SRT-10 Competition 8275/520 3.8 309 ?

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by henk4
It is not a big deal to potter along doing 65 miles and getting that sort of mileage. Does that translate to about 8 litres per 100 km?Frankly I am not impressed I will talk to you again if you can do 1200 km with less than 65 litres. (That would be what I would get if I did similar long distance driving)

I did not compare speeders with bankrobbers. Speeders are generally law abiding citizens, at least as far as the law for others is concerned.

The numbers that you gave me... 1200 km and 65 liters... that translates to roughly 44 miles per gallon! What in sam hell are you driving to pull that kind of mileage? What ever it is, it is not putting out 350 horsepower like an LS1 is. My point was the 29 miles per gallon out of an engine with 350 horsepower is amazing... if you actually just gave me numbers from some Honda Civic you need your head examined for comparing a sports car's fuel economy to a Civic's.

(For that conversion, I used these factors: 3.8 liters = 1 gallon. 100 kilometers = 62.5 miles. Are these conversions roughly correct?)

EDIT: I htink that conversion is roughly correct. Find me a 350 HP engine that pulls over 29 miles to the gallon and I will admit defeat in this one...

henk4

07-09-2003, 08:03 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
[B]The numbers that you gave me... 1200 km and 65 liters... that translates to roughly 44 miles per gallon! What in sam hell are you driving to pull that kind of mileage?

I drive a Citroen Xantia Break Hdi. You can find it on this site. It weighs over 1300 kg, has 135 BHP (admittedly little) but does almost 300 NM of torque out of 2 litre (please do the conversion in lbf/ft for me). It is not a sprint car but on the motorway torque plays the more important role. Even if I speed up such as is possible in Germany I will always be able to pull more than 1000 km out of a tank (nominal capacity is 65 litres). At 150 kph it runs an at easy 3000 revs in 5th gear.
Ford and Citroen/Peugeot now closely co-operate in developing a new generation of diesel engines, and when you see the sort of mileage we are getting now, you may not be surprised to hear that Ford has announced to concentrate on the diesel as the future engine for the European market. The design of the engine of my car is already 5 years on the market. Newer versions have a particular exhaust filter that limits the production of the maligned particals to almost zero.

I admit that my car is in no way comparable with a firebird or a corvette, but given the European fuel prices, (about 1.25$ for a litre gasoline) and 90 cents for diesel, then you can imagine that we cannot be too picky.

By the way, what does your Firebird do when you unleash all the horses?

henk4

07-09-2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Nash
Those numbers seem to be a little off

Corvette Coupe 5665/350 4.5 281 19mpg
Corvette conv. 5665/350 4.5 281 18mpg
Corvette Z06 5665/405 3.9 ? 19mpg
Viper SRT-10 Competition 8275/520 3.8 309 ?

It will always be possible to come up with different figures, I took one source, tests were done over the past two years, and their testmethods are consistent. There could have been a slight deviation because of the time of testing, wintertime takes more fuel, but this is what I could find. There were no other US cars mentioned in the list so I could not include the ZO6.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by henk4
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
[B]The numbers that you gave me... 1200 km and 65 liters... that translates to roughly 44 miles per gallon! What in sam hell are you driving to pull that kind of mileage?

I drive a Citroen Xantia Break Hdi. You can find it on this site. It weighs over 1300 kg, has 135 BHP (admittedly little) but does almost 300 NM of torque out of 2 litre (please do the conversion in lbf/ft for me). It is not a sprint car but on the motorway torque plays the more important role. Even if I speed up such as is possible in Germany I will always be able to pull more than 1000 km out of a tank (nominal capacity is 65 litres). At 150 kph it runs an at easy 3000 revs in 5th gear.
Ford and Citroen/Peugeot now closely co-operate in developing a new generation of diesel engines, and when you see the sort of mileage we are getting now, you may not be surprised to hear that Ford has announced to concentrate on the diesel as the future engine for the European market. The design of the engine of my car is already 5 years on the market. Newer versions have a particular exhaust filter that limits the production of the maligned particals to almost zero.

I admit that my car is in no way comparable with a firebird or a corvette, but given the European fuel prices, (about 1.25$ for a litre gasoline) and 90 cents for diesel, then you can imagine that we cannot be too picky.

By the way, what does your Firebird do when you unleash all the horses?

Sorry, I don't know the conversion for NM to lbs/ft...

I'm even more sorry to hear of your fuel prices -- that is about 3.5 times our prices.

When my Firebird was stock I ran a 13.3 @ 109 mph in the quarter mile (quarter mile = 400 meters)

I have done a few mods to it, I am probably pushing about 370 horsepower at the crank now. That should be good enough for me to hit a 12.8 @ 111 or so provided I drive well enough.

Top speed is achieved in 5th gear, not 6th. It is about 160 mph from the factory (red line in 5th gear), and it is probably still there, because I still most likely cannot go over 140 in 6th gear. One day, when I have enough horsepower to redline 6th gear... top speed will be approaching 200 mph.

The point I was trying to make in our engine debate (since I thought we were focusing mainly on sports cars) was that OHV, and pushrod engiens with large displacement, typically provides fuel economy that DOHC with multi-valves cannot match. And they do it without sacrificing power.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 08:25 AM

http://speed.supercars.net/Board?viewThread=y&fID=4&tID=67101

You can find pictures of my Firebird here.

henk4

07-09-2003, 08:33 AM

Looks great, are you sure you will still get 29 mpg with 650 BHP and twin turbo's?

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by henk4
Looks great, are you sure you will still get 29 mpg with 650 BHP and twin turbo's?

Thanks.

Well, I plan on supercharging it, not putting turbos on it... not that a supercharger is any better for fuell economy though...

There is a supercharged project Camaro Z28 that was putting out near 600 HP at the wheels and running 10 second 1/4 miles and still achieving about 24/25 mpg. I would be happy with that.

But even still, I plan on getting a fuel management system to run on a dash-mounted monitor. It is similar to what you see in airplanes, since airplanes must modify their fuel curve to lean out the engine at higher altitiudes. Being able to play with my fuel curve like this, I can lean out the engine drastically for long trips... but when some joker wants to see what I have at a stoplight... with the push of a button I can richen the hell out of it and leave him in the dust.

Innotech

07-09-2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
when last did america win a world motor sport title... hmmm

if you gonna race against yourselves you always going to win.

swearing is too easy(well for red necks with mullets named billy-bob I supose its the only weapon in there attack, but I supose havign a president that is the laughing stock of the world and living in constant fear of the next attack on american soil cos they stole oil must be hard so I guess swearing is fine for a people who love V8's but make car movies about rice burners
eg 'fast and the furious')

ROCK AND ROLL MOTHA****A!!!
that kind of swearing?

henk4

07-09-2003, 08:51 AM

Lean out means that you can actually change the fuel througput during driving? Looks like an interesting technique, just wondering why it is not more widely applied. Is it costly? Would it put specific requirements to the fuel quality?

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by henk4
Lean out means that you can actually change the fuel througput during driving? Looks like an interesting technique, just wondering why it is not more widely applied. Is it costly? Would it put specific requirements to the fuel quality?

Yes, you can actually change the fuel consumption during driving. And yes, it is costly. I am not even sure if anyone makes exactly what I am looking for. The aircraft programs monitor air density and air/fuel ratio right down to the specific cylinder. Then, based on the amount of oxygen coming in, adjust the fuel curve accordingly for max power. I might have to have one of my computer programming buddies modify the airplane's program so that it works on the car... but I know it's possible. I will pay top dollar for this too if I must.

EDIT: Pretty sweet idea, huh?

henk4

07-09-2003, 09:10 AM

looks like a groundbreaking technique if it can be produced in an economic way. I initially missed your comment on our fuel prices, thanks for the compassion. I am still not convinced that OHV are surperior in terms of fuel consumption, as all European V8's are OHC's and we have to deal with these high fuel costs. It's a bit of a conundrum to me.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by henk4
looks like a groundbreaking technique if it can be produced in an economic way. I initially missed your comment on our fuel prices, thanks for the compassion. I am still not convinced that OHV are surperior in terms of fuel consumption, as all European V8's are OHC's and we have to deal with these high fuel costs. It's a bit of a conundrum to me.

I drove an Audi A8 to work today (nice, huh?) 4.2 Liter V8, about 320 (?) horsepower... 21 miles per gallon. Smaller displacement, smaller power output, bigger fuel consumption (although granted the car does weigh more).

vader

07-09-2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by guyt_x
but I have at least got people talking ....

mainly about me but still

and vader... could you please fill us in on the performance of these startship battlecruisers of yours?

Performance specs on the Saturn Ion Redline are unavailabe due to it not being in production yet. The others are below. I threw in a 2002 Camaro Z28 and a Mustang GT because they are about in the same price range (if they are about the same price, you'd have to have your head examined if you buy a 4 cylinder over a V8 even if the 4 mildly out performs the 8, ie SRT-4 and Mustang GT......think potential). My buy is obvious by these stats......CAMARO!

Dodge SRT-4 - 5-speed manual
MSRP - $19,995
Curb weight - 2970 lbs.
Redline - 6750 rpm
0-60 mph - 5.6 sec.
¼ mile - 14.2 sec. @ 102 mph
Top speed - 153 mph (limited)
Skidpad - .85g
700 ft. slalom - 69 mph
60-0 mph - 116 ft.

Chrysler PT Turbo - 5-speed manual
MSRP - $23,430
Curb weight - 3310 lbs.
Redline - 6750 rpm
0-60 mph - 7.2 sec.
¼ mile - 15.7 sec. @ 89 mph
Top speed - 120 mph (limited)
Skidpad - .78g
700 ft. slalom - 62 mph
60-0 mph - 134 ft.

Pontiac Vibe GT - 6-speed manual
MSRP - $19,995
Curb weight - 2800 lbs.
Redline - 8100 rpm
0-60 mph - 7.3 sec.
¼ mile - 15.7 sec. @ 92 mph
Top speed - 134 mph
Skidpad - .78g
700 ft. slalom - 67 mph
60-0 mph - 118 ft.

Ford SVT Focus – 6-speed manual
MSRP - $19,130
Curb weight - 2750 lbs.
Redline – 7100 rpm
0-60 mph - 7.5 sec.
¼ mile - 15.9 sec. @ 90 mph
Top speed - 135 mph
Skidpad - .87g
700 ft slalom - 69 mph
60-0 mph - 119 ft.

Chevrolet Camaro Z28 – 6 speed-manual
MSRP - $22,500 (2002)
Curb weight - 3470 lbs
Redline - 6200 rpm
0-60 mph - 5.3 sec
¼ mile - 13.2 sec. @ 105 mph
Top speed - 160 mph (limited)
Skidpad - .83g
700 ft. slalom - 65 mph
60-0 mph - 124 ft.

Ford Mustang GT – 5-speed manual
MSRP - $24,330
Curb weight - 3280 lbs
Redline - 6500 rpm
0-60 mph - 5.8 sec.
¼ mile - 14.3 sec. @ 101 mph
Top speed - 140 mph
Skidpad - .84g
700 ft. slalom - 65 mph
60-0 mph - 123 ft.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 09:35 AM

Where in your "head-examining" world is a Camaro Z28 for 22K ????

EDIT: And if you think a Mustang GT can do a 1/4 mile in 13.5 you are also on crack.

vader

07-09-2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
Where in your "head-examining" world is a Camaro Z28 for 22K ????

EDIT: And if you think a Mustang GT can do a 1/4 mile in 13.5 you are also on crack.

$22,500. And were talking 2002 and completely void of any extras. Chevrolet listed on it's website last year that the MSRP for a zero option Z28 was just under $22,500. And sorry I looked at the wrong car stats for the stang.......I fixed it.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by vader
$22,500. And were talking 2002 and completely void of any extras. Chevrolet listed on it's website last year that the MSRP for a zero option Z28 was just under $22,500. And sorry I looked at the wrong car stats for the stang.......I fixed it.

The Stang looks better now, thanks :) 22K for a Z28??? Wow, GM REALLY screwed this thing up. I am pissed off to hear that now. I thought price was a large factor in the demise of the f-bodies. Now I realize GM just didn't do a good enough job of letting people now how much Mustang ass you could kick for 22K. Up until this year, a Z28 would have outrun even the $30,000 Cobras. What a shame they just let these cars die. It pisses me off that no one knew how sweet they were - and it is totally GM's fault.

Tahoeman

07-09-2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by henk4
Looks great, are you sure you will still get 29 mpg with 650 BHP and twin turbo's?

he'll probably only get 25 or 26, the lingenfelter vette gets 24 with 800 hp.

how funny, having 650 hp and about 100 lbs more than an evo will net the same fuel mileage as an evo. those shitty ass pushrod engines, what a waste of gas!. oh well, at least you can tell everyone that your evo is 2 liters!!!

Tahoeman

07-09-2003, 10:05 AM

henk4

07-09-2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
I drove an Audi A8 to work today (nice, huh?) 4.2 Liter V8, about 320 (?) horsepower... 21 miles per gallon. Smaller displacement, smaller power output, bigger fuel consumption (although granted the car does weigh more).

According to the same source I used before (Auto Motor und Sport) the audi has about 360 BHP, and would take 15.2 litres per 100 km. compared to the 13.1 of the Corvette. Could indeed be a matter of weight. Interestingly the Merc CL600 (V12) took only 14.8 litres, with 367 BHP.

henk4

07-09-2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
The Stang looks better now, thanks :) 22K for a Z28??? Wow, GM REALLY screwed this thing up. I am pissed off to hear that now. I thought price was a large factor in the demise of the f-bodies. Now I realize GM just didn't do a good enough job of letting people now how much Mustang ass you could kick for 22K. Up until this year, a Z28 would have outrun even the $30,000 Cobras. What a shame they just let these cars die. It pisses me off that no one knew how sweet they were - and it is totally GM's fault.

What are you complaining about?

In Germany a Corvette will cost at least 65000 US$, while for a Viper you will have to stash out certainly over 100 grand which you will need in Holland to buy a Corvette, a Viper here is only available through grey imports.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by henk4
According to the same source I used before (Auto Motor und Sport) the audi has about 360 BHP, and would take 15.2 litres per 100 km. compared to the 13.1 of the Corvette. Could indeed be a matter of weight. Interestingly the Merc CL600 (V12) took only 14.8 litres, with 367 BHP.

That quote on the Vette is simply incorrect. That equates to about 18 miles per gallon... that's what you'll get on city roads if you drive like a lunatic. On highways, at cruise, you get 29 mpg. 29 mpg = 12.2 km per liter... Or to put it in your terms 8.19 liters per 100 km.

henk4

07-09-2003, 10:37 AM

What Auto Moto and Sport takes as their test consumption is the overall consumption during the whole test period, including top speed measurements, where the pedal really goes to the metal accelaration tests etc. Although you are right in that it might not fully reflect normal driving practice, I think they are still comparable to other cars, having been tested under the same conditions.
What they also give is a sort of minimum and maximum consuption. Just looking at the Merc CLK 500, SOHC, 4966 CC, for which a test mileage of 13.5 litres is recorded. Minimal consumption is 9.5 litres, maximum 15.8 (probably long motorway trips doing over 200 kph and more) This is illustrative of where the ranges are. Mileage is to a very large extent dependent on the way of driving. Similar figures for the Focus ST170 (also mentioned in this thread are: Test 10,5, minimal 5.9, maximum 12.4 (You note there is a factor 2 involved here)

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 11:18 AM

Well, overall consumption for a whole test period makes a little more sense, but I think it still understates the Vette engine a bit. It sorta makes you wonder why the Europeans don't go to the gas saving OHV design doesn't it? Another example is even the Viper engine. It is 500 HP. Try to find a 500 HP engine that can achieve 20 mpg. Other 500 HP engines, like Lamborghinis and Ferraris achieve about 11 mpg on the highway. The OHV also saves quite a bit of engine weight when you start talking about V8, V10, V12, or even V16 (I can't even imagine how much fuel the Bugatti Veyron is going to guzzle once it comes out). The Corvette engine could probably still produce 300 HP if it were 5.0 liters or so (very rough approximations, so don't chastise me if I'm off by a bit)... and then it's gas mileage would go even higher. I am a big fan of the pushrod when it comes to economic practicality. Now for performance reasons, it would be nice if it would rev a little higher... but 6500 RPM in the LS6 is nothing to scoff at.

PimpmobileCaddy

07-09-2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
actually, the engine in the upcomming C6, i supposed to have VVT, and it will be pushrod

Amazing. That's ****ing amazing. I wonder how they'll pull it off? This could be a modern first. First OHV to have VVT. That sounds awesome!

PimpmobileCaddy

07-09-2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
Well if he's using "silly goose" as a cut-down towards Americans, he simply makes himself look like a complete idiot. Since to his target audience - that being Americans - it is at a 1st grade name calling level that sounds more like a book of fairy tails.

You gotta admit, it's really gay when says silly goose.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 11:48 AM

Could someone elaborate as to why OHV have never had VVT before? What is so difficult about it? Why can't OHV also be OHC?

And once and for all so I can get this straight... where in the hell does the camshaft go in a pushrod engine like the one I drive?

henk4

07-09-2003, 12:04 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
[B]Well, overall consumption for a whole test period makes a little more sense, but I think it still understates the Vette engine a bit. It sorta makes you wonder why the Europeans don't go to the gas saving OHV design doesn't it?
Another example is even the Viper engine. It is 500 HP. Try to find a 500 HP engine that can achieve 20 mpg. Other 500 HP engines, like Lamborghinis and Ferraris achieve about 11 mpg on the highway. [QUOTE]

Again according to AMS test criteria the consumption of the Viper GTS was 18.8 litre per 100 km, which I have worked out as 12.6 mpg. Not far off the Ferrari marque, in AMS I could only find the 456 GTA, taking 20,2 litre per 100 km or 12.2 mpg. I have no idea where you got this 11 mpg figure from. The Modena does slightly better, 13.4 mpg. If these figures are the all round consumption than they must surely be doing much better on the highway. By the way what highway speed do you take 65 or 70 miles? Even at 70 miles some cars may have difficulty in using top gear.

I am glad your asking the same question now that I have been trying to answer. Why do the US manufacturers what they do, and why do other countries (Europe and Japan) things in a different way.

PimpmobileCaddy

07-09-2003, 12:09 PM

Not only is weight a factor, but the major factor in fuel economy is the engine designs in a car. I mentioned European supercars and American supercars fuel mileage as just an example of why low-end torque OHV's are more fuel efficient than high revving OHC cars with VVT, which usually the type of engines the European supercars carry.

OHC's are better for performance, but OHV's are usually just as good too.

henk4

07-09-2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6

And once and for all so I can get this straight... where in the hell does the camshaft go in a pushrod engine like the one I drive?

You mean you don't know where it is?

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by PimpmobileCaddy

OHC's are better for performance, but OHV's are usually just as good too.

From now on, I am going to call you "Mister I contradict myself." Seriously, look at that sentence.

So back to my previous question... why can't OHV's and VVT's go together? and where does a camshaft go in a non-OHC engine?

By the way, I apologize. The 11 mpg highway that I saw was for the Enzo. However, the Murcielago was not far off from there.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by henk4
You mean you don't know where it is?

Yes... physically, where is it?

henk4

07-09-2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
Yes... physically, where is it?

It is sitting in the V, just above the crankshaft, in a separate housing. Somewhere earlier in this thread there is drawing of the design of the four valve OHV engine that GM is preparing, it has two camshifts in the V, sititng above each other.

(just noticed that you are from Minneapolis drove through there 2 years ago en route from Road America to Calgary in a hired Pontiac Grand Prix, I think I got about 26.5 mpg on average out of that one, 3,7 litre V6, OHV or OHC I don't know.)

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 12:44 PM

Okay, thanks, that is kind of where I thought it was. So why then can't pushrod engines have VVT? Is it possible to have OHV and OHC together?

The Grand Prix: 3.8 L V6, pushrod... if it was supercharged it made around 240 HP. The new Grand Prix GTP makes 260 HP, and 280 ft-lbs of torque!!!!

henk4

07-09-2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
Okay, thanks, that is kind of where I thought it was. So why then can't pushrod engines have VVT? Is it possible to have OHV and OHC together?

The Grand Prix: 3.8 L V6, pushrod... if it was supercharged it made around 240 HP. The new Grand Prix GTP makes 260 HP, and 280 ft-lbs of torque!!!!

To combine OHV and OHC would be a waste. I think one of the reason why OHV engine have no VVT is that the rev range is much smaller, and the cams can deal with that, while in OHC engine that can rev much higher it makes sense to change the cams to make optimal use of this possibility. I am developing this idea while writing so I would not be surprised if it is absolute nonsense, but that at least would trigger a reaction from those who do know.

My Grand Prix definitely was not turbo charged, I think it had about 170 BHP or so. It surely felt less powerful than the Citroen.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by henk4
To combine OHV and OHC would be a waste. I think one of the reason why OHV engine have no VVT is that the rev range is much smaller, and the cams can deal with that, while in OHC engine that can rev much higher it makes sense to change the cams to make optimal use of this possibility. I am developing this idea while writing so I would not be surprised if it is absolute nonsense, but that at least would trigger a reaction from those who do know.

My Grand Prix definitely was not turbo charged, I think it had about 170 BHP or so. It surely felt less powerful than the Citroen.

I strongly believe you had 200 HP in that Grand Prix. You do realize the difference between supercharging and turbo-charging right? Because that is the second time you have said "turbo" after I said "super".

I couldn't quite follow your explanation on the OHV, OHC, VVT thing... If the valves aren't overhead when you have OHC, where the heck are they?

Kahless

07-09-2003, 01:42 PM

they did kill the camaro because of the money. that 22,500 wasnt paying the bills and they couldnt afford to keep pumping them out at a loss.

henk4

07-09-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
I strongly believe you had 200 HP in that Grand Prix. You do realize the difference between supercharging and turbo-charging right? Because that is the second time you have said "turbo" after I said "super". [quote}

I am sure it had no super charger. (engine driven) nor a turbo charger (exhaust driven).

I couldn't quite follow your explanation on the OHV, OHC, VVT thing... If the valves aren't overhead when you have OHC, where the heck are they? Irrespective whether you have OHC or OHV, valves are invariably overhead. Sidevalve engine are long gone.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-09-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Kahless
they did kill the camaro because of the money. that 22,500 wasnt paying the bills and they couldnt afford to keep pumping them out at a loss.

No man, that's not what I meant. People said that F-bodies became too close in price to the Corvette, so people just forked over a little extra cash and bought Vettes instead. I meant it died because it was too expensive for the customer to want to buy it... not too expensive for GM. And with that price, GM should have been able to sell a TON if they marketed it right.

jadotch

07-09-2003, 02:10 PM

You can ADD Varible Valve timing AND liftto a push rod (Chevy 350 or Ford 5.0L) with aftermarket parts. It does not change the Cam profile as in OHC configurations, but instead changes the rocker arm

Heres a link

http://www.hotrocker.com/

jadotch

07-09-2003, 02:14 PM

Over head cams also use over head valves.

Guibo

07-10-2003, 03:02 AM

When you guys are converting L/100 km to mpg, are you using US units of mpg, or the UK (Imperial?) units of mpg. That might explain some of the discrepancies you're coming up with.

As with any sort of testing, there are variables. Changes in venue, driver style, overall conditions, etc. When in doubt, refer to same-day tests, such as this one done by Auto Motor und Sport. The Corvette tested there was the only one with a 4-speed automatic. The others had 5-speeds or, in the case of the Ferrari, a 6-speed. Consumption certainly didn't favor the Ferrari in that test.

Also, in a head to head test between the 993 Turbo S, NSX-T, and Viper GTS conducted by Car & Driver in '97, all three cars (having been driven over the same route on the same days) recorded identical fuel economy figures: 16 mpg.

Nash

07-10-2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Guibo
As with any sort of testing, there are variables. Changes in venue, driver style, overall conditions, etc. When in doubt, refer to same-day tests, such as this one done by Auto Motor und Sport. The Corvette tested there was the only one with a 4-speed automatic. The others had 5-speeds or, in the case of the Ferrari, a 6-speed. Consumption certainly didn't favor the Ferrari in that test.

The times he posted were more than a second off. That's a lot. I guess it's because it was a German mag.

vader

07-10-2003, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
No man, that's not what I meant. People said that F-bodies became too close in price to the Corvette, so people just forked over a little extra cash and bought Vettes instead. I meant it died because it was too expensive for the customer to want to buy it... not too expensive for GM. And with that price, GM should have been able to sell a TON if they marketed it right.

People who wanted a Camaro wanted some options. $22,500 would get you a V8 in a Camaro body. Nothing else. Crank windows, manual locks, no floor mats, wheel covers instead of nice alloy rims, no power driver's seat, AM/FM cassette, no power hatch release, ........you get my point, it had nothing but the engine and the look. At the time you could get a Mustang with a decent amount of options for that price so people who were looking for a V8 sports car went for that instead. People who wanted a Chevy product fugured "hey screw this no option stuff, if I gonna buy a V8 sports car, I want to enjoy driving it." So adding options drove the price near $30,000. Then they figured for a little more they could get an SS but if they were going to shell out that much money they might as well go for a Corvette. I love F-bodies but you can't argue them against a Corvette's resale value, performance, and image, even if the 'vette puts a little more of a dent in your wallet.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-10-2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by vader
People who wanted a Camaro wanted some options. $22,500 would get you a V8 in a Camaro body. Nothing else. Crank windows, manual locks, no floor mats, wheel covers instead of nice alloy rims, no power driver's seat, AM/FM cassette, no power hatch release, ........you get my point, it had nothing but the engine and the look. At the time you could get a Mustang with a decent amount of options for that price so people who were looking for a V8 sports car went for that instead. People who wanted a Chevy product fugured "hey screw this no option stuff, if I gonna buy a V8 sports car, I want to enjoy driving it." So adding options drove the price near $30,000. Then they figured for a little more they could get an SS but if they were going to shell out that much money they might as well go for a Corvette. I love F-bodies but you can't argue them against a Corvette's resale value, performance, and image, even if the 'vette puts a little more of a dent in your wallet.

I agree with you everywhere, except for when you said that Mustangs would offer nice packages for the same price. A nice appointed Mustang GT would run $25 or $26K... and they would get the doors blown off by a Z28. I just think not enough people KNEW this - and lack of consumer awareness = poor marketing.

PimpmobileCaddy

07-10-2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
From now on, I am going to call you "Mister I contradict myself." Seriously, look at that sentence.

So back to my previous question... why can't OHV's and VVT's go together? and where does a camshaft go in a non-OHC engine?

By the way, I apologize. The 11 mpg highway that I saw was for the Enzo. However, the Murcielago was not far off from there.

The camshaft is not in the cylinder head. It's inside the engine block using long rods to connect to the valves.

VVT's only work on OHC's becuase they need an extra camshaft inside the cylinder head to keep the valve open a little longer. A pushrod doesn't enough cams to pull this off.

You can learn more from this website.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/camshaft3.htm

PimpmobileCaddy

07-10-2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by jadotch
You can ADD Varible Valve timing AND liftto a push rod (Chevy 350 or Ford 5.0L) with aftermarket parts. It does not change the Cam profile as in OHC configurations, but instead changes the rocker arm

Heres a link

http://www.hotrocker.com/

I guess the rocker arms probaly can give some form of VVT in a pushrod. I never though of that.

Guibo

07-10-2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by henk4
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guibo
[B]That's actually ProDrive that deserve the pat on the back, not Ferrari. Great results from such a small company.

Thanks, yes I know that, and as Nildo was saying earlier on in this thread, the Ferrari was not designed as a racing car but much more like a grand tourer with decent long distance driving comfort. (The Viper from the outset is already much more of a racer and yes they did take a lot of wins). The only point I wanted to make is that the current Ferrari (whoever prepared it) with a much smaller engine is capable of beating the Vipers and more recently the Corvette's at LeMans. They are having some problems with the Saleen S7 though, but that is a mid-engined car.

Right, but whether the 550 started out as a GT is largely irrelevant, since the Prodrive team gutted the car, and practically rebuilt the entire car. All of these cars (Corvette, Viper, 550, etc.) are pretty much very well prepped race cars.
The Prodrive Maranello's engine isn't much smaller than the Corvette's (6.0 liters vs. 7.0 liters), and in the ALMS series, it's not leading in points. Chevrolet is leading.
About the engine, they went to 6.0 liters (up from 5.5), and probably would've liked more, had the Maranello's engine been capable of that displacement. As it was, they felt the 92mm bore was as safe as they could possibly get away with, given the limited cylinder-to-cylinder spacing. In any case, the ACO rules pretty much equalize the playing field, with larger displacements receiving less advantageous restrictors.

Guibo

07-10-2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Nash
The times he posted were more than a second off. That's a lot. I guess it's because it was a German mag.
Could be. Or could be due to conditions. Automatic Corvettes aren't too terribly quick, from what I've seen.

Back to the issue of fuel economy, it's sorta pointless to look at magazine tests that are done on different dates, in different seasons, under different conditions. That being said, the EPA standards are a pretty good guideline to go by, because they are done under very controlled (indoor laboratory) conditions on a rolling treadmill that simulates a wide variety of driving scenarios. If they are optimistic for one model, chances are good they are optimistic for all models, as all are tested to the same guidelines. And the opposite can be true too.

crisis

07-13-2003, 06:29 PM

Lagonda

07-27-2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Nash
The times he posted were more than a second off. That's a lot. I guess it's because it was a German mag.

Please, it's the most respected car mag in the world...

henk4

07-27-2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Guibo
That being said, the EPA standards are a pretty good guideline to go by, because they are done under very controlled (indoor laboratory) conditions on a rolling treadmill that simulates a wide variety of driving scenarios. If they are optimistic for one model, chances are good they are optimistic for all models, as all are tested to the same guidelines. And the opposite can be true too.

Just a question, do the EPA scenario's take into account that there is a general speed limit in the USA? Are these standards comparable to what is used in Europe as normalised consumption figures? (taking into account a mix of mileage in the city, secondary roads and the motorways)

Guibo

07-27-2003, 05:28 PM

Unfortunately, the EPA test does not reflect the current speed limit. From what I have read elsewhere:

"The EPA GAS MILEAGE GUIDE, available at each dealership, points out that the actual mileage when driving a vehicle may differ considerably from the estimated mileage. The guide also describes how vehicles are tested under identical conditions to ensure that the results can be compared with confidence.

The EPA GAS MILEAGE GUIDE also points out that the city fuel economy estimate simulates a 7.5 mile stop-and-go trip with an average speed of 20 mph. The trip takes 23 minutes and has 18 stops. About 18 percent of the time is spent idling, as in waiting at traffic lights or in rush hour traffic. Two kinds of engine starts are used: the cold start, which is similar to starting a car in the morning after it has been parked all night, and the hot start, similar to restarting a vehicle after it has been warmed up, driven and stopped for a short time.

The test to determine the highway fuel economy estimate represents a mixture of "non-city" driving. Segments corresponding to different kinds of rural roads and interstate highways are included. The test simulates a 10-mile trip and averages 48 mph. The test is run from a hot start and has little idling time and no stops.

The EPA GAS MILEAGE GUIDE explains that the actual test results are adjusted downward to arrive at the estimates used in the booklet and on the labels. City estimates are lowered by 10 percent and the highway estimate by 22 percent from the laboratory test results. The guide also points out that traveling at higher speeds lowers fuel economy and traveling at 65 mph instead of 55 mph lowers fuel economy over 15 percent."

With regard to the Z06, Automobile Magazine's drive of one in Europe noted:
"Even in Modena, the Corvette Z06 attracts attention. Questions are all about performance, of course. Acceleration? Oh, a bit quicker to 100 kph than a Porsche Turbo. Top speed? Oh, about 300 kph. Okay, that's stretching a bit, according to our technical director, but it's close enough for bench racing. In any case, our interrogators nod their heads, completely persuaded by the car's serious aura. Ah, yes, they say, looking at the impressive red valve covers and curved induction pipes, but it must really suck up the fuel, yes? No, not really. About 9 liters per 100 km (26 mpg). And that's where the Italian, French, and Swiss enthusiasts walk away, disgusted by our outrageous exaggeration.
But that's actually what we did on motorway trips, cruising at 93 mph plus, a bit better than in our own Renault Scenic running at 81 mph. That astonishing economy is perhaps the most impressive part of the Corvette's abilities; one expects the rest."

Of their long-term test car at home in the States, they wrote:
"Nonetheless, this is a supremely competent long-distance tourer - fast (oh so fast), comfortable, and economical. This last is a real surprise, as you don't usually expect 27 miles per gallon from a 385-hp car. Yet at a steady 80 mph, with occasional forays into the triple digits, our Z06 was sipping gas like a Corolla."

crisis

07-27-2003, 06:06 PM

Ozexige. I know this is a bit old but I have only read it. "You're right again - but some of the LS1's they put in Monaro's (HSV's, GTO's) gave them trouble and like most car makers, GMH beat around the bush about fixing them and made it worse.
They'll get it right eventually".
The LS1 in the Commodores is, as posted previously, by others a fine motor. What it lacks for in VVT, OHC etc it makes up for in basic engineering. I own a VY with an LS1 and have covered15000k with no problems or oil usege. Plenty of power , torque and not bad economy. I use it as a business vehicle with lots of stop start city driving.

ozexige

07-27-2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by crisis
Ozexige.

..............

......................
The LS1 in the Commodores is, as posted previously, by others a fine motor. What it lacks for in VVT, OHC etc it makes up for in basic engineering. I own a VY with an LS1 and have covered15000k with no problems or oil usege. Plenty of power , torque and not bad economy. I use it as a business vehicle with lots of stop start city driving.

'Vette engines, small block, big block (427 - drool...) are without doubt the sexiest engines in the world. - But
GM did beat around the bush, if your customer has a problem - fix it, don't make ANY excuses - just fix it!
ALL manufacturers (of any product) should approach problems with an attitude that says
"I want your return business and that of your friends" NOT "I don't give a shit and you're only one person, how's it gonna hurt me if I tell you to piss off!"
Talk to the truckies who tried to take on Ford (yuck! - wash my mounth out) a couple of years ago - all they got was a 'truck-load' :) of bullshit.

I WISH I OWNED A 427 MONARO.....

:D

ozexige

07-27-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Guibo
Unfortunately, the EPA test does not reflect the current speed limit..............

"...................

Yet at a steady 80 mph, with occasional forays into the triple digits, our Z06 was sipping gas like a Corolla."

Some dickhead like Guyt will still dispute the facts - but who cares - we know he's a dickhead

:D

Guyt_lame

07-28-2003, 12:42 AM

but any how

only stupid americans and convicts here

so long people

henk4

07-28-2003, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Guibo
But that's actually what we did on motorway trips, cruising at 93 mph plus, a bit better than in our own Renault Scenic running at 81 mph. That astonishing economy is perhaps the most impressive part of the Corvette's abilities; one expects the rest."

Of their long-term test car at home in the States, they wrote:
"Nonetheless, this is a supremely competent long-distance tourer - fast (oh so fast), comfortable, and economical. This last is a real surprise, as you don't usually expect 27 miles per gallon from a 385-hp car. Yet at a steady 80 mph, with occasional forays into the triple digits, our Z06 was sipping gas like a Corolla." [/B]

Well that sums it up nicely, just wondering what the gearing is, or what sorts of speed do you get in top gear running 2000 revs. Would it be possible that our aussie contributors have some fuel economy figures on LS1 fitted cars over there? Then we might get a better insight if it is the Corvette or the engine that is so frugal.

crisis

07-28-2003, 07:00 PM

The LS1 is geared pretty high in the Commodore. It comes as a six speed manual. I have posted this elsewhere but am happy to respond. I drive around the city daily as I am a sales rep and return an average from a weekly tankful of around 15-16 litres per 100k. On an interstate trip I recently completed over 2000k, I returned an average of 10lt per 100k. It sits just over 1000rpm at 110kmh in 6th.

ozexige

07-28-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by crisis
The LS1 is geared pretty high in the .............
............. On an interstate trip I recently completed over 2000k, I returned an average of 10lt per 100k. It sits just over 1000rpm at 110kmh in 6th.

F...K ME - 1000rpm at 110kmh

:cool:

Guibo

07-28-2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by henk4
Well that sums it up nicely, just wondering what the gearing is, or what sorts of speed do you get in top gear running 2000 revs. Would it be possible that our aussie contributors have some fuel economy figures on LS1 fitted cars over there? Then we might get a better insight if it is the Corvette or the engine that is so frugal.
The question with the Commodore seems to be resolved, but to answer your question, this is the gearing on the Z06:

"Final-drive ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.42:1, limited slip

Gear Ratio Mph/1000 rpm Max. test speed

I 2.97 7.4 48 mph (6500 rpm)
II 2.07 10.6 69 mph (6500 rpm)

III 1.43 15.3 100 mph (6500 rpm)
IV 1.00 21.9 143 mph (6500 rpm)

V 0.84 26.1 168 mph (6450 rpm)
VI 0.56 39.2 155 mph (4000 rpm)"

As you can see, fifth and particularly sixth are fairly lazy overdrive gear ratios. You could comfortably slot it in 5th in mild traffic on the highway, and still have a good balance of economy AND thrust to make passing maneuvers. That's where the torque provided by a large engine comes into play. MT tested a Viper on a winding mountain road, and noted you could just about leave it in 3rd gear the whole time. And I've read elsewhere that the Shelby Cobra with the 427 was capable of standing quarter mile times of 16.2 seconds. All done in top gear (4th).
With the case of the Z06, it's a combination of car and engine. It's a torquey, flexible engine combined with a lightweight car. It's some 200-300 lbs lighter than a standard Corvette. Some of that is due to weight reduction in the wheels & tires (non runflats), suspension, exhaust (made of titanium), and glass (thinner than standard Corvettes).

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-30-2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by ozexige
F...K ME - 1000rpm at 110kmh

:cool:

If it's mated to a T-56 with a .5:1 6th gear and a 3.42 rear-end... 1000 RPM @ 110 km/h is an exageration.

110 kmh/h = approx 67 mph...

In my LS1 Trans Am WS6... 67 mph is achieved at about 1500 RPMs.

I cruise typically at 80 mph (about 127 km/h) -- 1900 RPMs.

Jay 02 TA ws6

07-30-2003, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Guyt_lame
but any how

only stupid americans and convicts here

so long people

LOL...

not sure if that's really him or someone making fun...

but damn funny either way.

crisis

07-30-2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
If it's mated to a T-56 with a .5:1 6th gear and a 3.42 rear-end... 1000 RPM @ 110 km/h is an exageration.

110 kmh/h = approx 67 mph...

In my LS1 Trans Am WS6... 67 mph is achieved at about 1500 RPMs.

I cruise typically at 80 mph (about 127 km/h) -- 1900 RPMs.
Your right. I ****ed up. Its actually around 1500rpm at 110kmh. I tried it again after I wrote that bit. I pulled 90kmh at 1250rpm. Sorry. Just proves you cant believe everything some wanker writes on the web!

ozexige

07-31-2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by crisis
..........

......... proves you cant believe everything some wanker writes on the web!
Who you callin' a wanker - you wanker!

henk4

08-18-2003, 02:02 PM

once more a thread killed by ozexige, hip hip hurrah

Fleet 500

09-23-2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by guyt_x
people when are the yanks going to realise now that power and speed are produced using technology and clever ideas(there is where americans fall the most short).

American cars are all engine size and nothing else I mean really do u need a 7 litre car to achieve a 0-60 time of +-4secs ....
NO!

and the only reaon why people are nostalgic about american cars is due to that fact that they where the first "cheap" big engine cars wipee skip.

I wount even think of comparing european cars becuase there is just no comtest.

I realize this guy is banned, but I want to make a few points...

U.S. cars have been using technology and clever ideas since the 1950s (even in the late '40s with Cadillac and Oldsmobile's modern OHV V-8). In the '50s, maximum horsepower went from 180 in 1951 (Chrysler's 331-cu-in Hemi) to 390 by 1957 (Chrysler's 392- Hemi).

In some cases, a 7-liter engine is needed for a car to do a 4-sec. 0-60 mph. time. If the car owner needs a car big enough to seat 4-6 passengers and have a good-sized trunk. The mid-sized '63 Mopar Max Wedge (413 and 426 engines) and '64 Ford Thunderbolt (427) factory race cars could seat at least 5 and ran 0-60 mph. in the 4-sec. bracket (and 1/4 miles in the 12s and even high 11's).

American engines of the '60s were not only "cheap" but tough (durable). There are still some '60s American cars driving around on the original, unrebuilt engine.

guyt_x is right; in many cases, European cars can't compare to American cars.
For instance, the last I heard, the fastest 1/4 mile time for a Super Stock car (a production car with a certain amount of modifications allowed) is a 1968 Plymouth Hemi- Barracuda. Its 1/4 mile time is 9.51 secs. @ 140 mph. (approximately, I forgot the exact figure). Anyway, this time is without nitrous or a super/turbo charger.

Also, the fastest production-line cars were the 1968 Hemi- Dart and Barracuda. These were equipped with the 426-race Hemi, 12.5:1 compression ratio, 550 horsepower and a choice of 4-spd manual (4.89 gears) and 3-spd auto (4.86 gears). Right from the factory, these cars ran a mid-10 sec. 1/4 mile at 130 mph. They had functional headlights and wipers so they could be street-driven.

gtface

09-26-2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Tahoeman
he'll probably only get 25 or 26, the lingenfelter vette gets 24 with 800 hp.

how funny, having 650 hp and about 100 lbs more than an evo will net the same fuel mileage as an evo. those shitty ass pushrod engines, what a waste of gas!. oh well, at least you can tell everyone that your evo is 2 liters!!!

thank you

megotmea7

09-26-2003, 04:10 PM

acnoledging the fact that the hp/liter argument is pointless let me say this; these ricers worship the civic si for having 100hp/liter well what about the 3rd gen RX-7? 200hp/liter in american trim and 215hp/liter in later japanese trim. thats 260hp and 280hp out of a 1.3 liter engine, now stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it... hahahaha :cool:

manicmechanic

11-09-2003, 10:32 PM

well if you ask me the point here is that if you take all the "technology" from your tiny imoprt engines and apply it to your masive "american muscle" engines you will have a nice little rocket car, so stop arguing and comprimise...that is where the speed is at.:D

Rmacin247

01-19-2004, 06:02 PM

Im going to solve this whole thing right here with the worlds fastest concept Minivan Renault Espace F1 from a few years back.

Country of origin France
Produced in 1995
Numbers built 1
Body design N/A
Weight 1300 kg / 2866.0 lbs

Drivetrain
Engine RS6 67º V10
Engine location Mid, longitudinally mounted
Displacement 3.500 liter / 213.6 cu in
Valvetrain 4 valves/cylinder, DOHC
Fuel feed Fuel injection
Aspiration Naturally Aspirated
Gearbox 6 Speed Sequential
Drive Rear wheel drive

Performance figures
Power 800 bhp / 596.8 kW
BHP/Liter 228.6
Torque 705 Nm / 520.0 ft lbs
Power to weight ratio 0.62 bhp/kg
Top Speed 193.9 mph / 312.0 km/h
0-60 mph Acceleration 2.80 s

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.mv?file=car.mv&num=444

bum-man

01-19-2004, 11:09 PM

whats the point the renault v10 would last 2 seconds in the real world driving...then it would expire.

crisis

01-19-2004, 11:50 PM

Matra et Alpine

01-20-2004, 06:09 AM

whats the point the renault v10 would last 2 seconds in the real world driving...then it would expire.
Nto so bad, it was the RS6 engine and it's derivatives won 3 championships.
The 'new' Renault engine with the large angle on the V is the brittle one :)

But, even as a MAtra fan, I have to ask why would you want this ?
It was ONLY built to show what could be done and to give Renault publicity at tracks where it often acted as pace car and was used to give journos a trip in an F1 car.

Coz that is what it was, the Williams chassis with Espace body panesl stuck on top. ( OK an over simplification ).

SHAKER

01-23-2004, 07:55 PM

people when are the yanks going to realise now that power and speed are produced using technology and clever ideas(there is where americans fall the most short).

American cars are all engine size and nothing else I mean really do u need a 7 litre car to achieve a 0-60 time of +-4secs ....
NO!

and the only reaon why people are nostalgic about american cars is due to that fact that they where the first "cheap" big engine cars wipee skip.

you have subaru's and skyline's nocking the shit out of american boats on a stock level and little honda's doing it with a couple of modes. and still pulling of the whole handling thing off
(for the americans thats when you have to turn the steering wheel left and right for CORNERS!)

I wount even think of comparing european cars becuase there is just no comtest.

AMERICANS ANSWER TO EVERYTHING THING IS GO BIGGER.

most countries dont have the defense force budget to go sieze oil from poor 3rd world countries to fill up their 7litre cars
Thats a fair point, cubic inches usually create more power and torque than an engine smaller in size, this is where turbo charging /supercharging does come in to play in smaller engines to give them the capacity that a bigger engine does, however why turbo charge a small engine to give it the capacity of a larger engine?.if you got the money to tinker around and modify turbochargers and intercoolers fair enough.Where were the wrxs and evos 40 years ago when the yanks were making these muscle cars, they were producing boring arse cars with 1200 ccs, it took them a long time to catch up to the power of the american old school cars, and they are purpose built and do have better gearing , better grip and are very expensive to maintain. I think people that bag american muscle cars old and new, really havent been in them and are a little jealous of the nostalgia and looks these cars still attract.