Highest HP/L

[CivicInLake]

Wondering what the highest HP/L out of any car is

a few that i know

Delta s4 Rally car. 1.9L 485 hp = 255 hp/l
Gillet Vertigo Race Car 3.2L 959 hp = 300 hp/l
Nissan R92CP 3.5L 1078 hp = 308 hp/l

 

[Luminis]

Red Bull X2010, ~1500HP, 3L = ~ 500HP/l

 

[GTR3mh]

Here's a few interesting ones.

My fully tuned Cappucino - 204BHP/L, 134bhp from a 658cc engine.
Fully Tuned Evo IX - 251BHP/L, 502 BHP from a 1997cc engine.
PD Kart - 330BHP/L, 33 bhp from a 100cc engine.

 

[CivicInLake]

hahaha the pd kart is insane eh.

 

[Ecchi-BANZAII!!]

Make a thread about Lowest HP/L and insert any American muscle.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

Make a thread about Lowest HP/L and insert any American muscle.

HP/l is a fake metric, it's ricer BS and nothing more. What matters is power to weight, NOT power to displacement. In any race series, engines will be at the displacement limit, and use whatever induction method is allowed. After that, the only way to make power is to spin it faster. But doing so presents problems, which is why F1 engines cost so much and have such a short life. It's better, cheaper, and more rugged to up the displacement and spin it slower and get the same power out of it. The real trick is about total weight, CG, and packaging. (which is why the LS7 is superior to the Ford "modular" DOHC engine, it's larger displacement, but smaller physical size, AND lighter in weight, and makes more power to boot)

What's next, talk about how OHV is "old" technology - when it really is NEWer than OHC?

 

[CivicInLake]

why are you comparing overhead valves to overhead cams?

do you even know how an engine works?

and you must be crazy to think that an engine that is pushing out 300 hp/l and doing it reliably while only spinning 7000 rpms is worse than a large displacement engine that weighs more making the same power.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

why are you comparing overhead valves to overhead cams?

do you even know how an engine works?

Clearly more than you realize.

It was cited, because it is the same kind of trite BS that goes hand in hand with the nonsense about hp/l. Maybe not on game forums, I don't frequent these that much, but on real car forums, it's the same thing, people who beleive that hp/l means something, also beleive that OHV is "old and out dated" and that OHC is "new". They are not directly related to each other beyond that. I didn't realize my post was confusing.... or did I hit a hot button and you just felt a need to make a jab?

and you must be crazy to think that an engine that is pushing out 300 hp/l and doing it reliably while only spinning 7000 rpms is worse than a large displacement engine that weighs more making the same power.

Where did you get this from? Certainly not from what I wrote. If it's what you think you read, you might need to try again.

I don't mean to be snippy, but I'm not sure how else to say it, as it looks like you're taking a swipe, but, basing it on something that simply isn't there.

 

[Ecchi-BANZAII!!]

HP/l is a fake metric, it's ricer BS and nothing more. What matters is power to weight, NOT power to displacement.

American cars are not free from being called ricer though.
Then let's change it and make a thread about Lowest HP/Weight and still make American cars part of it.
Though I rather go by Torque since HP is nothing if it doesn't deliver.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

American cars are not free from being called ricer though.
Then let's change it and make a thread about Lowest HP/Weight and still make American cars part of it.
Though I rather go by Torque since HP is nothing if it doesn't deliver.

Torque is the real number anyway, HP is just a calculated figure. (though it's an important # once you bring gearing into the conversation) But what do you mean about it not delivering?

Also, I didn't say anything about national origin of vehicles, only 'scene' origin of said mentality. You were the one who was making baseless, ignornant remarks about a whole nation's vehicles.

 

[Ecchi-BANZAII!!]

baseless, ignornant

baseless=/=truth?
If I where ignorant I wouldn't know about those cars.

 

[Rossticles]

Useless statistic as far as a car's performance on track is concerned.

 

[Wolfe]

HP/l is a fake metric, it's ricer BS and nothing more. What matters is power to weight, NOT power to displacement.

GM's LS7 could have made 700hp instead of 500hp if it was DOHC and designed to harness HP/L. Is that "ricer BS?" I think an extra 200hp would have quite an impact on the power-to-weight ratio (and you're correct that power-to-weight is a more relevant measure of a car's performance).

I'm not saying the engine would automatically be better, either -- as you mentioned, the reason the LS7 wasn't designed to produce more HP/L is because GM wanted it to last longer without maintenance. Also, its emphasis on torque allows it to take advantage of a tall, economical 6th gear. But that only goes to show that HP/L can also be important going the other way. As much as it reflects the technology put into a car, it's also a decent indicator of things like engine strain and fuel economy (for a given displacement).

Plenty of car specs are relatively meaningless when considered alone; you just need context. Even power-to-weight doesn't tell everything, considering a Caterham 7 with the same power-to-weight ratio as a Bugatti Veyron SS would require a driver with balls of steel to wring out its performance, and couldn't even match the Veyron on longer tracks anyway because of a slower top end.

Let people have their fun. It's a videogame, you can't swap larger engines into cars, and cars have a strict "cut-off" HP that they can be upgraded to, which makes "maximum HP/L" a unique curiosity. People were even including the straight HP figure, which allows others to find out how powerful a car can be before spending the credits to find out themselves.

 

[Novamega]

Well... I would think them can am cars from the 70s would be high on the list. Right behind the fgt car ,redbull car,and them f1s .Talkin hp/L got me thinking bout that tank car ...... Torque monster....

 

[DrkPhnyx]

GM's LS7 could have made 700hp instead of 500hp if it was DOHC and designed to harness HP/L. Is that "ricer BS?" I think an extra 200hp would have quite an impact on the power-to-weight ratio (and you're correct that power-to-weight is a more relevant measure of a car's performance).

Not. Gotta love how people pull stuff out of their nether regions on forums.

Cam in the block is a more elegant engineering solution and offers many advantages for a street car (and even some for a race car). Making it DOHC would have raised the CG, would have increased the physical (external) size of the engine, and made it heavier as well (hanging 4 cams way up top is not nothing, you have to make the heads and block much stronger, that means more weight, and with aluminum, much more bulk)

2V OHV offeres much better part throttle response, and is better below the peak for both drivability and mileage. Where to road cars spend 99.9999% of their time?

Furthermore, the LS7 is capable of 8K, but it's limited for reliability reasons. Spin it faster if you want more HP/l.

I'm not saying the engine would automatically be better, either -- as you mentioned, the reason the LS7 wasn't designed to produce more HP/L is because GM wanted it to last longer without maintenance. Also, its emphasis on torque allows it to take advantage of a tall, economical 6th gear. But that only goes to show that HP/L can also be important going the other way. As much as it reflects the technology put into a car, it's also a decent indicator of things like engine strain and fuel economy (for a given displacement).

Exactly, if one is to interpret anything at all from hp/l, it's that the higher the #, the more costyl it'll be to own and run and the shorter the lifespan it will have. And nothing more.

Plenty of car specs are relatively meaningless when considered alone; you just need context. Even power-to-weight doesn't tell everything, considering a Caterham 7 with the same power-to-weight ratio as a Bugatti Veyron SS would require a driver with balls of steel to wring out its performance, and couldn't even match the Veyron on longer tracks anyway because of a slower top end.

Power to weight is about acceleration, which is important on most tracks, however, yes, you are correct that more total power, even with more weight and a worse ratio, will still allow for better lap tops on a larger, higher speed track, this is why total power is importat in and of itself, but then, it's not a ratio, just total power.

Let people have their fun. It's a videogame, you can't swap larger engines into cars, and cars have a strict "cut-off" HP that they can be upgraded to, which makes "maximum HP/L" a unique curiosity. People were even including the straight HP figure, which allows others to find out how powerful a car can be before spending the credits to find out themselves.

Fair point. However, "per litre" is still meaningless, even here (if the goal is to determine which car to buy based on what can be achieved with it), as it's total power that matters, followed by power to vehicle weight. And in that case, you'd want more displacement anyway, to allow for the higher total amount of power (assuming GT lets you put certain mods on it, like turbos and such - but then the question would be just "highest power, overall" anyway you slice it really).

 

[freedomweasel]

I think the rotary cars are all pretty high on the list and I think Ferrari has claimed the highest HP/l of any naturally aspirated engine a few times.

That said, I haven't looked around in the game to see. As said though, as a performance metric it's not particularly useful.

 

[Wolfe]

Cam in the block is a more elegant engineering solution and offers many advantages for a street car (and even some for a race car)...

In your opinion (and GM's I guess). Automotive engineers employed at manufacturers around the globe would disagree.

The advantages you've described undeniably play a factor, but they're not the whole story. Otherwise we would have nothing but OHV vehicles on the roads.

Furthermore, the LS7 is capable of 8K, but it's limited for reliability reasons. Spin it faster if you want more HP/l.

Goes to show how taking advantage of large displacement can bite you.

Exactly, if one is to interpret anything at all from hp/l, it's that the higher the #, the more costyl it'll be to own and run and the shorter the lifespan it will have. And nothing more.

Notice how even though I was the one to bring that point up, you don't see me rushing to defend the "no replacement for displacement" camp. The reliability and fuel economy woes of higher specific output are a valid generalization, but a generalization nonetheless.

As much as HP/L can point to those issues, it can also point to the technology and engineering invested into an engine. There are plenty of reliable, reasonably economical engines with a higher specific output than the LS7. And plenty of unreliable, fuel-chugging engines with a lower specific output than the LS7.

I still don't think it's a "fake metric" at all. But I understand the frustrations of those who are tired of hearing it enthusiastically overemphasized by eager "ricers," and for misguided reasons. I seem to be one of the few that sit in the middle and think the loudest members from both sides of the debate are full of hot air.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

In your opinion (and GM's I guess). Automotive engineers employed at manufacturers around the globe would disagree.

The advantages you've described undeniably play a factor, but they're not the whole story. Otherwise we would have nothing but OHV vehicles on the roads.

Not true. Regarding the elegant engineering solution, using 1 instead of 2 of something is more efficient. It is also lighter - simply by having fewer cams, it's 1 cam less weight, plus a less complicated timing arrangement (which is both more reliable for it's simplicity, and lighter), and finally, by moving the mass toward the center of the overall package, you can use less material, thus making even the block and heads lighter. And in the process you also reduce total package bulk (particularly when using aluminum), and drop overall CoG of the package. No matter how you look at it, it is a more elegant engineering solution. And this is why it was developed AFTER OHC.

Add to that the other bonuses of part throttle advantages and it just keeps looking better.

The reason you don't see it on most imports is because most imports use straight engines (6 or more commonly 4). It makes no sense NOT to use OHC with I4s and I6s.

The rest is marketing. Once the public is duped by something like this, plus you already have a rep for OHC, when you go V6, keep it. Companies do far stranger things all the time in the name of marketing.

The only reasons for OHC (S or D) is in full blown race engines that are always in a peak high rpm power band, OR, when you need to put a gun in the cylinder valley (eg, Bf-109F-K or FW-190D/Ta-152H&C).

Goes to show how taking advantage of large displacement can bite you.

Not really. Remember, GM has to warranty these things and people are stupid. Engineers always add an excessive safety margin in everything, even in their Oil Life Monitor, it lets you go so long sometimes it feels scary, but in actual fact, you could go like 25% longer (can't remember the actual figure, but it's around there somewhere). Either way, that's not a limitation of displacement. Look at NASCAR, they spin to 10K (or there abouts). And, I think they even use flat tappets.... but I could be wrong on that one, I'm really NOT a NASCAR fan (not even slightly).

Notice how even though I was the one to bring that point up, you don't see me rushing to defend the "no replacement for displacement" camp. The reliability and fuel economy woes of higher specific output are a valid generalization, but a generalization nonetheless.

As much as HP/L can point to those issues, it can also point to the technology and engineering invested into an engine. There are plenty of reliable, reasonably economical engines with a higher specific output than the LS7. And plenty of unreliable, fuel-chugging engines with a lower specific output than the LS7.

I still don't think it's a "fake metric" at all. But I understand the frustrations of those who are tired of hearing it enthusiastically overemphasized by eager "ricers," and for misguided reasons. I seem to be one of the few that sit in the middle and think the loudest members from both sides of the debate are full of hot air.

There really IS no replacement for displacement. People say "just turbo it", ok... turbo the bigger disp engine then too. If you throw 20lbs of boost at a 2.0, throw it at a 5.7 and see what you get. In fact, you could put 7lbs on the 5.7 and get better power with far less stress on the entire engine.

Thing is, people assume that disp = weight. It doesn't. It hasn't for a long time. And it doesn't = physical size either. Which is why my LS1 is about the same weight as my friends S-14 2.4L, AND could also fit in his engine bay (or a Miata's). And the LS7, is basically the same size and weight (even a touch lighter because of larger bores/thinner walls. Ditto for the 3 as well. (The 9 and A are a bit heavier if you include the supercharger.)

Honestly, it was the Swede's ignorant and utterly baseless remark that set me off, otherwise I'd never have responded.

Though, in the end, I still maintain that it's ricer math, because it provides no worthwhile information. Yet it's hyped and held up as some kind of bragging point.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

Why does this matter? All a very high HP/liter does is make the engine highly unreliable. Its basically a interesting way for Civic lovers to try to make their cars significant in the racing world. (LOL, ignorant post <<<<<<<<<<<)

 

[lukecfc]

Ferrari F2007, F10, Formula PD, X2010's and such

 

[NOS Waster]

Snip to save space.

I learned something from you today (seriously)
I always thought that OHV was worse than OHC.
I also thought that displacement equalled weight.

Thank you

 

[Wolfe]

Regarding the elegant engineering solution...

On the subject of efficiency and part plurality, OHV struggles with high RPMs because it has more moving parts in the valvetrain. I keep telling you: we're not talking about black and white, here.

On the subject of weight, less of it is always good, but the engine isn't the whole car. To address that very argument ("OHV engines are better because they're lighter") I like a little thought experiment I've used before: Take a 3000lbs. car, equal in every way, but with two engine choices; a 5.0L OHV engine, and a 5.0L DOHC engine. The OHV engine weighs 200lbs. and makes 300hp. The DOHC engine has a significant weight disadvantage, weighing over twice as much -- 500lbs. -- but manages 100hp/L, making 500hp.

You've now got a 3200lbs. car with 300hp, and a 3500lbs. car with 500hp. Which is faster? We're dealing with hypotheticals here, so a simple power-to-weight ratio will do.

On the subject of complicated timing arrangements, I've read variable valve timing with OHV is not easy (ie. complicated). Although it's been done over at GM, their system can't withstand hard driving, and is pretty much limited to SUVs and automatic transmissions (auto because engine RPM with a manual is too "unpredictable"). Another disadvantage-for-an-advantage. It should start becoming clear why cars aren't all OHV or all OHC.

The whole "bulk of package" advantage makes LSx engines and other OHVs a convenient choice for engine swaps, but that's about it; an engine is always designed or carefully selected for its application. Hell, BMW still uses DOHC inline-6s in their smallest car. And for center of gravity concerns, I'd personally take a boxer engine over any V.

The reason you don't see it on most imports is because most imports use straight engines (6 or more commonly 4). It makes no sense NOT to use OHC with I4s and I6s.

Actually, I6s are quite rare today; Japan has basically given up on it in favor of the DOHC V6. The real reason you don't see OHV on imports is because other countries tax cars based on displacement. And SOHC/DOHC will perform better (in terms of horsepower) given a certain displacement. This is one place where hp/L truly matters.

Either way, that's not a limitation of displacement. Look at NASCAR, they spin to 10K (or there abouts).

I understand you're not a fan of NASCAR (neither am I), but the engines they use are smaller than the LS7. And obviously designed for a very different set of conditions.

There really IS no replacement for displacement. People say "just turbo it", ok... turbo the bigger disp engine then too. If you throw 20lbs of boost at a 2.0, throw it at a 5.7 and see what you get.

People also love to point out when DOHC engines make the same power as larger OHV engines. Why not put DOHC on the larger engine too? We've all seen DOHC on a 2.0, throw DOHC on a 5.0 and see what you get.

Spoiler: Europe has known the answer for years (in expensive cars, yes, but expensive for a variety of reasons beyond engine tech), but Ford is now finding out for themselves.

Thing is, people assume that disp = weight. It doesn't. It hasn't for a long time. And it doesn't = physical size either...

Honestly, it was the Swede's ignorant and utterly baseless remark that set me off, otherwise I'd never have responded.

Though, in the end, I still maintain that it's ricer math, because it provides no worthwhile information. Yet it's hyped and held up as some kind of bragging point.

Fair enough. But if you're going to complain about assumptions like those, it's not fair for you to turn around and assume OHC = inefficient, too much weight, needless complexity, and too bulky.

I understand how Ecchi-BANZAII!! (c'mon, if you're going to be rudely obvious, we have names here) could have irked you with his post. But your comments have been just as needlessly dismissive as his was. Each form of valve control has its advantages, disadvantages, and appropriate applications. One happens to favor high-RPM power, another happens to favor low-RPM torque and response, and the other (SOHC) sits somewhere in the middle. That's all.

As for your final comments, we'll have to agree to disagree. But I hope you can see how hp/L might matter to someone who lives where displacement is taxed.

 

[rampageturke]

thread successfully derailed

 

[CivicInLake]

Clearly more than you realize.

It was cited, because it is the same kind of trite BS that goes hand in hand with the nonsense about hp/l. Maybe not on game forums, I don't frequent these that much, but on real car forums, it's the same thing, people who beleive that hp/l means something, also beleive that OHV is "old and out dated" and that OHC is "new". They are not directly related to each other beyond that. I didn't realize my post was confusing.... or did I hit a hot button and you just felt a need to make a jab?



Where did you get this from? Certainly not from what I wrote. If it's what you think you read, you might need to try again.

I don't mean to be snippy, but I'm not sure how else to say it, as it looks like you're taking a swipe, but, basing it on something that simply isn't there.

What you dont realize I'm getting at is, that whether or not an engine is an OHC or Pushrod (non OHC) the valves are both going to be in the head (OHV).

So I really dont see how you think you know how an engine works if you even TRY and compare two things that arent even relevant to each other.

 

[CivicInLake]

.

 

[NOS Waster]

oh my god people in here really dont know how a motor works.

id like to see one person name an engine that isnt ohv.

and another thing, there is PLENTY of 450 whp 1.6l sohc d16z6 vtec honda motors out there that are extremely reliable and run pump gas as well as spinning 10k rpms and making nearly 275hp/l which is about as much as the minolta/other lmp type cars make.

Mazda 7B, 13B, 20B, and 26B engines. (1 rotor, 2 rotor, 3 rotor, and 4 rotor respectively).
They use ports.

 

[desmosabie]

Make a thread about Lowest HP/L and insert any American muscle.

There is no replacement for displacement.

 

[CivicInLake]

Mazda 7B, 13B, 20B, and 26B engines. (1 rotor, 2 rotor, 3 rotor, and 4 rotor respectively).
They use ports.

Good job. But I'm sure you know what I meant.

 

[NOS Waster]

Good job. But I'm sure you know what I meant.

Yes, I did. I don't know of any other engines that qualify for your question-like statement thing (don't know what to call it ).

 

[CivicInLake]

Either way, HP/L does matter. It shows how capable an engine with small displacement can be. I just want to see what cars are out there that have the best HP/L so I can buy them.