New Z06 or Viper

[Quiggs]

WOT = Wide open throttle.

[Matra et Alpine]

WOT = Wide open throttle.

Thansk Quiggs.

No we dont' drive on wide open throttle.
in fact most of the time it's less than half, even accelerating away from juinctions.
The cars don't have any problems manageing it.
I think again, this discusssion hilghligts that the smaller capacity cars being driven have some serious power issues that aren't representative of the millions of cars on the roads outside of the US. My first suspicion is always the gas and the emission lawas you guys have !!

[DieterCabral]

what are you kiddin'?? THE VETTE OF COURSE!

and by the way, of course HP/L means something... its everything... ask any M3 owner

[Matra et Alpine]

Missed off the first list of WHY "specific ouptput" matters is that it is used by lubrication engineers and mechanics to decide the right oils and additives to use.
A 500hp 3 litre needs better oils than a 500hp 7 litre !!

[gtface]

Missed off the first list of WHY "specific ouptput" matters is that it is used by lubrication engineers and mechanics to decide the right oils and additives to use.
A 500hp 3 litre needs better oils than a 500hp 7 litre !!

Thats fine, so its afigure thats used as a tool for engineers. What im sick of are people claiming car A is better than car B because it has more hp/L. What a crock. I think if youve got two cars with engines that weigh the same, have the same max horspower, and car A has to rev higher to get the power than car B (because car B's engine has a larger displacemtn and hence less hp/L), then car B is a better car. I know thats only one aspect of these cars, but all other things being equal, I would take car b anyday, and i dont see why anyone else wouldnt. I think thats essentially his point here. Welll its my point anyway.

[Matra et Alpine]

I would take car b anyday, and i dont see why anyone else wouldnt. I think thats essentially his point here. Welll its my point anyway.

and as you say, your point.
But it's not immediately the correct one and is at odds with EVERY race car, every rally car and 'most' high performance cars

[Coventrysucks]

I think if youve got two cars with engines that weigh the same, have the same max horspower, and car A has to rev higher to get the power than car B (because car B's engine has a larger displacemtn and hence less hp/L), then car B is a better car.

Yeah, if that is true why has the F1 engine evolved into a 3-litre engine revving to 20,000rpm to put out ~1000bhp?

If a 6-litre engine which revved to 10,000 rpm to make 1000bhp was "better" why don't they use them?

Why has the evolution of powerplants not gone in that direction in any other country than the USA?

Are the engineers of VAG, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Renault-Nissan, PSA, Honda, FIAT etc all wrong, and the guys from Chevy, Ford USA and Chrylser all right?

If cars with low hp/ litre were "better" why wouild GM and Ford allow their foreign companies, such as most of the PAG, Mazda, Ford Europe and Ford Aus, Vauxhall, Opel, Saab and Holden to use "inferior" engines with high hp/l outputs?

I'm not saying that high hp/l is better, or low hp/l is better - I'm just saying that the arguments don't make sense.

[Quiggs]

Yeah, if that is true why has the F1 engine evolved into a 3-litre engine revving to 20,000rpm to put out ~1000bhp?

Because that's the rules in F1. The same reason NASCAR teams have to run 350ci pushrod V8's and carbuerators.

Why has the evolution of powerplants not gone in that direction in any other country than the USA?

Are the engineers of VAG, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Renault-Nissan, PSA, Honda, FIAT etc all wrong, and the guys from Chevy, Ford USA and Chrylser all right?

If cars with low hp/ litre were "better" why wouild GM and Ford allow their foreign companies, such as most of the PAG, Mazda, Ford Europe and Ford Aus, Vauxhall, Opel, Saab and Holden to use "inferior" engines with high hp/l outputs?

I'm not saying that high hp/l is better, or low hp/l is better - I'm just saying that the arguments don't make sense.

Neither way is 'better' than the other. They both have their specific applications.

[Slicks]

Well it's making a compeback now with some computer controlled ones. The BIG provblem with the early CVT and the BIGGEST problem with "perfect" CVT is the engine will always rev at the point of it's peak efficiency. So you push the accelerator and the Daf woudl reav to about 4000 revs AND STAY THERE while the car accelerated up to 60. It was the weirdest sensation. It put people off The new-gen CVTs use computers to ADD in "gear changes" so the engine operates in a band and it even programs in lurches as it changes gear to make it 'feel normal' !!! Complexitry and losses in the v-bands were a killer back then. I've not seen the transmission losses on the new ones.
Don't know if ANY of the new CVT cars are being sold to the states.

Very interesting. Are any new CVT cars being sold in europe?

HOW do you think engineers decide what changes to consider ?
Do you think they pluck ideas otu of the air ??
NO. They look at designs and their "specific outputs" and the changes new ideas made in those and then do the inital design to consider it in their new engine. If you only looked at the LS1 valves and decided it was great cos it can deliver 400bhp then the designer is likely going down a blind-alley in applying it to a 2litre I6 !! I've trued explaining this as simply as I can. If you're still not grasping the nuances of engineering DESIGN ( not build ) then I haven't anything else to add except go to a college doing engineering design and talk to them.

I understand what your saying, and yes, it makes sence, but I still doubt that designers are really concentrating on hp/l at all(except for the ones that want to market it, like honda). And even if designers are using hp/l to design some engines, its still irrelivant to compare to different engines by hp/l.

I had to go search as it was somethgin I'd researched in an early exploration of the LS1 engine online here.
Foudn this http://www.gmtruckoffer.com/company/...orvetteC5R.htm my correction, V8 missing from my first post
BUT the point was it's NOT just about small engines which you were wrongly stating.

I know its not about small displaced engines, its about engines that rev high.

Where is the definition that it is "marketing" when it is actually USED by the designers. THAT marketing use it also doesn't take away from it's role in evaluating options !!!

Like one of the above posts, its maketing because people are saying engine a is better than engine b because it produces more hp/l.

WTF !!! ????
OK, by 'proper' small cengined car I meant avoiuding the heavily modified America-market versions. Get one MEANT to be driven.
By decent gas octane I thought was blatantly obvious. Small engines are more critical of their octane fuel than large engines. The beuty of the big V8s were they coudl run on poor fuel. Small engines can't. So if you're going to experience a car that others are usign in comparisons then you need to make sure it's equivalent. Do we need to repeat that the US gets second-hand car designs for their market. Price is the key factor in the US, so you don't GET to try a car that drives easily and unfortunately some of your bias is based on that experience. BUT realise that doens'rt make the engine bad Especially when the experiences of others shows the other side.

So american modified cars are not meant to be driven? Yes, I know small engiens are more picky on the gas octine, but engineers have set a recomended fuel octine, and if that car is running on it, then whats the problem? All engines can run on "poor" fuel, but all engines dont perform well on bad fuel. Almost all the performance V8(along with any other performance engine) are running on the highest octine rating in the US. From what Ive heard our "regular" (87 octine) gas over here is equivelent to your "regular" (92? octine). It seems that your using RON octane, and were using "pump octane" which is an average of RON & MON.
RON = research octane number, in essence it means the ability to handle compression
MON = motor octane number, stability under heavy load
So are you saying that a Miata is too "americanized" to be a proper "meant" to drive car? I beg to differ.

YES I AM.
Sure there are more actions a driver will take in some circumstances.
For example when jsut toodling around then the low torque isnt' an issue. It DOES matter when you want to be fast off the lights and steep hills etc. So occasionally an extra gear change is needed. REALLY it is NOT an issue for any driver. You mkae a mountain out lf a molehill and then us it as justification for a POV. Fine, retain that POV but it's not all righjt ( not all wrong either as I said about hills )

Personally my truck was much less of a haste to drive around town than my friends RSX. The RSX required more throttle input to get to the same acceleration as the Blazer, and still didnt have that nice pushing force that you feel with torque. It felt more like the engine was under strain, and going to die.

By how much ??

Ive probably driven roughly right under 100,000 miles. (that does include vacations)

Not really Slicsk, you're repeating the same mantra.
AND getting back to hp/l, why is the fact that some folks DO uyse hp/l a problem for you. Every time it gets mentioned you dump on it. Is it just because all the US magazines are now saying it's pointless ? Coudl it be the same bias there perhaps as most American cars don't hold up well in the hp/l compo

I dump on it for the same reasons any one would dump on a bad comparison. Wouldnt you question someone that was comparing cars performace by their color? Just because car A makes more hp/l than car B doesnt mean car A in anyway is better. In most cases then car A would be worse, getting less gas milage, lower top speed, and probably the same complaints about the powerband that the S2000 went through.

That's irrelevant !! The diesel thing is nothing to do with it. I've explained WHY diesel revs low.
This ends, I've tried to let you see about hp/l and you're not grasping it. It's time to take another class

Im just trying to give you an idea. So you can easiy imagine it, and maybe understand where im coming from better. Forget how the deisel works, just image your self driving one to get the idea, that was the point.

[Slicks]

Missed off the first list of WHY "specific ouptput" matters is that it is used by lubrication engineers and mechanics to decide the right oils and additives to use.
A 500hp 3 litre needs better oils than a 500hp 7 litre !!

Very true, but you can also look at compression ratio and revs for that.

[Slicks]

Yeah, if that is true why has the F1 engine evolved into a 3-litre engine revving to 20,000rpm to put out ~1000bhp?

If a 6-litre engine which revved to 10,000 rpm to make 1000bhp was "better" why don't they use them?

Like already stated, rules. But if they were allowed to bump up the displacement do you think they would? Most likely, as long as its not going to effect the weight and size of the engine.

Why has the evolution of powerplants not gone in that direction in any other country than the USA?

US automakers may not have touched on it so much (there are a few cars) but US cars (foreign cars) still have it. Its because over here we like usable power, we dont want to have to rev to get going. Probably from the muslce car days, where used to being able to hit the throttle and instantly take off.

Are the engineers of VAG, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Renault-Nissan, PSA, Honda, FIAT etc all wrong, and the guys from Chevy, Ford USA and Chrylser all right?

Its called marketing. Why doesnt every manufactureer make a supercar? Because marketing, if it doesnt sell, they wont make it. Just like if some thing like hp/l can give a marketing advantage of "more efficient" then a company will go for it.

If cars with low hp/ litre were "better" why wouild GM and Ford allow their foreign companies, such as most of the PAG, Mazda, Ford Europe and Ford Aus, Vauxhall, Opel, Saab and Holden to use "inferior" engines with high hp/l outputs?

Like I said, we have some higher hp/l cars, but if you notice its targeted at the ricer (sport compact) market.
And what Quiggs said, different applications.

[Coventrysucks]

Because that's the rules in F1. The same reason NASCAR teams have to run 350ci pushrod V8's and carbuerators.

Not quite...

The rules have been changing in accordance with engine developments.
Not so long ago the engines were 3.5-litres, not so long before that teams were still using V8s and V12s.

The rules are there to ensure that the cars travel at sensible speeds, not to put a stop to technical development and engineering.

If the technical details proved that a large dispacement, low revving engine was the best, surely the rules would change, since F1 likes to think of itself as the most "advanced" motorsport. It wouldn't be nearly as popular if they were using old, outdated technology.

The reason that NASCAR have 350ci V8s is, presumably, because of tradition.
They have always had V8s and it wouldn't be NASCAR without them. You don't think that the NASCAR teams would jump at the chance to run an F1 engine?

I don't think the reverse would be true.

[Quiggs]

Not quite...

The rules have been changing in accordance with engine developments.
Not so long ago the engines were 3.5-litres, not so long before that teams were still using V8s and V12s.

The rules are there to ensure that the cars travel at sensible speeds, not to put a stop to technical development and engineering.

If the technical details proved that a large dispacement, low revving engine was the best, surely the rules would change, since F1 likes to think of itself as the most "advanced" motorsport. It wouldn't be nearly as popular if they were using old, outdated technology.

The reason that NASCAR have 350ci V8s is, presumably, because of tradition.
They have always had V8s and it wouldn't be NASCAR without them. You don't think that the NASCAR teams would jump at the chance to run an F1 engine?

I don't think the reverse would be true.

But there's a cap on displacement. Teams have to push the technology envelope to get that 1000hp using incredibly high revs. The same holds for NASCAR. Five years ago, the cars would turn about 7500rpm making 680hp on the big tracks, and with the restrictor plates, about 4000 making 400hp. Today they regularly run to 9500rpm making 800+hp, and at Daytona and Talladega, they're running 475hp at 4800rpm.

[PsychoChimp22]

Matra and Slicks stop being such babies!!!
Both of these are accepted measurements of efficiency, and both are important!!!
Neither is "better" than the other...

[Matra et Alpine]

Very true, but you can also look at compression ratio and revs for that.

BUT LUBRICATION ENGINEERS USE SPECIFIC OUTPUT.
BECAUSE it embodies an all-encompassing measure of revs, torque, power, torsional twists, beargin pressures etc etc.

Please do some personal research, there are plenty of sites by luibrication companies and it'll save me having to repeat the FACTS about "specific output" beacuse yout bias doesn't want to hear the reasons and the application of it.

Personally I can understand the chip on the shboulder of all American drivers of American cars given the upsurge of Japaness small capacity high tune and boost engines whic are alien for many reasons. BUT they don't remove the FACT that hp/l IS used in the industry. Neither does it mean it's any better. Acceleration is a good measure of you want to accelerate. 'g' on skid pan is great if you want to go in circles. Track time is good if you want a fast track car. Fuel consumption is good if you care for the planet or your wallet. Do I need to go on ? hp/l is good to provide a measure of the design extracting the power from the available components. It's neither better or worse than the others, IT IS DIFFERENT.

BIG torquey 'lazy' V8/10 owners won't agree, because it makes their ideal choice look bad. It's kind of like those clips where GWB clearly can't criticise himself or use negative terms about himself. There is MORE strength in acknowledging them. So a Viper has les hp/l than a Civic Type-R. SO WHAT if Japanese designers did a better job of extracting more power from the available resources. IF the engine you drive meets YOUR needs that shoudl be enough. If hp/l is recognised for the value it provides it doesn't lessen the others. THIS I think US journalists dont' like and backlash on the metric