Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 116

Thread: Hp displacement ratio

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,038
    Yes, I have checked and cross-referenced my facts. It would seem that the base spec Ford RS200, in 1986, got 205 bhp out of a 1.8L, 300 out of the same engine in a higher state of tune, a 350bhp, a 450hp works car, aswell as a high spec 2.1L version estimated at a power output of between 550 and 650 hp(depending on who you ask).

    Quite potent for a little four pot, eh?
    Go n-ithe an cat thu, is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat

    When you go Home, Tell them for us and say 'For your tommorrow, We Gave Our Today.'

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Redneckville, AL
    Posts
    622
    Does anybody remember the Toyota Eagle MkIII? Output was 750hp from 2.1L.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Slicks

    You still dont understand that saying? Theres no replacement for [adding] displacement, only alternatives. Going FI for example is an alternative, not a replacement, because there are more downfalls to it, than adding displacement (to an extent).
    you haven't disappointed me here, I was even considering to specifically mention you in my post , but you took the bait graciously without that. Well done
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St Marys Western Sydney
    Posts
    20,953
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4
    you haven't disappointed me here, I was even considering to specifically mention you in my post , but you took the bait graciously without that. Well done
    This'll really get you going, Americans quite often used 1hp/cubic inch for a relative judge of whether an engine was good or not in the 60's and 70's.
    I am the Stig

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    Quote Originally Posted by fpv_gtho
    This'll really get you going, Americans quite often used 1hp/cubic inch for a relative judge of whether an engine was good or not in the 60's and 70's.
    me going? me thinks Slicks would be the one
    Anyway he will also be delighted with Callaway's latest project, a 4-litre DOHC V16, intended BHP 550...
    http://www.callawaycars.com/V16/
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    2,496
    Originally Posted by Slicks directed at our esteemed Henk4
    You still dont understand that saying? Theres no replacement for [adding] displacement, only alternatives. Going FI for example is an alternative, not a replacement, because there are more downfalls to it, than adding displacement (to an extent).
    So tell us all the advantages and disadvantages Slick, I cant wait

    If you increase the bore of an engine to it maximum, you run the risks of fragile cylinder walls, if you increase the stroke the piston speed goes up so the available revs will be less because the piston speed is increased in relation to rpm's


    remember Henk as Slick has already stated/insulted many people on this forum, re the HP/litre argument. Its a redundant argument, that only NOOBS and engine builders worry about . At the moment we are chucking out our 2litre turbo boat anchors out of our race cars and installing the superman of all engines - faster, lighter, stronger than all other engines ever produced the MIGHTY CHEVY LS-X engine, its only weakness isnt Kryptonite but piston slap J/K Slicks
    SA IPRA cars 15, 25, 51 & 77
    Sharperto Racing IP Corollas
    http://www.sharperto.com.au/

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    Quote Originally Posted by charged
    So tell us all the advantages and disadvantages Slick, I cant wait

    Oh, please, not again
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by derekthetree
    weight?
    real world fuel economy?
    having a higher HP/L rating doesn't mean your engine is lighter...

    Although increasing a small engine's specific output would increase total power without increasing weight it brings up the next issue I stated.

    The higher specific output means more energy is being wasted... The higher the Hp/L rating the worse the fuel economy (normally)

    You wanna lose weight? build your engine with lighter materials
    You wanna keep good fuel economy? don't increase the specific power and run leaner...

    .... The last part is really general so no hissy fits ok?
    Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
    Engine torque is an illusion.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Sweeney921
    I'm quite sure they dyno the engines at the crank. It's not made up.


    They manage to post such ridiculously quick times (0-60mph in ~1.5 seconds), but they never weigh more than 10 pounds and their wheels are 2-3 inches in diameter, which maximizes their torque. So saying that they post nasty fast times doesn't support any claim that they have powerful engines. Their quickness comes from a super low hp/lb.

    I want a HPI Nitro RS4 Evo 3 for christmas
    Very true, i went of topic, but lets take this into consideration: a company that can make a 5 cilinder radial engine that you can hold in one hand, surely can measure precisley it's horse power.
    "Religious belief is the “path of least resistance”, says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort."

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99
    The higher specific output means more energy is being wasted... The higher the Hp/L rating the worse the fuel economy (normally)
    is that fuel economy as expressed in units consumed over a given period or expressed as units in relation to the absolute performance. Increased performance will require more energy....
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York-Staten Island
    Posts
    215
    Ferrari engines do the math
    Ferrari will be WCC. Whoever wins the WDC will be from the Scuderia.........Yet who?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    6,066
    Quote Originally Posted by sicilian973-2
    Ferrari engines do the math
    Cough fanboy cough.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    2,975
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99
    having a higher HP/L rating doesn't mean your engine is lighter...

    Although increasing a small engine's specific output would increase total power without increasing weight it brings up the next issue I stated.

    The higher specific output means more energy is being wasted... The higher the Hp/L rating the worse the fuel economy (normally)

    You wanna lose weight? build your engine with lighter materials
    You wanna keep good fuel economy? don't increase the specific power and run leaner...

    .... The last part is really general so no hissy fits ok?
    I highly disagree. Its all about creating a steady combustible mixture in the cylinder. that can be done at lots of revs (high hp/litre) just as well...i think
    autozine.org

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,734
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99
    having a higher HP/L rating doesn't mean your engine is lighter...
    like-for-like wrt power, it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99
    The higher the Hp/L rating the worse the fuel economy (normally)
    normally, the higher the L rating the worse the fuel economy.
    How can men use sex to get what they want?
    Sex is what they want. - Frasier

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northampton, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,989
    vAyren has 3000hpz itz da best.

    In before this turns into Slicks vs Europe.
    [O o)O=\x/=O(o O]

    The things we do for girls who won't sleep with us.

    Patrick says:
    dads is too long so it wont fit
    so i took hers out
    and put mine in

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. American Muscle...from 1957
    By BMW325 in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-28-2009, 04:18 PM
  2. Toyota Avensis (T250) 2003-2009
    By dracu777 in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-30-2006, 01:08 AM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-16-2005, 03:44 AM
  4. Battle of the hatches
    By dcsbeemer in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-28-2005, 03:46 PM
  5. variable compression ratio
    By KnifeEdge_2K1 in forum Technical forums
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-01-2004, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •