Engine comparison

  • Thread starter Thread starter inferno
  • 22 comments
  • 931 views

Which engine would you prefer?

  • 240 hp, 2.0 liter, na, 9000-10000 RPM redline

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • 240 hp, 2.0 liter, turbo, 6000-7000 RPM redline

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • 240 hp, 2.5 liter, na, 6000-7000 RPM redline

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • Total voters
    18
inferno

inferno

Messages
1,128
Of the following 240 hp engines which would you prefer for each category of racing (track, drag, etc) and why?

DOHC 16 valve, 2.0 liter, inline 4 cylinder, n\a, 9,000-10,000 RPM redline.

DOHC 16 valve, 2.0 liter, inline 4 cylinder, turbo, 6,000-7,000 RPM redline.

DOHC 16 valve, 2.5 liter, inline 4 cylinder, n\a, 6,000-7,000 RPM redline.
 
Drag: #3. No turbo lag, more low end torque.
Track: #1. Lighter than #3, with higher top end acceleration.
 
You should have made this a poll.

I'd take #2. No engine should be without a strong, high pressure turbocharger. Especially a small 4 cylinder, which would otherwise have wimpy torque.
 
Wouldn't a 240 hp n/a engine with a high redline be best? That means you could add a turbo and get a lot more power out of it....Whatever...I'm out
 
You should have made this a poll.
Click to expand...

Done. (for better or worse)

For drag racing I would say number three. although engines number two and three would weigh about the same, and be pretty much even on power after 3500 rpm (when the boost really kicks in) number three would have more torque in the lower rev region (3000, 2500) for better launches.

For a track vehicle I would go with engine number one, as it would be the lightest of the group. also the higher redline would mean better top speed and similar acceleration with the same transmission. or with revised gear ratios it could have better acceleration with similar top speed to the others, or any combination of the two.
 
Quick_Nick
You should have made this a poll.

I'd take #2. No engine should be without a strong, high pressure turbocharger. Especially a small 4 cylinder, which would otherwise have wimpy torque.
Click to expand...

It would continue to have wimpy torque until 3000rpm.
Which is why #3 is better for the strip, as inferno said.

But, to say that it would need a turbo otherwise it's crap, is so completely rediculous.
Turbo or no turbo, IT STILL CREATES THE SAME POWER!

All of the above engines are 240hp, TURBO INCLUDED. Which would mean that engine would actually produce 100 or lower (depending on size of turbo) without it.

Wait a minute. That just creates a big gap in the whole thread.

Edit: Now that I think about it, that would mean that #2 is actually the worst engine of the bunch.
 
Engine A is NOT crap!

Engine B is crap.

Engine A has a higher redline meaning you can use shorter gears which amplify torque more and yet you can still have good top speeds and higher shift points. Although it will generally make less torque at the crank than the 2.5L it will still make more torque with the shorter gears. Since all the motors make the same power the turbo motor is crap. Why would you want a turbo over n/a when they would make the same power, the turbo has disadvantages, n/a doesn't.

Engine C MIGHT be better for drag racing, but Engine A is better for basically any other motorsport.
 
So it's just a tossup between 1 and 3. depending on its use.

If you start to consiter the engine being in a daily driver, it further pushes #2 away due to turbo being a waste in such an aplication.

Engine #2 is basicly an 80's Nissan Sentra Engine with an added turbo. (Except I think that engine was lower than 2.0. But still. It doesn't destroy the point)
 
The 2.0 turbo engine is lighter & gets better fuel economy than the 2.5. Turbo lag is also very overestimated. I mean, it only takes a quarter second or so for the turbocharger to get to maximum pressure. Even if it gets it's peak torque at 3, to 4, rpm, you want torque at medium rpm, because the car struggles for traction at initial acceleration.
 
Drifting Thunda
Why would you want a turbo over n/a when they would make the same power, the turbo has disadvantages, n/a doesn't.
Click to expand...

N/A has disadvantages for a drag race when it produces peak power at around 9000RPM.
 
Engine #2 is an SR20DET

#1 looks like a Honda motor.

#3, I would guess, would be a Subaru motor? (FJ25 is it?)

Anyway, where's the option for "DOHC 16 Valve, 2.4 Liter, Turbo, 6000-700RPM Redline"? (KA24 Turbo!)
 
M5Power
N/A has disadvantages for a drag race when it produces peak power at around 9000RPM.
Click to expand...
But you don't know that. For all you know the peak power is much lower. My '86 redlines at 6,000 but the power drops off after 5,000.

Sorry Quick_Nick, but the turbo engine is in fact the HEAVIEST of the 3. Have you ever held a turbo and intercooler and compenents? They do weigh quite a bit.

Also, if the 2.5L is the same block as the 2.0 but bored out more, than it is actually the lightest of the 3 motors.

My vote stays that the best overall motor is Engine A, though I still think Engine C is probably better for drag racing.

Are these theory motors or real motors? Engine A reminds me of the Honda S2000 motor.
 
Provided all other factors are the same, the 2.5L engine will last longer and prolly be more economical which makes it a better daily driver.

But since you're asking for track, drag, racing....
It would be no1. because it will be lighter than the other 2 and it makes the same power!

Key word is power...and thats 240hp. So get the lighter engine!
 
The answer is none. Without an actual plot of the torque and horsepower curves, there is no way to arrive at any meaningful conclusion. You could GUESS and that'd be about all.


M
 
Drifting Thunda
That's what we're doing...
Click to expand...

..and that's fine. Except there are so many variables left out of the question, you could come to a million different conclusions and they'd all be right.

They are all 240 hp, but at what engine speed? What is the gearing on the tranny attached to motor A? What kind of response on the turbo? Is it laggy or is it quick? Does it make 58 lb-ft of torque from 2000-6500 RPM, then when the turbo finally kicks in it makes 265 lb-ft but only for 500 RPM? How early does the torque peter out on motor C? Does it make 180 ft-lbs at 2400 RPM, 250 @ 4,000, but then nose dives to 120 @ 6000?

What kind of car is the motor put in? Is it FWD? Is it MR? It all matters.


M
 
Are these theory motors or real motors?
Click to expand...

just theory motors. the idea was to capture the essence of the three basic means through wich tuners extract more umph from an engine. in this case the powerplant subjected to these methods would start out as something like this.

200 hp DOHC 16 valve 2.0 liter 4 cylinder n\a 6,000-7,000 rpm

as i said all the motors generate 240 hp but all of them go about it diferently. one with more rpm, one with a turbo, and one with more displacement. Typicly you can approximate an engines dynamic performance by looking at how it developes its power. the high rpm engine will be rather peaky, the turbo engine wil be similar to the larger displacement motor but suffer from low rpm turbo lag, and the larger motor wil be most flexable of all, producing horsepower and torque in more equal numbers. knowing that, we can then determine, with the engine as our one variable, (all other factors being the same) which one will perform better in a given arena.

and yes it is to be asumed that all the engines are based on the same block and that the power peaks are at or near the redline, as I realize that changes things.
 
I make the assumption that the base of the redline is also the arrival of peak power. Otherwise this is stupid.
 

Latest Posts

Back