Why people choose an inferior engine.Originally Posted by PerfAdv
Why people choose an inferior engine.Originally Posted by PerfAdv
Easily the best post in this thread, almost sig worthy...Originally Posted by mehrshadvr4
It's because people like to hate on America.Originally Posted by digitalcraft
I'll take the Porsche 911 GT3's 3.6L flat-6 thank you very much. Screw BMW and Corvette. If that is not better than both of these engines, then what is?
I don't disagree with you but you have to see the other side of the equation. The capacity difference between the LS7 and M5 engine is about 2,000cc, in technology-dipped cars (i.e. S2000) that's worth about 240 Hp. The LS7 does have its advantages, but why are its advantages the determinants of core values that matter? To me, the M5 makes almost as much power while having about 30% less displacement.Originally Posted by Slicks
I know displacement doesn't add weight and OHV further saves weight. How about the engine block stiffness/strength? A block with more material is stronger or one with less material overall, and between hollow areas.
Edit: more not less
Last edited by PerfAdv; 12-01-2006 at 12:21 AM.
"Racing improves the breed" ~Sochiro Honda
Slicks, stop punching walls and yelling at everyone around you because people disagree with your opinion.
I like the M5's engine over the LS7. I guess I'm an absolute idiot.
Rockefella says:
pat's sister is hawt
David Fiset says:
so is mine
David Fiset says:
do want
gotta love the LS7....wish i had enoff $$ to swap it into my 240sx, it'd make it better @ cornering too than with the stock ka24de,lol.
the ls7 barely does much to get 500hp(even when bein restricted), the m5 engine has to have all this technology(look @ them headers!, so nice & shiney) to be able to make such hp, its about the best performer, at least in my opinion, i'd rather go for performance than luxury.(again, my opinion)
ls7 is just such a nice piece of art, its simple yet badass, the M5....meh, its supposed to be that way because its from BMW(just like the M3 GTR engine, which sucks if it ever breaks because ya gotta take it to a BMW dealership, not autozone to be able to read ecu codes,lol, yet still makes good power)
(oh and to those that say ohc is newer than ohv(if any), go ready some history about engines, ohc is older than ohv)
1993 nissan 240sx hatchback(stock) <<drifter, straight liner, road courser
"Horsepower is the force that determines how fast you hit the wall. Torque is the force that determines how far you take the wall with you after you hit it."
"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" - Carroll Shelby
"Real cars don't make power at the front wheels....they lift them."
Well, it is a bit harder to make 500 hp out of 5.0 liters than it is 7.0.Originally Posted by TheOne
Rockefella says:
pat's sister is hawt
David Fiset says:
so is mine
David Fiset says:
do want
30% more displacement, but equal power to the M5's engine....but less weight and better torque/power curve(s) than the M5's engine. Seriously, what's the point of arguing over displacement? Air doesn't add weight.Originally Posted by PerfAdv
Technology dipped? You mean high-stressed? How useable are the 240 hp in the S2000? Torque curve?Originally Posted by PerfAdv
TORQUE CURVE????------>The LS7 isn't made of stones. It is a modern engine. How many large displacement V8's do you know of that could rev that high? Just because it doesn't have an exotic configuration, rev past 8000 rpm, or shown everywhere as a cutaway does not mean it is stone-age.Originally Posted by S2000
-----------------------------------
Here goes your 100hp/L LS7.
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...ad.php?t=24670
But lets not get into the tuning potential of the two engines.
Rocke has the gist.
People are biased. I am biased. Rocke is biased. Slicks is biased. Maybe some of us are not biased - but I doubt it. Even if we try to evaluate something from a neutral perspective, people can accuse us of bias.
Which engine is better? I don't know first hand. I am no expert. GM and BMW both clearly have made excellent engines in this case it seems, saying one or the other is better is very difficult, but bashing someone because of dissent achieves nothing.
Take into account the expert's view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_S85
I would rather Porsche have won it, due to my like of that marque, but I'd rather BMW than GM. Sue me - I am biased. For whatever reason - rational or irrational - I bet many of us have a certian preferance in car makers and would rather them be better than others.
Slicks, it would seem you in fact are biased towards America cars, so saying that anyone against American cars are foolish seems just as foolish as coming into this argument with your mind already made up. The true way to approach any argument is with an open mind ready to absorb new information - it seems this is not your goal. This question asks not even what engine is better in terms of performance first of all - but what you;d rather in YOUR car. Even if it did ask what was the better engine, it is hard to evaluate immeadeatly before others have weighed their opinion. As for saying you weren't angry when writing your posts, that seems a little far fetched, as I am slightly angry when writing this I must admit. The venom in your words betrays your true emotions which you seem to then rationalize by stating that it is entirely logical while it seems clear to many that you are speaking from passion, not logic. We are humans, not machines - I often wish we were all perfectly logical, but we are not. Our arguments are rarely airtight, especially when we exhibit initial bias - this often leaves our so-called logical arguments nothing but porous words that are fueled by emotion, not reason. Is my argument airtight? I doubt it. Is it fueled by emotion? Certianly, but I have tried to have a large amount of reason mixed with that emotion.
Hating and bashing usualy achieves little. It does not promote an open discussion and only reduces the level of discussion to a pathetic insult ridden yelling contest. To promote proper, gentlemanly discussion, we need to use proper passionless critical rebuttal, but this will never happen, as a great man once said: "There is nothing more exilirating in life than pointing out the shortcomings of others, is there?"
Less the hate, more the love.
P.S. This is the third time I have written this reply and I think the second time I wrote it was the best and I am quite tired.
Ah, c'mon. I like to pride myself on having VERY little bias.Originally Posted by Kitdy
Rockefella says:
pat's sister is hawt
David Fiset says:
so is mine
David Fiset says:
do want
I like to do that as well. And OK, not everone is horribly biased, but it is tricky to offer a neutral opinion when something you love is up agianst something you hate.Originally Posted by Rockefella
Displacement vs technology is a circular argument. I don't want to really want to go there. Let's just say it's easier to make more power with more cubic inches. Easier on the engine aswell. And because the engine isn't as stressed you can drive it easier and consume less fuel. Whats the point of driving it easy, we're talking about performance cars. All-out, I doubt the LS7 will sip fuel...Originally Posted by -What-
It's useable, just not as you'd drive a torque-rich engine. You can't have a small displacement engine without forced induction that has gobs of torque. Torque is mostly a function of displacement.Technology dipped? You mean high-stressed? How useable are the 240 hp in the S2000? Torque curve?
TORQUE CURVE????------>
No, it isn't made of stones. And you don't necessarily need cutting edge technology to go fast, displacement just makes it easier.The LS7 isn't made of stones. It is a modern engine. How many large displacement V8's do you know of that could rev that high? Just because it doesn't have an exotic configuration, rev past 8000 rpm, or shown everywhere as a cutaway does not mean it is stone-age.
Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_300SEL_6.3
The 300 SEL is from the 60s and using its 6.3 liter it performed quite well. Today's Mercedes AMG 6.3 makes more than twice as much horsepower but just a little more torque. Torque is an automatic benefit but to make the Hp it took 40 years of technology.
Technology with displacement is the best of both worlds.
Last edited by PerfAdv; 12-01-2006 at 01:32 AM.
"Racing improves the breed" ~Sochiro Honda
No its actually an engine, a well designed engine that has been round for ages, it has large displacement for torque, short stroke length for revability. Its actually quite durable until high revs over 7500rpm are used for extended periods (race applications- I know slicks not the real world ).ls7 is just such a nice piece of art, its simple yet badass,
Cant quite work out why the V8 fanboys are always trying to change everybodys minds, people may like 4, 6, V10 etc, it doesnt mean we are anti LSX engines. People like different engines and arent always interested in cubic inches.
Slicks your very good at taking shots at people via the keyboard, me thinks in real life it would be a very different manner. Some of your responses if said in real life situations would get you in trouble.
SA IPRA cars 15, 25, 51 & 77
Sharperto Racing IP Corollas
http://www.sharperto.com.au/
The question was, which is more impressive. IMO, getting 500hp from 5L is more impressive than a similar HP figure from a higher displacement, as is having 2 more cylinders with 2L less displacement.
I am the Stig
Low-end torque + classic engine note = bigger impression left on me.
The M5 sounds hideous at idle, and Honda got more bhp/l out of a smaller engine- more impressive than some jumped-up German saloon with the same torque as a lawnmower. I find the V10 to be one of the more boring engines- the 3.2 straight six got more bhp/l (as if that even matters) and more torque (proportionately), and it does that whilst sounding better than most Ferrari engines.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)