The truth about American's Horsepower

[LeadSlead#2]

true...I was thinking for some reason they only updated in 05....either way, I'll sing the praises of Japan the day a GM V-8 makes way more HP than Torque

 

[neanderthal]

last & least, anyone, & I do mean anyone, name a good SOHC engine

BMWs M10 engine is a good engine;
bore 3.504 in (89.0mm)
stroke 3.150 in (80.0 mm)
capacity 121.44 cu in (1990cc)
compression ratio 8.5: 1
100 hp @ 5500rpm
115 lb/ ft @3000rpm
redline 6400rpm

what exactly are the parameters that define good?
torque output?
weight?
power output?
fuel economy?
cost?
durability?
reliability?
.....?


i can name several based on each of those parameters.

 

[Driftster]

Good = combination of everything you mentioned

 

[LeadSlead#2]

I've always hated SOHC engines -- why? not because they can't make power, not beacuse they can't make torque, or any other reasons you mentioned
I hate them because they have a strange mediocre powerband, that doesnt like revving high & doesnt do well in low-rpm's either...every one I've ever driven felt no more peppier than a DOHC in the low & didnt seem any better than an OHV in the high
aka 03 & 01 Mustang GT's 02 Civic EX 130HP vtec & an old GM quad 4 SOHC was far worse than the DOHC & no better (faster or more powerful) than their ancient early 80's OHV 4cyl

 

[neanderthal]

the OHC engines are the best of both worlds of the DOHC engine and the OHV engine.

they can produce good torque.
they can have high rpm although they dont make good power at higher rpms.

however, the torque production for a DOHC engine is usually subpar in comparison to the OHC engine. the extra efficiency of the 2nd valve gives the DOHC engine that "hit" at high rpms as the power comes on extending the rev range and making it seem like its a better engine for the extra power and longer rpm duration.

case in point. my mercedes 300E also came in a 24 valve twin cam version (in rest of the world. that engine was only used here in the 300CE from 1990 to 1992) the twin cam engine had lower torque all round but higher hp and a higher 7000rpm redline. that higher redline was not because the SOHC engine couldnt rev that high, but because the twin inlet valves of the DOHC motor could take advantage of the revs there then SOHC couldnt.


most two valve engines dont make power higher than 6000rpms. some do im sure, though i cant think of one. most dont. most 4 valve engines make thier best power above 6000rpms. some dont, most do. thats just the nature of physics and the effects of airflow and the limitations of the valve system and so on, not the design of the engine per se.

 

[niky]

How about ricey motors? Honda D15B SOHC - 130hp, perfectly respectable for a fifteen year old 1.5. But then, I'm all for DOHC.

The only disadvantage I see for SOHC is they don't have the flexibility that DOHC engines have, and usually can't be tuned as easily. In race prepped motors, that's not a problem, but for street driving, they're not as good.

 

[neanderthal]

in street driving they (OHC) tend to be better (than DOHC multivalve) since they have better low down torque.

 

[Wolfe]

Damn. The Bonneville specs came from Carfolio.com, where apparently someone made a mistake entering the torque spec (the engine is reported to make 300Nm, and the lb.ft. figure was calculated accordingly, I suppose).

BMWs M10 engine is a good engine;
bore 3.504 in (89.0mm)
stroke 3.150 in (80.0 mm)
capacity 121.44 cu in (1990cc)
compression ratio 8.5: 1
100 hp @ 5500rpm
115 lb/ ft @3000rpm
redline 6400rpm

I'll second that vote!

 

[LeadSlead#2]

I assume you realize you just backed me up 100%
like I said, if u want low-down get an OHV & if you want up-high get a DOHC

 

[neanderthal]

Damn. The Bonneville specs came from Carfolio.com, where apparently someone made a mistake entering the torque spec (the engine is reported to make 300Nm, and the lb.ft. figure was calculated accordingly, I suppose).



I'll second that vote!

yeah he never listed a specific period for he engine so i thought id dig one up from BMWs archives. for an engine that size from 40yrs ago thats good numbers. great numbers.

 

[Wolfe]

yeah he never listed a specific period for he engine so i thought id dig one up from BMWs archives. for an engine that size from 40yrs ago thats good numbers. great numbers.

Yeah, except they barely changed over the years...my 20-year-old M10 makes about the same power and torque, but from 1.8L...

Anyway, there's also the 1.5-liter, 80psi turbocharged, up-to-1500-hp beast that was the 1980's F1-spec M10. Hard to argue with a 1000hp/L ratio. Then the S14, which was a development of the M10, which developed a hearty 300-some naturally-aspirated horses from 2.5 Liters in the Group A E30 M3 racecar...

If it's fair to call you a 60's/70's BMW guy, I'm more of an 80's BMW guy...

I assume you realize you just backed me up 100%
like I said, if u want low-down get an OHV & if you want up-high get a DOHC

...and as we've been trying to explain to you, if you want a blend, with decent low and high power, get a SOHC. Or would you argue that the only two types of cars worth racing are an autocross gokart and a top fuel dragster?

As for the V8 vs 6-cylinder debate, I gave the search another go, and found these within a matter of minutes....

1987 Toyota Crown - 4.0L Naturally-Aspirated DOHC V8 - 250bhp / 260lb.ft
2002 Mercedes-Benz SL 350 - 3.7L Naturally-Aspirated SOHC V6 - 241bhp / 258lb.ft

 

[neanderthal]

well, they did graft on two more cylinders to make the "big six" that BMWs are famous for. and the last variant of that was used in the 1989 735i and 735iL. thats a long span for an engine. 1962/63-1989 in its various guises.

i wouldnt be surprised if the 4 liter V8 had the same bore spacing as the M10. after all, when i worked for mercedes, the simply used two 3 liter inline sixes connected at the crank to make the 6.0 liter vee 12. the right side (passenger) side cylinder head was exactly that from a 3 liter in line six.

 

[430_Riviera]

Wow, interesting thread, full of just about the largest amount of bull**** since Bush got in the first time.

Comparing v6-v8 is difficult to nigh on impossible, they have entirely different characteristics and powerbands. The 8 is far more likely to be making it's power and torque lower down, say around the 2500 RPM level for torque and 5000 for power, so a 6 is struggling from the off. You should always be able to tell the difference (if you were deaf) between a 6 and an 8 when you hit the throttle.

A quick google brings up lingenfelter... who have an 800 hp twin turbo kit for the C6 Zo6, making the already supercharged GT seem a tad wasteful (plus the fact that I live in the U.K. and Ford GTs have just breached the £220,000 mark over here)

Now, if European and Japanese engines are so damn good, why do top fuel and funny cars all use good old American v-8s? 10-12 cylinders for more power, don't be stupid, don't make no difference to power, just the way it is delivered (a single cylinder bike is far more likely to fling you off the back of the seat than a soft 4 cylinder) 6000HP seems quite reasonable with super charging from around 8.0 liters and it ain't coming from an all aluminium 4 cylinder.

As for weight, the American way has always been to throw more cubes at the issue, hence the developement of N/A technology and the fact that I can now go and buy a 950 HP Crate motor for about $12,000 that runs on pump gas without forced induction and a 2 year warrenty and slot it into a 2.0 ton + station wagon and go run 9s (without nos) all day.


'1965 Aston Martin DB6 -- 4.0L Inline-6, naturally aspirated. 282bhp, 273lbft
2003 2003 Pontiac Bonneville GXP -- 4.5L V8, naturally aspirated. 275bhp, 221lbft'

So what? Your comparing a (what was at the time) a British, hyper expensive super car with a modern semi expensive camry competitor? Congratulations... have a peanut.
I think you'll also find that the Northstar motor does far more to the gallon than that straight 6 ever did.

One more thing, a larger motor will almost always produce better fuel mileage on the motorway, our 3rd gen camaro managed 28 MPG slotted into overdrive at 1800 RPM @ 75 MPH whereas the Citroen XM 2.0 litre we had never broke 25. Even the late 60s Buick 7.0 litre we've got now sees 22 MPG on the motorway.

 

[retsmah]

good job clearing up all that bull****.

 

[JNasty4G63]

.....who have an 800 hp twin turbo kit for the C6 Zo6, making the already supercharged GT seem a tad wasteful

You would still have a warranty on the GT at least. So, when they both break, which they will, at least one is covered. But either way, comparing an aftermarket car to a stock car is lame anyway. Hey, I've seen a Supra make 1000hp and only cost $40k for the whole car with mods. What does that mean??? Nothing. Thats what.

Now, if European and Japanese engines are so damn good, why do top fuel and funny cars all use good old American v-8s?

Because its in the rules, thats why.

.....6000HP seems quite reasonable with super charging from around 8.0 liters and it ain't coming from an all aluminium 4 cylinder.

Yea, the big Hemis that they use in Top Fuel and Funny Cars are just bone stock engines with a supercharger. Anyone can do that. Um, no. Its all well and good that they get that much power. They rebuild the engine after every run. Hell, you can get 1000hp from a 4cyl if you want it to just run once like they do in Top Fuel.

.....I can now go and buy a 950 HP Crate motor for about $12,000 that runs on pump gas without forced induction and a 2 year warrenty

If you really think you can get that ammount of power for that ammount of $$$, I have some hot property on the moon to sell. Its in a prime spot, you'd love it.

So what? Your comparing a (what was at the time) a British, hyper expensive super car with a modern semi expensive camry competitor? Congratulations... have a peanut.

And, if you would have actually read through the thread, you'd see that we already discussed that comparison. His specs were off for the GXP, over and done. Way to go, have a peanut.

One more thing, a larger motor will almost always produce better fuel mileage on the motorway, our 3rd gen camaro managed 28 MPG slotted into overdrive at 1800 RPM @ 75 MPH whereas the Citroen XM 2.0 litre we had never broke 25. Even the late 60s Buick 7.0 litre we've got now sees 22 MPG on the motorway.

So, you have on 4cyl car in who knows what kind of shape, compared to 2 V8 cars in who knows what kind of shape. Doesn't really mean much. But, if you look at new cars, you'll see that the smaller engined car will ALMOST always get better mileage.....

Honda Accord 4cyl - 24/34
Honda Accord V6 - 20/29

Nissan Altima 4cyl - 24/31
Nissan Altima V6 - 21/27

Grand Prix V6 - 20/30
Grand Prix V8 - 17/28

Ford Fusion 4cyl - 23/31
Ford Fusion V6 - 21/29

I did find a few instances where they got the same mileage. But, none at all in my quick search revealed any Larger engine getting better mileage than the smaller engine, as you say will "almost always" happen.

Hilg

 

[Wolfe]

@430_Riviera: Wow, interesting post, full of just about the largest amount of bull**** I've ever seen crammed into a few paragraphs.

Let's see what we can salvage from this wreck...

Comparing v6-v8 is difficult to nigh on impossible, they have entirely different characteristics and powerbands. The 8 is far more likely to be making it's power and torque lower down, say around the 2500 RPM level for torque and 5000 for power, so a 6 is struggling from the off. You should always be able to tell the difference (if you were deaf) between a 6 and an 8 when you hit the throttle.

Not if you didn't have a tachometer. You'd need to know where you were on the tach to tell the difference between a V8's lower-rpm pull or an L6's higher-rpm pull.

Now, if European and Japanese engines are so damn good, why do top fuel and funny cars all use good old American v-8s? 10-12 cylinders for more power, don't be stupid, don't make no difference to power, just the way it is delivered (a single cylinder bike is far more likely to fling you off the back of the seat than a soft 4 cylinder) 6000HP seems quite reasonable with super charging from around 8.0 liters and it ain't coming from an all aluminium 4 cylinder.

Wow, you refuted your own statement one sentence after making it! You make the point that more cylinders don't add more power, that they simply affect the way it's delivered. Good for you. Then you trip over yourself by adding that 6000hp from 8.0L won't be coming from a 4-cylinder (I'll ignore the all-aluminum part because specifying a well-known weak material for an engine type, while making a comparison is just too much bull to bother dealing with. ). Other than the fact that I've already discussed with neanderthal the existence of a 1000hp/L turbo 4-cylinder (which beats out your 6000hp 8.0L in specific output, if you do the math), I'm sure an 8.0L 4-cylinder drag-racing engine, if anyone ever decided to make one, would be more than capable of hitting 6000hp.

As for weight, the American way has always been to throw more cubes at the issue, hence the developement of N/A technology and the fact that I can now go and buy a 950 HP Crate motor for about $12,000 that runs on pump gas without forced induction and a 2 year warrenty and slot it into a 2.0 ton + station wagon and go run 9s (without nos) all day.

Saying that increasing displacement contributes to the development of NA technology is like saying eating a larger bowl of something makes it taste better.

'1965 Aston Martin DB6 -- 4.0L Inline-6, naturally aspirated. 282bhp, 273lbft
2003 2003 Pontiac Bonneville GXP -- 4.5L V8, naturally aspirated. 275bhp, 221lbft'

So what? Your comparing a (what was at the time) a British, hyper expensive super car with a modern semi expensive camry competitor? Congratulations... have a peanut.
I think you'll also find that the Northstar motor does far more to the gallon than that straight 6 ever did.

So what? LeadSlead#2 insisted that it was 100% impossible for a 6-cylinder and V8 to have the same horsepower and torque output, and requested an example of such. Besides, that example was faulted by an incorrect data entry at Carfolio.com. If it matters to you that much, I've already came up with another pair that consists of a more "fair" comparison.

As for your gas mileage comparison... "your comparing a (what was at the time) a British, hyper expensive super car with a modern semi expensive camry competitor? Congratulations...have a peanut."

 

[430_Riviera]

You would still have a warranty on the GT at least.

The Lingenfelter kit comes with a 2 year warranty.

Not if you didn't have a tachometer. You'd need to know where you were on the tach to tell the difference between a V8's lower-rpm pull or an L6's higher-rpm pull.

So say, if both were running an auto box, from a standstill, and you hit the throttle, you couldn't sense the difference?

Then you trip over yourself by adding that 6000hp from 8.0L won't be coming from a 4-cylinder (I'll ignore the all-aluminum part because specifying a well-known weak material for an engine type, while making a comparison is just too much bull to bother dealing with. )

The all aluminium block was sarcasm, directed at a seeming penchant for lightness from our japanese and European (including me) friends, but i guess sarcasm doesn't come across on an internet forum. (I am well aware that they run iron blocks).

I'm sure an 8.0L 4-cylinder drag-racing engine, if anyone ever decided to make one, would be more than capable of hitting 6000hp

Maybe, but it would be pointless as the power delivery would render the tyres useless, as well as the machining impossibilities of getting a motor with 2 litre sized pots rev that high. Such a motor might produce unbelievable torque, but not the same power... Now who's being stupid?

Other than the fact that I've already discussed with neanderthal the existence of a 1000hp/L turbo 4-cylinder (which beats out your 6000hp 8.0L in specific output, if you do the math)

I thought we had already come to the conclusion that high specific out put means nought... so this point is moot. The fact is, that motor was a tiny, high reving 4 cylinder motor with an incredible turbo system... hardly a cheap kind of way to get 1500 Hp is it? Plus i bet the lag was incredible.

But either way, comparing an aftermarket car to a stock car is lame anyway. Hey, I've seen a Supra make 1000hp and only cost $40k for the whole car with mods. What does that mean??? Nothing. Thats what.

So what, people on this forum decided to compare a car with another that costs thrice as much plus a bit more? Over here, the z06 is £60,000 and the GT is £220,000 you do the math(s), it's an impossible comparison. point is, the original talking point of the gt verses z06 is pointless, the z06 wins hands down every time simply beacause of availability and the fact that the average smoe can own one. There is no doubt that the gt is a better car, but it bloody should be for an extra £160k

They rebuild the engine after every run. Hell, you can get 1000hp from a 4cyl if you want it to just run once like they do in Top Fuel.

So? You want 6000 HP from a 4 cylinder to compete with the 8s.

If you really think you can get that ammount of power for that ammount of $$$, I have some hot property on the moon to sell. Its in a prime spot, you'd love it

oh dear... you really don't know what you are talking about do you?

950 H.P. TOP GUN BIG BLOCK CHEVY
DART BIG M TALL DECK IRON BLOCK, 572 CU IN
4340 FORGED STEEL CRANK, NITRIDE HARDENED 4.5 STROKE, FULLY PREPARED
4340 FORGED H-BEAM RODS, 6.7 LONG ARP 7/16" 8740 CAP SCREW BOLTS
JE FORGED DOME TOP PISTONS CNC MACHINED
TOTAL SEAL TSI RACE RING SET DUCTILE TOP, GAPLESS 2ND
CLEVITE H-SERIES BEARINGS
BALANCED INTERNALLY TO WITHIN 1/2 GRAM
EXPERT BLUEPRINT ASSEMBLY
FREE SHIPPING

TURNKEY DYNO-TUNED COMPLETE ENGINE $13,225.00

(From speed o motive)

Ok, I know it isn't quite as cheap as I said, but near as dammit. Hell, the long block is only $9k.

And, if you would have actually read through the thread, you'd see that we already discussed that comparison. His specs were off for the GXP, over and done. Way to go, have a peanut.

My complaint was about choice of car, not the actual specs...

So, you have on 4cyl car in who knows what kind of shape, compared to 2 V8 cars in who knows what kind of shape. Doesn't really mean much. But, if you look at new cars, you'll see that the smaller engined car will ALMOST always get better mileage.....

Are those manufacturers figures? I'm talking about real life here.

 

[JNasty4G63]

The Lingenfelter kit comes with a 2 year warranty.

Yes, for the engine and other goodies they supply. But, when the transmission or rear end blow up, for example, neither they nor Chevy will be helping you out. Do that on the GT, and Ford will fix it. Again, modded cars are all great, until they break.

.....it's an impossible comparison.

Then why even try??? Like I said, if all you want is power, buy a Supra or 300ZX. Cheap car, and will make loads of power for very little $$$. You don't buy supercars because of options, features, and value. You buy them, regardless of cost, because they are rare and exotic machines. Comparing one exotic cars specs and performance to another exotic cars of 3 times the cost is pointless. Just like your Lingenfelter.

So? You want 6000 HP from a 4 cylinder to compete with the 8s.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was, if all you want is an engine thats tuned so close to the edge that it will only make 1 run in between rebuilds, like a Top Fuel of Funny Car engine, you can get that from anything. No, not 6000hp. But, that level of power from an engine like that isn't really that special. They're supercharged at like 40psi, running on meth, and break stuff every run. Fast yes, but thats about it.

I've personally seen a Supra make over 1300hp on 3 dyno runs in a row. And, on the subsequent 4th run, it consumed itself, and spilled it's engine all over everywhere. But, its a 1300hp inline-6, just like your 6000hp V8 drag engine. Makes the power, just not many times before it needs parts.

oh dear... you really don't know what you are talking about do you?.....Ok, I know it isn't quite as cheap as I said, but near as dammit. Hell, the long block is only $9k.

Its not the power, or the price that I was really questioning. But, if you really think that an engine like that will run every day on "pump gas" as you said, you're the one who might not know what your talking about. If you actually read on that site about the specs, you'd see that this is nothing more than a drag engine. Thats fine and dandy. But, with a 14.6/1 CR and running a 1250 Dominator, that engine is far from a street engine.

I could make the engine in my Talon spit out 750hp if I wanted. It already makes over 560whp, so its only a few parts away. But, at that boost, with the cams needed, the fuel needed, and the clutch required for that, it would be far from streetable. So, you go ahead and keep talking race motors here. Thats not the point.

Are those manufacturers figures? I'm talking about real life here.

Well, hell, who cares then. I could make my car get 40mpg in real life if I wanted. I'd just coast down hills, turn the car off at stop lights, never go faster than 20mph, and tune the EMS to run extra lean. But, what would that get me??? A crappy car. Fact is, if you really try, you can get great mileage in just about any car you want. But, the bigger the engine, the harder you have to work to get it. Possible, just not probable.

Hilg

 

[LeadSlead#2]

wow, this has gotten really, really dumb i here since i was last in..good luck with your 6000hp 4cyl-- --nice comparison with the toyota...it still has more power & torque...P.S.--its a japanese engine...they just don't count when your talking about torque, sorry if you honestly believe that proved your case, your very smart

 

[neanderthal]

its always amusing when someone compares the fuel economy of two different cars to thier advantage.

430 buick, i see your camaros 28 mpg and raise you my dads 1.3 liter mazda 323 and its 40mpg.

perhaps you should compare the fuel economy for a camaro for a v6 vs a v8. that eliminates a bunch of variables that affect fuel economy, like Cd, weight, etc.

glad you can go out and buy a 950HP engine and do nines all day.

for one third the price of that engine i could buy a little car that would spank your grocery getter on pretty much any road course and get two or three times better fuel economy to boot. you car would go fast in acceleration. big farkin punya. mine would kick yours in pretty much every other parameter of performance that didnt involve acceleration.

 

[Wolfe]

So say, if both were running an auto box, from a standstill, and you hit the throttle, you couldn't sense the difference?

Sure I could. The 6-cylinder would lose out on the V8 until it hit higher rpms, and the V8 would run out of breath as it approached redline.

The all aluminium block was sarcasm, directed at a seeming penchant for lightness from our japanese and European (including me) friends, but i guess sarcasm doesn't come across on an internet forum. (I am well aware that they run iron blocks).

I understood the sarcasm. If I hadn't taken it as caustic sarcasm, and had instead taken it at face value, I would've simply agreed that an aluminum 4-cylinder would be unlikely to reach such levels of power, and then made a point about other materials.

Maybe, but it would be pointless as the power delivery would render the tyres useless, as well as the machining impossibilities of getting a motor with 2 litre sized pots rev that high. Such a motor might produce unbelievable torque, but not the same power... Now who's being stupid?

A bit of humor on my part, which is, as you mentioned earlier with sarcasm, difficult to express through this textual format. In any case, you completely missed my point, which was that more cylinders do not add more power. More displacement, better engineering, and forced induction do. Displacement is simply easier to get a hold of in engines with more cylinders.

I thought we had already come to the conclusion that high specific out put means nought... so this point is moot. The fact is, that motor was a tiny, high reving 4 cylinder motor with an incredible turbo system... hardly a cheap kind of way to get 1500 Hp is it? Plus i bet the lag was incredible.

I was one of the people to disagree with the notion that specific output is meaningless, and apparently, you were, too. Why else would you go on about "6000hp from 8.0 liters" as opposed to just "6000hp from a supercharged V8?"

As for the 1500hp 4-cylinder, at least it could run for longer than a few seconds at a time, and although that was just "qualifying-spec," the engine still ran full F1 races at 1000-1200hp. Cheap? Maybe, but still more impressive than your precious run-once-for-a-few-seconds-and-then-rebuild, nitromethane-burning Top Fuel engines...

Are those manufacturers figures? I'm talking about real life here.

How about this for real life? My 318i's little 1.8L four-cylinder can match your Camaro's 28mpg, in stop-and-go city driving, and I don't even have to drive like an old lady to do it. As for the highway, I can get anywhere from 20-25mpg, depending on how much I decide to speed.

wow, this has gotten really, really dumb i here since i was last in..good luck with your 6000hp 4cyl-- --nice comparison with the toyota...it still has more power & torque...P.S.--its a japanese engine...they just don't count when your talking about torque, sorry if you honestly believe that proved your case, your very smart

Wow, talk about lame excuses. You asserted that it was 100% impossible for a 6-cylinder and V8 of any kind to have similar power and torque specs. I find two engines for you, and not only prove that it is possible for a 6-cylinder to produce the same amount of, if not more, torque than a V8 (the Merc produces 69lb.ft per liter to the Toyota's 65), but also prove the advantage of SOHC engines (the Merc, which is a SOHC, produces about the same amount of torque as the DOHC Toyota, despite being a little bit smaller, and produces nearly the same amount of horsepower, too, which wouldn't have been as easy to do with an OHV engine).

Then you disregard all of it just because the V8 in question came from a country that you don't like.

Well, just because I'm a nice guy, I've found you another pair, which is not only Japanese-car-free, but even closer than the last pair. This comparison clearly demonstrates that a V8 isn't necessarily torquier than an equal-power 6-cylinder.

1993 Ferrari 348 GTB - 3.4L NA V8 - 320hp / 237lb.ft
1997 BMW Z3 M - 3.2L NA Inline-6 - 321hp / 258lb.ft

 

[430_Riviera]

the V8 would run out of breath as it approached redline

But wait a minute, where did you get that from? the LS-7 runs to 7000RPM, the V8 motor in the Ferrari 360 runs to 8500+ RPM. Just assuming that it'll run out of puff because it is a v8 compared to a v6 is a tad naive isn't it? Besides, the red line would be lower in the v-8, but the gearing would probably be longer

that more cylinders do not add more power. More displacement, better engineering, and forced induction do. Displacement is simply easier to get a hold of in engines with more cylinders.

Agreed.

was one of the people to disagree with the notion that specific output is meaningless, and apparently, you were, too. Why else would you go on about "6000hp from 8.0 liters" as opposed to just "6000hp from a supercharged V8?"

As for the 1500hp 4-cylinder, at least it could run for longer than a few seconds at a time, and although that was just "qualifying-spec," the engine still ran full F1 races at 1000-1200hp. Cheap? Maybe, but still more impressive than your precious run-once-for-a-few-seconds-and-then-rebuild, nitromethane-burning Top Fuel engines...

Sorry, I was out of date with my power outputs, it is now around 8000 HP lol, would be more, but the supercharger sucks 1500 just to keep running. You are right about the problems with economy though, the actual motor only turns 900 times under load and is shot before half track, the spark plugs electrodes are consumed entirely and it makes it across the line by dieseling.

I believe you are missing my point... It is that fine, you can keep quoting that F1 motor until it bleeds out of your keyboard in liquid form, but I was talking about all out power without compromise. How can I get this across... It's fine that that motor can get 1000hp/l and run for 1.8 hours (oh wait, no it can't), but it simply does not produce the power that a larger displacement motor with more cylinders does/has the potential to produce (respectively). That is it. It is strung out, finished. It is made for a purpose.

How about this for real life? My 318i's little 1.8L four-cylinder can match your Camaro's 28mpg, in stop-and-go city driving, and I don't even have to drive like an old lady to do it. As for the highway, I can get anywhere from 20-25mpg, depending on how much I decide to speed.

But it's not fast as you correctly point out in your write up of it. If we didn't do near as dammit 80 on the motorway then it would prolly get more. My point about real life is that as manufacturers figures, they have no bearing on real life, people speed, people don't have a constant, smooth circle to go in etc...

still more impressive than your precious run-once-for-a-few-seconds-and-then-rebuild, nitromethane-burning Top Fuel engines...

Matter of opinion, mine is that seeing an 8000hp v8 run down a quarter mile in 4.4 seconds, deafening you and shaking your eyeballs in your sockets is better and more impressive than watching a 1500HP 4 cylinder turbo car buzz around a track for so many hours.

Then why even try???

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IDIOTS WERE TRYING TO DO AT THE START OF THIS THREAD! I never tried to do that, merely pointed out that it is impossible.

Its not the power, or the price that I was really questioning. But, if you really think that an engine like that will run every day on "pump gas" as you said, you're the one who might not know what your talking about. If you actually read on that site about the specs, you'd see that this is nothing more than a drag engine. Thats fine and dandy. But, with a 14.6/1 CR and running a 1250 Dominator, that engine is far from a street engine.

Come again? An engine is defined as a street engine if you drive it on the street. The fact it might have to run it on racing fuel or at least additives means jack, the fact it has a large carb on it means jack, hell the camaro we had ran a 900 cfm carb and that was only a 5 litre. T/A performance's 69 Buick station wagon runs a 9.8 second quarter mile (from a 950 horse v8), after it has been driven to the track, whilst still weighing 2.0 tons+, on pump gas, no turbo, no supercharger, no nitrous. The current door slammer land speed record is held by a firebird running 1800HP from a twin turbo v8, on pump gas, with the tilt steering and am/fm radio still in place (may not be N/a but hopefully you'll get my point). It is possible to run these cars on the road, making them street legal, and in turn, the motors street motors. We could send the motor out of the riv to t/a performance and have it come back in the same trim as that station wagon, it'd still get run on the street and taken to shows.

 

[Wolfe]

Doubt it, it would simply change earlier. That's how you could tell.

Do you mean the automatic transmission? If so, changing earlier wouldn't help it out-accelerate the 6.

But it's not fast as you correctly point out in your write up of it. If we didn't do near as dammit 80 on the motorway then it would prolly get more. My point about real life is that as manufacturers figures, they have no bearing on real life, people speed, people don't have a constant, smooth circle to go in etc...

I agree, the EPA needs to start pumping out some real numbers.

Sorry, I was out of date with my power outputs, it is now around 8000 HP lol, would be more, but the supercharger sucks 1500 just to keep running. You are right about the problems with economy though, the actual motor only turns 900 times under load and is shot before half track, the spark plugs electrodes are consumed entirely and it makes it across the line by dieseling.

I believe you are missing my point... It is that fine, you can keep quoting that F1 motor until it bleeds out of your keyboard in liquid form, but I was talking about all out power without compromise. How can I get this across... It's fine that that motor can get 1000hp/l and run for 1.8 hours (oh wait, no it can't), but it simply does not produce the power that a larger displacement motor does/has the potential to produce. That is it. It is strung out, finished. It is made for a purpose to be light, usable in a racing car, and semi reliable.

I've quoted that motor 3 times so far, and one of those instances was in friendly conversation with a fellow BMW fan. You have yet to post in this thread without mentioning the Top Fuel engine. With this post being my third argumentative reference to the engine, and your three mentions, we're currently tied. So excuse me if I fail to see how I'm repeating myself excessively.

The 1000hp/L (or perhaps more -- the dyno they used didn't go any higher than 1500hp) refers to the engine's qualifying spec. As I already stated in my last post, during races it would be lowered, to somewhere between 600-800hp/L, which is about where the Top Fuel engine stands. Have I mentioned that the F1 engines were built from pre-owned, ordinary M10's like the one in my car, and neanderthal's 2002? Ooh, the big, bad supercharged V8 is outlasted by a hopped-up economy engine using technology from the early 1980's to make the same power per liter...

Look, Top Fuel engines are crazy powerful, and I respect them for that. But when it comes to anything other than their power, I just don't think they're that impressive. As you said,

Matter of opinion, mine is that seeing an 8000hp v8 run down a quarter mile in 4.4 seconds, deafening you and shaking your eyeballs in your sockets is better and more impressive than watching a 4 cylinder turbo car run around a track for so many hours.

And my opinion is the opposite -- I prefer engines with more longevity, and cars that take corners. If you want to keep throwing **** at smaller-displacement, fewer-cylinders Euro and Asian engines, I can come up with just as much **** to throw at the large-displacement american ones. Otherwise, seeing as how our contrasting viewpoints are simply a matter of opinion, I think we can lay this one to rest. At least, between you and me.

 

[JNasty4G63]

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IDIOTS WERE TRYING TO DO AT THE START OF THIS THREAD! I never tried to do that, merely pointed out that it is impossible.

Then why even bring up the Lingenfelter kit??? Thats my point. You say that comparisons like that are silly an impossible, and then you go and bring one up. That was my point. I don't think anyone on here will deny that the new Z06 is a hell of a deal. But, then you take it that "impossible" step further and compare the GT to a modded car. Just leave it, like you should have.

Come again? An engine is defined as a street engine if you drive it on the street.....It is possible to run these cars on the road, making them street legal, and in turn, the motors street motors.

Like I said before, just because the engine itself might be ABLE to be driven on the street, doesnt mean that it SHOULD be. Hell, one of the fastest stock body DSMs in the world CAN be driven on the street (7.97@179). John Shepherd can, and has, driven his car on the street to and from races before. That doesn't necessarily mean he should, or wants to on any regular basis.

You CAN drive whatever you want on the street. That wasn't what my arguement was. I was simply saying that if you think that an engine with those specs and parts is going to be anything remotely tame and civil when driven on the street, you are either more tolerant to pain than anyone I know, or just very silly and in need of help.

Hilg

 

[Driftster]

yeah i'm sorry..but seeing a 4Cyl front wheel drive car speeding around corners with the tires spinning and smoke and almost losing it but getting control for...30 minutes...is alot more entertaining in MY Book..than seeing a sled with a huge motor go by in 4 seconds that is schiet loud and could possibly....throw a rod....or..spin some tires...oooOooo

 

[430_Riviera]

the big, bad supercharged V8 is outlasted by a hopped-up economy engine using technology from the early 1980's to make the same power per liter...

Hardly just 'hopped up' though is it? I doubt there was much relation, in materials at least between that motor and the one currently spinning in your Beamer.

Good. Fantastic. It matches the power per litre. My point is, and has always been that power per litre is great, but it is the outright power that really matters. As has been said though, it is opinion and should be left to rest. 👍

If you want to keep throwing **** at smaller-displacement, fewer-cylinders Euro and Asian engines, I can come up with just as much **** to throw at the large-displacement american ones.

As far as I am aware, I havent thrown any s**t at European or Asian engines, never have I said 'Euro and Asian engines are s**t' outright, I just prefer V8s (not even necessarily American ones either) I loved the noise my neighbours 412 rwhp hybrid turbo MR2 made every morning, and the way the turbo came in and kicked you in the back, but ultimately they leave me cold.

I prefer engines with more longevity, and cars that take corners

Then I would assume you like the leman winning Cobras and Gt40s that were created by putting large displacement v8s into European chassis.

Do you mean the automatic transmission? If so, changing earlier wouldn't help it out-accelerate the 6.

Yes, auto box, but I didn't mean that, I just meant that the v8 would not run out of puff, merely change earlier than the v6.

You CAN drive whatever you want on the street. That wasn't what my arguement was. I was simply saying that if you think that an engine with those specs and parts is going to be anything remotely tame and civil when driven on the street

Where did I say that? All I mentioned is that you could get a 950 hp v8 for around $12,000, I nowhere said that you would use it easily on the street. In fact, I believe it was you that said that 'you could not get that sort of power for that sort of money' then went on to make some sarcastic comment about the moon. However, you were wrong, weren't you?

I should imagine that any engine producing near 1k with a 3500 RPM stall converter would be 'entertaining' to drive on the street.

Then why even bring up the Lingenfelter kit??? Thats my point. You say that comparisons like that are silly an impossible, and then you go and bring one up. That was my point. I don't think anyone on here will deny that the new Z06 is a hell of a deal. But, then you take it that "impossible" step further and compare the GT to a modded car. Just leave it, like you should have.

Fgs, my original post was in reply to those who said the LS7 would melt if you used nos and that it was impossible to supercharge or turbo it. The really sick thing is that those at the start of the thread actually compared a standard Z06 with an n/a v8 to a GT with a supercharged v8. What is the point when the bloody car costs 160k more?

seeing as how our contrasting viewpoints are simply a matter of opinion, I think we can lay this one to rest. At least, between you and me

👍

 

[JNasty4G63]

Where did I say that? All I mentioned is that you could get a 950 hp v8 for around $12,000, I nowhere said that you would use it easily on the street.

Well, it was this statement.....

and the fact that I can now go and buy a 950 HP Crate motor for about $12,000 that runs on pump gas without forced induction and a 2 year warrenty and slot it into a 2.0 ton + station wagon and go run 9s (without nos) all day.

You didn't DIRECTLY say it was a street car. But, why would someone run an engine on pump gas, if it was a race motor?? And, why would the car its going in weigh over 4000lbs?? Thats why I thought you meant this was some engine that was streetable. Misunderstood you. But still, that engine will not run on pump gas. Not with a 14.6:1 CR. That just won't happen.

.....In fact, I believe it was you that said that 'you could not get that sort of power for that sort of money' then went on to make some sarcastic comment about the moon. However, you were wrong, weren't you?

Yes, but your description of that engine was anything but good and concise. So, I was wrong, but it was understandable with the information given. But, my land is still available. Its going fast, so act quick.

Fgs, my original post was in reply to those who said the LS7 would melt if you used nos and that it was impossible to supercharge or turbo it.

But, it basically won't like it. The "LS7" kit that you speak of from Lingenfelter is far from a stock LS7 that you get with the Z06. Same thing like your engine we talked about earlier, the LS7 has a very high 11:1 CR. You can supercharge or turbocharge it all you want. But, with a CR that high, you're only going to be able to run about 4-5psi safely , so whats the point. The goal of doing that to an engine it getting big power. But, running that little boost will only get you minimal ammounts of power.

Thats why if you look at the specs and parts used in the Lingenfelter kit, you'll see that its got much stronger internals built to take the abuse of high boost. So, unless you know of someone with a miracle LS7, that right from the dealer can take 10-12psi, the original statements still stand. A stock LS7 will not take to turbo or supercharging well.

Hilg

 

[LeadSlead#2]

and your ferrari example is my point by foriegn 8cyl engines....they try making small v8's, which always suck with torque....many small cylinders will always make less torque than less big cylinders --- aka the Dodge truck with an almost 6 liter v-6 and over 500 lb-ft of torque, so keep naming crappy smaller V8's and think that they are awesome if you like
I understand that I did not specify any of this, & still, I don't care keep holding on to your estranged hope of finding smaller engines or crappy engines with a tiny amount less torque & feel good about yourself for it, ok?

 

[Driftster]

and your ferrari example is my point by foriegn 8cyl engines....they try making small v8's, which always suck with torque....many small cylinders will always make less torque than less big cylinders --- aka the Dodge truck with an almost 6 liter v-6 and over 500 lb-ft of torque, so keep naming crappy smaller V8's and think that they are awesome if you like
I understand that I did not specify any of this, & still, I don't care keep holding on to your estranged hope of finding smaller engines or crappy engines with a tiny amount less torque & feel good about yourself for it, ok?

............

Because we all know that a Dodge truck with a 6.0L v6

is better than this

What garbage!!!

 

[iceburns288]

That's a pretty car

OT, yes, but it's a pretty car