Hondas
Erik Baxter
I love Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds. Now you guys know how we fell when
you claim to beat a 1997-2000 Corvette. Why don't we put twin turbos on a vette
like the Lingenfelter vette? 650 HorsePower and 600 pounds/feet of Torque! BTW
way do you guys know what "TORQUE" is?
Anyways, by what means of god can you beat us on a 1/4 mile and/or at lets
say say...... Laguna Seca? That should have enough turns in it for ya! I have
never seen it happen, so ether I am ALWAYS in the wrong place at the wrong time
or you guys are just a bunch of bull shiters!
Erik
'99 Camaro V-6 No Mods...... Yet!
Hemphill wrote:
> Yet another wimpy hondaboy. I was driving home today when i came up a civic.
> Now i'm not bragin', all i've got is a 94 Eclipse GS 2.0L completely stock,
> but I can beat a civic. Well the light we're at turns green and with now
> warning this guy takes off. The about 2 second jump he got on me was too
> much, plus when i finally took off it was a bad take off cause i wasn't
> planin on racing him.Anyways...... he beat me. I'm sure he's at home feelin'
> special cause he won, but it wasn't even a real race.
Brad
>
> Hey,
> I love Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds. Now you guys know how we fell when
> you claim to beat a 1997-2000 Corvette. Why don't we put twin turbos on a vette
> like the Lingenfelter vette? 650 HorsePower and 600 pounds/feet of Torque! BTW
> way do you guys know what "TORQUE" is?
Since this is posted to the Mitsu ng and not the Honda ng, and since
many a Mitsu comes turbocharged, I think it's safe to say they know what
torque is. Maybe you missed my reply to one of your recent posts on the
subject. You know, the one where you called me an asshole because I
said a stock 97 Camaro isn't going to do a 13.2, and you brought up a
special "stock, 'crossbreed' 97 LS1 Camaro with 5th gen wheels" that you
said could run a 13.2. If you find one of those for sale, let me know.
And go ahead and tell me again how foreign auto makers don't make cars
for racing. Or did my naming seven cars off the top of my head refresh
your memory?
Anyway, since you obviously missed it the first time, here it is again
in a nutshell: Turbochargers make horsepower AND torque. Put the cheap
exhaust and boost mods on an Eclipse and it will do an easy 270-290
lbs-ft or more to the wheels. Do the same to a 3000VR4, Supra, or GN,
and those are up around 400 lbs-ft. David Buschur's 2.0 Talon puts over
600 lbs-ft to the wheels.
Unless you have a big-block, or a small-block with forced induction,
your "no torque" taunts are silly to anyone with even a lowly
turbocharged four-cylinder. Run your jaw about "no torque" over in the
Honda newsgroup where cars don't come with turbochargers. Maybe they'd
care over there.
> '99 Camaro V-6 No Mods...... Yet!
A V6 Camaro. Now THERE'S a torque monster.
Bird Of Fire
A 6 banger Camaro is a dog, end of story.
--
-*Bird Of Fire*-
1967 Pontiac 400ci coupe, TH400
Still slow as sin.
http://www.rglobal.net/users/phil/main/pontiac/
"Erik Baxter" <camsan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39076401...@worldnet.att.net...
> Hey,
> I love Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds. Now you guys know how we fell
when
> you claim to beat a 1997-2000 Corvette. Why don't we put twin turbos on a
vette
> like the Lingenfelter vette? 650 HorsePower and 600 pounds/feet of Torque!
BTW
> way do you guys know what "TORQUE" is?
> Anyways, by what means of god can you beat us on a 1/4 mile and/or at
lets
> say say...... Laguna Seca? That should have enough turns in it for ya! I
have
> never seen it happen, so ether I am ALWAYS in the wrong place at the wrong
time
> or you guys are just a bunch of bull shiters!
> Erik
>
> '99 Camaro V-6 No Mods...... Yet!
>
John F. Beyers
when they put a turbo on there they wipe your ass all day long....
and yes curves don't matter either.
Musashi
<camsan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hey,
> I love Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds. Now you guys know how we fell when
>you claim to beat a 1997-2000 Corvette. Why don't we put twin turbos on a vette
>like the Lingenfelter vette? 650 HorsePower and 600 pounds/feet of Torque! BTW
>way do you guys know what "TORQUE" is?
I do, but you obviously don't. The units are either foot_pounds or
pound_feet <both are acceptable>. In no way is pounds divided by feet
an acceptable unit.
> Anyways, by what means of god can you beat us on a 1/4 mile and/or at lets
>say say...... Laguna Seca? That should have enough turns in it for ya! I have
>never seen it happen, so ether I am ALWAYS in the wrong place at the wrong time
>or you guys are just a bunch of bull shiters!
>'99 Camaro V-6 No Mods...... Yet!
Who the hell is this "us" you're talking about? My Camaro will
literally run the quarter before you're done with an eighth, so I know
you ain't talking about me being on your side. Oh yeah, and nice
attempt at a crossposting flame war, dumbass. Too bad we like _Fast_
cars, regardless of who makes them. If it'll run the number I don't
care if it's powered by John Deere or Suzuki. You'd be sniffing the
exhaust fumes of my little Suzuki four banger. What's the matter,
Erik? It's only a little no torque 600cc engine.
---
So I ran like the wind to the water,
"Please don't leave me again!" I cried.
And I threw bitter tears at the ocean,
but all that came back was the tide.
Nick
> pound_feet <both are acceptable>. In no way is pounds divided by feet
> an acceptable unit.
how about a newton meters, for us metric guys ;)
--
-Nick
1979 Z28 350 auto
1987 Firebird 2.8L
"
Musashi
>> I do, but you obviously don't. The units are either foot_pounds or
>> pound_feet <both are acceptable>. In no way is pounds divided by feet
>> an acceptable unit.
>
>how about a newton meters, for us metric guys ;)
Bah! You're all still pissed we took the Avalanche from you!!
; p
Nick
--
-Nick
1979 Z28 350 auto
1987 Firebird 2.8L
"Musashi" <ad...@asdf.com> wrote in message
news:390793b0...@news.mindspring.com...
Aaron Apruzzese
That was a very eloquent reply...but it was wasted on this kid. As with all the
posts directed toward him in the "Crapmaro" thread, he won't read past the first few
lines and then asks what the point of your post was. His attention span, like his V6
Camaro, comes up short...
Brad wrote:
> Erik Baxter wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> > I love Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds. Now you guys know how we fell when
> > you claim to beat a 1997-2000 Corvette. Why don't we put twin turbos on a vette
> > like the Lingenfelter vette? 650 HorsePower and 600 pounds/feet of Torque! BTW
> > way do you guys know what "TORQUE" is?
>
> Since this is posted to the Mitsu ng and not the Honda ng, and since
> many a Mitsu comes turbocharged, I think it's safe to say they know what
> torque is. Maybe you missed my reply to one of your recent posts on the
> subject. You know, the one where you called me an asshole because I
> said a stock 97 Camaro isn't going to do a 13.2, and you brought up a
> special "stock, 'crossbreed' 97 LS1 Camaro with 5th gen wheels" that you
> said could run a 13.2. If you find one of those for sale, let me know.
>
> And go ahead and tell me again how foreign auto makers don't make cars
> for racing. Or did my naming seven cars off the top of my head refresh
> your memory?
>
> Anyway, since you obviously missed it the first time, here it is again
> in a nutshell: Turbochargers make horsepower AND torque. Put the cheap
> exhaust and boost mods on an Eclipse and it will do an easy 270-290
> lbs-ft or more to the wheels. Do the same to a 3000VR4, Supra, or GN,
> and those are up around 400 lbs-ft. David Buschur's 2.0 Talon puts over
> 600 lbs-ft to the wheels.
>
> Unless you have a big-block, or a small-block with forced induction,
> your "no torque" taunts are silly to anyone with even a lowly
> turbocharged four-cylinder. Run your jaw about "no torque" over in the
> Honda newsgroup where cars don't come with turbochargers. Maybe they'd
> care over there.
>
> > '99 Camaro V-6 No Mods...... Yet!
>
'Wulff
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:53:19 GMT, "Nick" <nicks...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>> I do, but you obviously don't. The units are either foot_pounds or
>>> pound_feet <both are acceptable>. In no way is pounds divided by feet
>>> an acceptable unit.
>>
>>how about a newton meters, for us metric guys ;)
>
>
> Bah! You're all still pissed we took the Avalanche from you!!
>
>; p
>
Are you kidding? .....
Take a look at which country is stuck with that airbag Roy.
You can have 'em....just try to keep the idiot there during golf
season ok?
: )
'Wulff
"Ever want to beat someone half to death.....twice? "
WOOHOO!
says...
>
>Hey,
> I love Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds. Now you guys know how we fell when
>you claim to beat a 1997-2000 Corvette. Why don't we put twin turbos on a
vette
>like the Lingenfelter vette? 650 HorsePower and 600 pounds/feet of Torque! BTW
>way do you guys know what "TORQUE" is?
Lingenfelter already crafted such a beast. Several years ago, he built a TT
stroker Firebird (intercooled) for an attempt at the 300 mph record at
Bonneville. The result? He missed the official record by a few hundredths. The
engine cranked out 1,400 horsepower. Really, there is a practical limit to
street machines, and that much horsepower in someone's hands is too scary to
imagine. Fortunately, not too many people have that kind of money. :-)
Also understand that most of the "400 horsepower, 9-second" imports are only
making that when winding the living **** out of their engines at the very top
of their power curve, which is way higher than a v8. Also, just about all are
stripped out shells which have to be trailered everywhere.
sh...@my-deja.com
woo...@nebulan.net (WOOHOO!) wrote:
> Also understand that most of the "400 horsepower, 9-second" imports
are only
> making that when winding the living **** out of their engines at the
very top
> of their power curve, which is way higher than a v8.
I have no idea what you are getting at here. Horsepower is horsepower,
no matter where it is made in the RPM band. There are 10,000RPM
V8s, too. Are they winding the living **** out of their engines, too?
Or is that normal, just because it is a V8?
hp = torque * RPM / 5252
The higher the RPM, the more horsepower you make, given a flat torque
curve.
The 9 second DSMs are making over 600hp to the wheels. 400hp is small
potatos.
As far as I know there are no 400hp 9-second imports.
> Also, just about all are
> stripped out shells which have to be trailered everywhere.
True. But they aren't competing against domestics. They are competing
against other trailered imports. So they lighten where they can.
There is a lot of money in this. Shops want to see their cars in
the magazines so they can get advertising and sell more parts.
Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX - 12....@104.55mph / 1.726s 60ft
Best 60ft - 1.68s
Car web page -> http://www.geocities.com/shapegsx/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sh...@my-deja.com
caman...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Hey,
> I love Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds. Now you guys know how we
fell when
> you claim to beat a 1997-2000 Corvette.
Hmmm...I have beaten a C5 Corvette. April 5th, in fact. He redlighted
and ended up passing me at the end. But my ET was 13.2 to his 13.3.
> Why don't we put twin turbos on a vette
> like the Lingenfelter vette? 650 HorsePower and 600 pounds/feet of
Torque! BTW
> way do you guys know what "TORQUE" is?
Absolutely. Do you? You drive a stock V6? Torque? Please.
My car makes over 300ft-lbs out of the little 2.0L.
> Anyways, by what means of god can you beat us on a 1/4 mile
Us?! Who is us? Are you speaking for all Camaro, Corvette and
Firebird owners?
I don't need God to help me show your V6 my tail lights.
> and/or at lets
> say say...... Laguna Seca? That should have enough turns in it for
ya! I have
> never seen it happen, so ether I am ALWAYS in the wrong place at the
wrong time
> or you guys are just a bunch of bull shiters!
Go to my web site. It is at the bottom of this post. I have scans of
timeslips, and even a video from when my car was a bit slower than it
is now. The Superbee in that video saw tail lights from launch to the
end.
> '99 Camaro V-6 No Mods...... Yet!
Ooooh, the "Yet" thing. :-)
Bruce Chang
cat-back exhaust. Dual exhaust?
Jason
horsepower but lack torque. My friend has a S2000 and my lightly mod
GS-T pulls equal to his at the lights... Giving paper specs, his makes
240 and my lightly mod probably makes 230.. plus it's FWD vs RRD...
Tell me why is that? And yes, he knows how to drive... much better then
me as a matter of fact... of course he'll pull pass me at the end but if
what you're saying is correct, then he should of pull pass me right off
the start....
my 2 cents...
sh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <x4XN4.1434$Ml2.2...@news-west.eli.net>,
> woo...@nebulan.net (WOOHOO!) wrote:
> > Also understand that most of the "400 horsepower, 9-second" imports
> are only
> > making that when winding the living **** out of their engines at the
> very top
> > of their power curve, which is way higher than a v8.
>
> I have no idea what you are getting at here. Horsepower is horsepower,
> no matter where it is made in the RPM band. There are 10,000RPM
> V8s, too. Are they winding the living **** out of their engines, too?
> Or is that normal, just because it is a V8?
>
> hp = torque * RPM / 5252
>
> The higher the RPM, the more horsepower you make, given a flat torque
> curve.
>
> The 9 second DSMs are making over 600hp to the wheels. 400hp is small
> potatos.
>
> As far as I know there are no 400hp 9-second imports.
>
> > Also, just about all are
> > stripped out shells which have to be trailered everywhere.
>
> True. But they aren't competing against domestics. They are competing
> against other trailered imports. So they lighten where they can.
> There is a lot of money in this. Shops want to see their cars in
> the magazines so they can get advertising and sell more parts.
>
> Josh Wingell
> '97 Eclipse GSX - 12....@104.55mph / 1.726s 60ft
> Best 60ft - 1.68s
> Car web page -> http://www.geocities.com/shapegsx/
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
_....--------...._
,' `.
.-./ \.-.
_.''''''''''''''''.='''''=.~._
/| |\
/..\...__ __.../ \
((_)(__)__\''==========''/__(__)(_))
| <> |
| __ _ .------------. _ __ | Jason
| (_((O) / \ (O))_) | ICQ# 3698424
`._______(________________)_______.' Ecli...@pacbell.net
(______) '99 GS-T (______)
************
Join All Advantage! I got a check for $21.18 in my 1st month! You
can too and maybe more! Just click the link below to get started!
http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=JBZ475
************
Want to use a credit card to buy stuff from internet auctions
such as eBay? Why not use PayPal! Use your Visa or Master Card
and avoid stamp fees, money order fees, trips to the mail box,
and save time. PLUS, you get a $5 bonus when you sign up,
AND get $5 bonus when you refer someone else to sign up!
Click the link below to get started!
https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=ecli...@pacbell.net
************
Patrick Weaver
> I have no idea what you are getting at here. Horsepower is horsepower,
> no matter where it is made in the RPM band. There are 10,000RPM
> V8s, too. Are they winding the living **** out of their engines, too?
> Or is that normal, just because it is a V8?
>
limit for most mass manufactured V8 designs. Two factors come into play to
limit RPM for a properly built engine. They are pistion speed and valve
float. That is of course if the engine doesn't just fly apart. Some four
cylinders can go 16,000 RPM or higher but they are rare.
> hp = torque * RPM / 5252
>
> The higher the RPM, the more horsepower you make, given a flat torque
> curve.
>
There is no such thing as a flat torque curve. That's why it's a curve.
That's why cars have a powerband. When you build an engine for maximum
horsepower you steepen the torque curve and narrow the powerband. That's
not what you want for drag racing. Torque rules in the 1/4 mile given the
same vehicle weight. If you can't get the car into it's powerband quickly
you will loose every time. An Indy car has great acceleration and top speed
in it's powerband but in a eighth mile race from a standing start I can beat
it easily with a bone stock import.
> > Also, just about all are
> > stripped out shells which have to be trailered everywhere.
>
> True. But they aren't competing against domestics. They are competing
> against other trailered imports. So they lighten where they can.
> There is a lot of money in this. Shops want to see their cars in
> the magazines so they can get advertising and sell more parts.
>
9 seconds is 9 seconds it makes no difference where the car is made.
Mr. Floppy
"Patrick Weaver" <zymur...@citlink.com> wrote in message
news:BD_N4.1446$Ml2.2...@news-west.eli.net...
> An Indy car has great acceleration and top speed
> in it's powerband but in a eighth mile race from a standing start I can
beat
> it easily with a bone stock import.
Oh, please! Put down the crack pipe and back away slowly and nobody will
get hurt. You have obviously not spent alot of time watching Indy cars, and
know nothing about them if you even hazard making this statement. Even with
the low gears they run, an indy car would most definitely stomp the living
shit out of you and your bone stock import in a 1/8th mile race. Get a
clue, will ya?
--
Mr. Floppy
http://members.xoom.com/mrfloppy50/index.html
1973 Camaro Sport Coupe - K&N air filter, Holley 60GPH fuel pump, Holley 750
carb, Weiand Stealth, 272 cam & lifter set, MSD 6A, MSD Billet Distributor,
MSD Blaster 3, Taylor 8MM wires, Hedmans, Flowmaster exhaust
sh...@my-deja.com
Bruce Chang <brc...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Why exactly does your website says Greddy cat back and then say RSR 3"
> cat-back exhaust. Dual exhaust?
Recent edit. It doesn't say it anymore :-) Thanks for pointing it out!
sh...@my-deja.com
"Patrick Weaver" <zymur...@citlink.com> wrote:
> Yes, 10,000RPM is winding the snot out of a V8. It's close to the
practical
> limit for most mass manufactured V8 designs. Two factors come into
play to
> limit RPM for a properly built engine. They are pistion speed and
valve
> float. That is of course if the engine doesn't just fly apart. Some
four
> cylinders can go 16,000 RPM or higher but they are rare.
Look at some of the Ferrari V8's. They can be built for high RPM.
Honda is supposed to be putting a V8 in their next NSX. I can't wait
to see what the sucker will do.
Either way, this isn't what I was getting at with my original post.
The guy I was replying to said that "most of the 400 horsepower, 9-
second imports are only making that when winding the living **** out
of their engines at the very top of their power curve, which is way
higher than a v8"
I just didn't understand what he was getting at. Was he trying to say
that low RPM horespower was better than high RPM horsepower?
> > hp = torque * RPM / 5252
> >
> > The higher the RPM, the more horsepower you make, given a flat
torque
> > curve.
> >
> There is no such thing as a flat torque curve.
Sure there is. An electric motor has a completely flat torque curve.
Horsepower increases linearly as RPM increases.
Honda VTEC engines generally make very flat torque as a result of their
variable valve lift. And their acceleration is pretty much constant
through a single gear.
> That's why it's a curve.
> That's why cars have a powerband. When you build an engine for maximum
> horsepower you steepen the torque curve and narrow the powerband.
That's
> not what you want for drag racing.
Why not? So long as the gearing you have keeps the engine in the power
band, what is the problem? I don't see one.
The stock turbo on my car would spin up much more quickly than the
turbo I have on my car now. It would produce great torque from
2500RPMs up til around 5000RPMs. But my redline is 7500RPMs.
So I upgraded to a larger turbo that takes more time to spool up.
The power band shifted up by about 1500RPMs. So it lasts much
closer to redline. Now I can take advantage of the gearing my car
has. And the car stays in the power band as I shift.
> Torque rules in the 1/4 mile given the
> same vehicle weight.
This is a blanket statement that can be proven false. Diesels generally
provide tons of torque, but can't rev for crap.
You need gearing that matches the engine's power band. Wheel torque is
what accelerates a car, not engine torque. And engine torque is
multiplied by the gearing.
Are you seriously suggesting that building an engine for maximum
torque with disregard for horsepower will produce a car that will
win in a drag race? I bet that you aren't. But your statement
leads me to that conclusion.
Horsepower is what wins a 1/4mi battle.
> If you can't get the car into it's powerband quickly
> you will loose every time.
Glad I launch my car at 5000RPMs, then. I *never* get out of the power
band :-)
> An Indy car has great acceleration and top speed
> in it's powerband but in a eighth mile race from a standing start I
can beat
> it easily with a bone stock import.
So you don't think that an Indy car could rev his engine way up
on the launch and blow the stock import out of the water?
For a more sane example, look at the Honda S2000. Launch it at idle
and the car is going to perform horribly on a drag strip. Launch it
at 8500RPMs (yow), and it runs low 14s and high 13s.
> > > Also, just about all are
> > > stripped out shells which have to be trailered everywhere.
> >
> > True. But they aren't competing against domestics. They are
competing
> > against other trailered imports. So they lighten where they can.
> > There is a lot of money in this. Shops want to see their cars in
> > the magazines so they can get advertising and sell more parts.
> >
> 9 seconds is 9 seconds it makes no difference where the car is made.
Exactly, and if imports strip their cars down to run 9 seconds with
600hp, that is fine by me. 9 seconds is 9 seconds. Either way,
it is pretty damn fast.
sh...@my-deja.com
Jason <Ecli...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I have to disagree with you there... All V-tec engines make loads of
> horsepower but lack torque. My friend has a S2000 and my lightly mod
> GS-T pulls equal to his at the lights... Giving paper specs, his makes
> 240 and my lightly mod probably makes 230.. plus it's FWD vs RRD...
> Tell me why is that? And yes, he knows how to drive... much better
then
> me as a matter of fact... of course he'll pull pass me at the end but
if
> what you're saying is correct, then he should of pull pass me right
off
> the start....
If he launches in his power band, and his tires offer him enough
traction, then he should have no problem pulling past you from the
start. I have a feeling your friend just didn't want to abuse his
clutch by launching at the 8500RPM that he needs to in order to get
a good launch out of the car.
Do you know what RPM he was launching at? I bet it was probably
1/2 of 8500, and he was probably bogging the engine.
Brad
something crazy like 0-60 of 6 seconds, but then in the next 4 seconds
it got up around 140mph and thus a 10-second 1/4 mile. Still not
something anyone will beat in the 1/8th mile with a stock much of
anything though.
"Mr. Floppy" wrote:
>
> "Patrick Weaver" <zymur...@citlink.com> wrote in message
> news:BD_N4.1446$Ml2.2...@news-west.eli.net...
>
> > An Indy car has great acceleration and top speed
> > in it's powerband but in a eighth mile race from a standing start I can
> beat
> > it easily with a bone stock import.
>
Brad
> > The higher the RPM, the more horsepower you make, given a flat torque
> > curve.
> >
> There is no such thing as a flat torque curve. That's why it's a curve.
> That's why cars have a powerband.
You know what he means. Flat = linear with no peaks. A good example
off the top of my head is a Kawasaki ZX6R motorcycle. People say it
feels like an electric motor for a reason.
Kirk Lane
> I have no idea what you are getting at here. Horsepower is horsepower,
> no matter where it is made in the RPM band. There are 10,000RPM
> V8s, too. Are they winding the living **** out of their engines, too?
> Or is that normal, just because it is a V8?
>
>
> curve.
True, all true. Heck, look at a McLaren Formula 1 car!!! That Mercedes V10
revs to something like 19,000 RPM!!!
Of course, it is nice to have power somewhere near idle...heck the 350 in my
'70 GMC never sees above five grand! (Of course, the best in an actual
quarter is 17.2, and a GTech puts it at 16.8 (after a big timing adjustment
and manually shifting it higher) so it's nothing special, but fun
nonetheless)
> The 9 second DSMs are making over 600hp to the wheels. 400hp is small
> potatos.
Just a quickie: What does DSM stand for? I know it has something to do
with Eclipses...is it like GM and the F-body designation for Camaros and
Firebirds?
> True. But they aren't competing against domestics. They are competing
> against other trailered imports. So they lighten where they can.
> There is a lot of money in this. Shops want to see their cars in
> the magazines so they can get advertising and sell more parts.
And there's also many lightened domestics. Thing is, though, I'm sure it
costs a lot less to build a lightweight '67 Camaro to do the quarter in 9 or
10 than it does to do a '97 Civic.
--
Kirk Lane
sna...@geocities.com
sna...@yahoo.com
ICQ: 28171652
BRT #187
"Yeah you won't find me
I'm going MIA
Tonight I'm leaving
Going MIA
Getting lost in you again
Is better than being known"
-Foo Fighters, "MIA"
Aaron Apruzzese
could never beat a Viper with Nos....guess again...watch for yourself:
http://www.dynamicracing1.com/racing_movies/matt-monett-dynamic-racing-99viperkill.rm
Erik Baxter wrote:
> Hey,
> I love Corvettes, Camaros, and Firebirds. Now you guys know how we fell when
> you claim to beat a 1997-2000 Corvette. Why don't we put twin turbos on a vette
> like the Lingenfelter vette? 650 HorsePower and 600 pounds/feet of Torque! BTW
> way do you guys know what "TORQUE" is?
> Anyways, by what means of god can you beat us on a 1/4 mile and/or at lets
> say say...... Laguna Seca? That should have enough turns in it for ya! I have
> never seen it happen, so ether I am ALWAYS in the wrong place at the wrong time
> or you guys are just a bunch of bull shiters!
> Erik
>
> '99 Camaro V-6 No Mods...... Yet!
>
John Salmi
> Just a quickie: What does DSM stand for? I know it has something to do
> with Eclipses...is it like GM and the F-body designation for Camaros and
> Firebirds?
>
DSM == Diamond Star Motors, the Mitsu/Chryco partnership.
-john
Patrick Weaver
<> > Yes, 10,000RPM is winding the snot out of a V8. It's close to the
> practical limit for most mass manufactured V8 designs.
>
>
detuned race engine.
>
> Honda is supposed to be putting a V8 in their next NSX. I can't wait
> to see what the sucker will do.
>
> Either way, this isn't what I was getting at with my original post.
>
> The guy I was replying to said that "most of the 400 horsepower, 9-
> second imports are only making that when winding the living **** out
> of their engines at the very top of their power curve, which is way
> higher than a v8"
>
> I just didn't understand what he was getting at. Was he trying to say
> that low RPM horespower was better than high RPM horsepower?
>
Depends on the application. When you drag you want the car to top out near
the finish line and tune for good torque in the low end of it's RPM (5000RPM
for you) range for a quick launch. You have to balance HP vs torque.
>
> Sure there is. An electric motor has a completely flat torque curve.
> Horsepower increases linearly as RPM increases.
>
Even an electric motor has a maximum RPM beyond which power falls off. In
fact in a lot of electric motors if increase the load on it the torque
will increase until equilibrium is reached at a lower RPM for higher power
output. The torque curve is in effect backwards. There are a lot of
different types of electric motors with a lot of different torque
characteristics.
> Honda VTEC engines generally make very flat torque as a result of their
> variable valve lift. And their acceleration is pretty much constant
> through a single gear.
>
Believe it or not they aren't tuned for maximum torque or horsepower. If
they were they would be a lot faster but make poor street vehicles.
>
> Why not? So long as the gearing you have keeps the engine in the power
> band, what is the problem? I don't see one.
>
Inertia. You want to get to high revs as quickly as possible and that
requires low end torque. In order to get that torque you have to give up
some of the maximum possible HP. It's a balancing act involving air flow
through the engine and piston speed. Long stroke motors (generally) produce
more low end torque than short stroke motors of the same displacement. Short
stroke motors tend to rev faster and produce more top end horsepower. If you
build an engine for max airflow at max RPM it will suffer at the low end
from low air intake velocity. That's what VTEC is designed to overcome. Most
engines don't have variable valve timing. Turbos help but exhaust velocity
still has to be enough to spin the turbo up.
> The stock turbo on my car would spin up much more quickly than the
> turbo I have on my car now. It would produce great torque from
> 2500RPMs up til around 5000RPMs. But my redline is 7500RPMs.
>
> So I upgraded to a larger turbo that takes more time to spool up.
> The power band shifted up by about 1500RPMs. So it lasts much
> closer to redline. Now I can take advantage of the gearing my car
> has. And the car stays in the power band as I shift.
>
> > Torque rules in the 1/4 mile given the
> > same vehicle weight.
>
> This is a blanket statement that can be proven false. Diesels generally
> provide tons of torque, but can't rev for crap.
>
Depends on how you do it. If I have the same power to weight ratio and high
enough torque I can just drop the hammer on it and motor away.
> You need gearing that matches the engine's power band. Wheel torque is
> what accelerates a car, not engine torque. And engine torque is
> multiplied by the gearing.
>
Yup.
> Are you seriously suggesting that building an engine for maximum
> torque with disregard for horsepower will produce a car that will
> win in a drag race? I bet that you aren't. But your statement
> leads me to that conclusion.
>
No, I'm saying building a car for maximum horsepower without regard for
torque is a good way to loose drag races.
>
> > An Indy car has great acceleration and top speed
> > in it's powerband but in a eighth mile race from a standing start I
> can beat
> > it easily with a bone stock import.
>
> So you don't think that an Indy car could rev his engine way up
> on the launch and blow the stock import out of the water?
>
Nope it will stall, or break the crank, or eat the transmission. Indy cars
can't drag race, they aren't designed for it. That's why the crew pushes
the car to get it rolling before the driver lets out the clutch. It's not
all gearing either. There isn't a transmission made that could take the load
if you dropped the hammer at full song in a standing start. It's the
ultimate maximum horsepower/high RPM top end type of racing.
> For a more sane example, look at the Honda S2000. Launch it at idle
> and the car is going to perform horribly on a drag strip. Launch it
> at 8500RPMs (yow), and it runs low 14s and high 13s.
>
Yeah but I had a slant six dodge dart stripped down that did 12.68 in the
quarter. The highest RPM it ever reached on the strip was 5700. Long stroke,
biggest bore job possible, lots of torque, geared high. Had a hell of a time
keeping a transmission in the beast. It's a balancing act and horsepower at
the top end isn't the be all and end all people think it is. I regularly
beat cars with fifty to a hundred more horsepower than I had that weighed
about the same. Look at it this way. If I can make the same horsepower at a
lower rpm by having a high enough torque I can use taller gearing and get
quicker acceleration for the same horsepower. Yes ultimately if a car can
rev higher it can make more horsepower but if the torque is too low it will
take longer to wind out. A fraction of a second gained on the bottom end in
a drag race can translate to several fractions lead at the end because you
spend more time at a higher speed earlier than your opponent. High torque on
the bottom end can be use for quicker acceleration and drag racing is about
acceleration not speed. If I hit the trap a tenth quicker it doesn't matter
if you're going a mph faster at the end. I still win. Now if you want high
speed racing over a longer distance low end torque won't get you spit.
Brad
> > Why not? So long as the gearing you have keeps the engine in the power
> > band, what is the problem? I don't see one.
> >
> Inertia. You want to get to high revs as quickly as possible and that
> requires low end torque. In order to get that torque you have to give up
> some of the maximum possible HP.
I'm sure he was talking drag racing here. Obviously, street cars have
more well-rounded needs, but if I put a big turbo on a car that has
enormous turbo lag and doesn't spool up until 5000 rpms, if the car is
at a standing start, I just launch with higher rpms than a smaller
street turbo would need. And yeah, some turbos are so big they would
never spool up, but you know what I mean.
If a car has no torque below 4000 rpms but things come alive after
that, then I'll just launch the car above 4000 rpms thus bypassing the
entire lack of low end (ala a Honda S2000). It wouldn't be much of a
street car from corner to corner, but it will still put up the #s at the
track because I can launch from anywhere I want (the rest of the engine
willing).
Reminds me of an old AWD Talon/turbo Probe comparo. 0-60 the Talon
whipped on the Probe by half a second because it could launch at 6000
rpms, but in a 5-60 test, basically letting the clutch out from idle and
then flooring it, the Probe was a tenth faster because it had more
low-end, and the race wasn't long enough for the Talon's hp advantage to
make up the difference.
> spend more time at a higher speed earlier than your opponent. High torque on
> the bottom end can be use for quicker acceleration and drag racing is about
> acceleration not speed.
I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying but that it's just not coming
out as intended. Having the same torque but lower means the car will
pull stronger _throughout_ its racing powerband. Meaning that a high
horsepower car that only has a high PEAK hp number isn't necessarily
going to win because the one with a lower PEAK hp number *may* be
pulling strong and steadily and so making more power over the given
amount of time. That's what you're saying, yes?
Jason
to know about Torque and Horsepower:
http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html
As for your argument about my friends S2000 vs lightly mod GS-T, given
the calculations in the article, I will be making about 30 ft-lbs. of
torque more then the S2000 even after the peak torque curve @ 3000PRM...
I will be pulling harder and longer no matter what RPM I'm at. That was
the likely reason we were tie at short distance drags... Don't forget
that the S2000 maxes out at 153 ft-lbs.@ 7500RPM... and drops to 151
ft-lbs. @ 8300RPM. So, if he launches @ 8300RPM, his pull is constant
and must go through gears more quickly, while my pull will drop after I
launch @ 3000RPM, I will be pulling harder then him and longer because I
have 3000RPM more to go in 1st gear! My torque will go no lower then
184 ft-lbs. @ 6000RPM. I bet that if I my car is RRD and I have the
same experience as he does, I can beat him easy in short distance
drag...
sh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <BD_N4.1446$Ml2.2...@news-west.eli.net>,
> "Patrick Weaver" <zymur...@citlink.com> wrote:
> > Yes, 10,000RPM is winding the snot out of a V8. It's close to the
> practical
> > limit for most mass manufactured V8 designs. Two factors come into
> play to
> > limit RPM for a properly built engine. They are pistion speed and
> valve
> > float. That is of course if the engine doesn't just fly apart. Some
> four
> > cylinders can go 16,000 RPM or higher but they are rare.
>
> Look at some of the Ferrari V8's. They can be built for high RPM.
> Honda is supposed to be putting a V8 in their next NSX. I can't wait
> to see what the sucker will do.
>
> Either way, this isn't what I was getting at with my original post.
>
> The guy I was replying to said that "most of the 400 horsepower, 9-
> second imports are only making that when winding the living **** out
> of their engines at the very top of their power curve, which is way
> higher than a v8"
>
> I just didn't understand what he was getting at. Was he trying to say
> that low RPM horespower was better than high RPM horsepower?
>
> > > hp = torque * RPM / 5252
> > >
> > > The higher the RPM, the more horsepower you make, given a flat
> torque
> > > curve.
> > >
> > There is no such thing as a flat torque curve.
>
> Sure there is. An electric motor has a completely flat torque curve.
> Horsepower increases linearly as RPM increases.
>
> Honda VTEC engines generally make very flat torque as a result of their
> variable valve lift. And their acceleration is pretty much constant
> through a single gear.
>
> > That's why it's a curve.
> > That's why cars have a powerband. When you build an engine for maximum
> > horsepower you steepen the torque curve and narrow the powerband.
> That's
> > not what you want for drag racing.
>
> Why not? So long as the gearing you have keeps the engine in the power
> band, what is the problem? I don't see one.
>
> The stock turbo on my car would spin up much more quickly than the
> turbo I have on my car now. It would produce great torque from
> 2500RPMs up til around 5000RPMs. But my redline is 7500RPMs.
>
> So I upgraded to a larger turbo that takes more time to spool up.
> The power band shifted up by about 1500RPMs. So it lasts much
> closer to redline. Now I can take advantage of the gearing my car
> has. And the car stays in the power band as I shift.
>
> > Torque rules in the 1/4 mile given the
> > same vehicle weight.
>
> This is a blanket statement that can be proven false. Diesels generally
> provide tons of torque, but can't rev for crap.
>
> You need gearing that matches the engine's power band. Wheel torque is
> what accelerates a car, not engine torque. And engine torque is
> multiplied by the gearing.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that building an engine for maximum
> torque with disregard for horsepower will produce a car that will
> win in a drag race? I bet that you aren't. But your statement
> leads me to that conclusion.
>
> Horsepower is what wins a 1/4mi battle.
>
> > If you can't get the car into it's powerband quickly
> > you will loose every time.
>
> Glad I launch my car at 5000RPMs, then. I *never* get out of the power
> band :-)
>
> > An Indy car has great acceleration and top speed
> > in it's powerband but in a eighth mile race from a standing start I
> can beat
> > it easily with a bone stock import.
>
> So you don't think that an Indy car could rev his engine way up
> on the launch and blow the stock import out of the water?
>
> For a more sane example, look at the Honda S2000. Launch it at idle
> and the car is going to perform horribly on a drag strip. Launch it
> at 8500RPMs (yow), and it runs low 14s and high 13s.
>
> > > > Also, just about all are
> > > > stripped out shells which have to be trailered everywhere.
> > >
> > > True. But they aren't competing against domestics. They are
> competing
> > > against other trailered imports. So they lighten where they can.
> > > There is a lot of money in this. Shops want to see their cars in
> > > the magazines so they can get advertising and sell more parts.
> > >
> > 9 seconds is 9 seconds it makes no difference where the car is made.
>
> Exactly, and if imports strip their cars down to run 9 seconds with
> 600hp, that is fine by me. 9 seconds is 9 seconds. Either way,
> it is pretty damn fast.
>
> Josh Wingell
> '97 Eclipse GSX - 12....@104.55mph / 1.726s 60ft
> Best 60ft - 1.68s
> Car web page -> http://www.geocities.com/shapegsx/
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
sh...@my-deja.com
Jason <Ecli...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Let's put an end to all this shell we? Please go here for all you
need
> to know about Torque and Horsepower:
> http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html
hp = torque * RPM / 5252 is all I need to know about the torque
and horsepower relationship.
> As for your argument about my friends S2000 vs lightly mod GS-T, given
> the calculations in the article, I will be making about 30 ft-lbs. of
> torque more then the S2000 even after the peak torque curve @
3000PRM...
> I will be pulling harder and longer no matter what RPM I'm at. That
was
> the likely reason we were tie at short distance drags... Don't forget
> that the S2000 maxes out at 153 ft-lbs.@ 7500RPM... and drops to 151
> ft-lbs. @ 8300RPM. So, if he launches @ 8300RPM, his pull is constant
> and must go through gears more quickly, while my pull will drop after
I
> launch @ 3000RPM, I will be pulling harder then him and longer
because I
> have 3000RPM more to go in 1st gear! My torque will go no lower then
> 184 ft-lbs. @ 6000RPM. I bet that if I my car is RRD and I have the
> same experience as he does, I can beat him easy in short distance
> drag...
The fact that an S2000 with its 150lb-ft of torque can keep up with you
and your 240lb-ft of torque at all proves that horsepower (and
proper gearing) is more important.
sh...@my-deja.com
"Patrick Weaver" <zymur...@citlink.com> wrote:
I basically agreed with everything in the paragraphs I deleted.
> > Are you seriously suggesting that building an engine for maximum
> > torque with disregard for horsepower will produce a car that will
> > win in a drag race? I bet that you aren't. But your statement
> > leads me to that conclusion.
> >
> No, I'm saying building a car for maximum horsepower without regard
for
> torque is a good way to loose drag races.
Very good point. It is the area under the torque curve that really
matters. Not peak torque or peak horsepower.
> > > An Indy car has great acceleration and top speed
> > > in it's powerband but in a eighth mile race from a standing start
I
> > can beat
> > > it easily with a bone stock import.
> >
> > So you don't think that an Indy car could rev his engine way up
> > on the launch and blow the stock import out of the water?
> >
> Nope it will stall, or break the crank, or eat the transmission. Indy
cars
> can't drag race, they aren't designed for it. That's why the crew
pushes
> the car to get it rolling before the driver lets out the clutch. It's
not
> all gearing either. There isn't a transmission made that could take
the load
> if you dropped the hammer at full song in a standing start. It's the
> ultimate maximum horsepower/high RPM top end type of racing.
I'm not saying that the transmission would last long :-)
I once saw an Indy (or was it F1?) car that spun out when leaving the
pits. The driver just got on the throttle too much after being pushed.
He didn't wait for his crew to come give him a push. There was no time.
He was facing the wrong way and completely stopped. He just revved up
the engine, engaged the gearbox. The tires spun madly, and he did
another 180. Then he just went on his merry way.
I'd say that the car could handle a drag race or two.
I don't know the real reason the crew pushes the car. Perhaps it is
just to save the clutch and the gearbox from possible damage. But
definite damage? Naah.
For a similar example, have you seen that Acura commercial with the
F1 car just doing donuts on a skid pad? Sends shivers down my spine
whenever I see that. :-D
There is a guy in the DSM community that built the first 2.3L DSM
stroker. Just about 2 years ago, I think. The engine made HUGE
ammounts of torque down low. It spooled larger turbos more quickly
than a normal DSM engine. Sound great, doesn't it? In fact, it ran
11.46@122 with a 1.64 60-ft time.
He sold the car not half a year after he built it. Why?
The car made TOO MUCH torque! It kept on spitting transmission
parts all over the track. He got sick of it.
If you had built your engine more for top end, you may have had an
easier time keeping the tranny in the car. :-)
WOOHOO!
>are only
>> making that when winding the living **** out of their engines at the
>very top
>
>I have no idea what you are getting at here. Horsepower is horsepower,
>no matter where it is made in the RPM band. There are 10,000RPM
>V8s, too. Are they winding the living **** out of their engines, too?
>Or is that normal, just because it is a V8?
***
I'm not trying to disparage Hondas or any other engine here. Let me explain.
Some time back, one of the car magazines had an article where they tested two
different camshafts in a v8: a mega horsepower grind of 292 deg. duration which
is fairly common among street machines, and a much shorter grind of 270 deg.
Can you guess which of these produced the faster time? The big cam netted a
13.23; the small one a 12.96. Look at the formula below. Horsepower is
derived from torque. Without it, there can be no horsepower, since horsepower
is a unit of *WORK*, or force x distance. Between two engines of 400 horse, one
with a stout torque curve, and the other with a sky-high redline. Which will be
faster? It really depends on the application. Since torque is the ability of
an engine to pull a load, the engine with more torque, AND more rpms available
to it, will be faster than the others.
***
>hp = torque * RPM / 5252
>The higher the RPM, the more horsepower you make, given a flat torque
>curve.
>
***
Yes, but torque curves are not flat. As rpms increase, the ability of an engine
to "push" decreases, and the torque falls off. Horsepower takes a dive
sometime after that.
***
>The 9 second DSMs are making over 600hp to the wheels. 400hp is small
>potatos.
>
***
The DSMs, as someone pointed out, nearly always come from the factory
turbocharged? I don't know, since I don't run one. Forced induction *ANYTHING*
is an entirely new game with different rules.
***
>As far as I know there are no 400hp 9-second imports.
***
Check out mkiv.com. You will find 400 hp imports. They aren't 9 seconds though.
***
>> Also, just about all are
>> stripped out shells which have to be trailered everywhere.
>
>True. But they aren't competing against domestics. They are competing
>against other trailered imports. So they lighten where they can.
>There is a lot of money in this. Shops want to see their cars in
>the magazines so they can get advertising and sell more parts.
***
That is one complaint I have. Then, 90% of the yahoos who follow what's going
on claim that their fully equipped, street-tired, thumpin' stereo Honda is a
tire-munching, arse-kicking monster. In a way, the advertising is deceptive.
***
sh...@my-deja.com
sh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The fact that an S2000 with its 150lb-ft of torque can keep up with
you
> and your 240lb-ft of torque at all proves that horsepower (and
> proper gearing) is more important.
Let me correct myself here. I should have said that it is equally as
important. You want the area under the torque curve to be large.
You want high torque numbers between the RPMs where you will spend
all of your time. You want your gearing to be such that your
drop in RPM after a shift will put you at the beginning of the
high torque numbers. High horsepower numbers should result from this
arrangement.
Honda VTEC engines have VERY flat torque curves across the entire RPM
range. This means that they will accelerate at the same rate pretty
much anywhere on the curve. They NEED to be geared to take advantage
of this and their sky-high redlines.
sh...@my-deja.com
woo...@nebulan.net (WOOHOO!) wrote:
> >The higher the RPM, the more horsepower you make, given a flat torque
> >curve.
> ***
> Yes, but torque curves are not flat. As rpms increase, the ability of
an engine
> to "push" decreases, and the torque falls off. Horsepower takes a
dive
> sometime after that.
True, but at what RPM does the torque start to fall off?
The S2000's torque curve is nearly flat up to 8500RPMs. Sure it has
some bumps. After 8500, it starts to fall. Horsepower continues
to increase up til 8500RPM redline. The S2000 has 2 cams in it to
let the engine breathe the way it needs to in order to maximize torque
in both RPM ranges.
Look at this dyno graph:
http://www.rmnsx.com/s2000/S2000dyno_exhaust.jpg
I'm sorry, that torque curve is retty damn flat.
Given the right breathing and the right cam, engines can continue to
make more horsepower right up until the valves start to float.
Whether that is smart or not is another discussion. :-)
The ideal situation would be one where the valves had a lift and timing
that matched each RPM perfectly. Torque would be maximized at every
RPM without the problems that large cam cars have at idle, etc...
The Honda system of 2 cams to vary lift and timing over 2 RPM ranges
is actually pretty damn good. But it could get better. And they
are working on it.
> >The 9 second DSMs are making over 600hp to the wheels. 400hp is
small
> >potatos.
> ***
> The DSMs, as someone pointed out, nearly always come from the factory
> turbocharged? I don't know, since I don't run one. Forced induction
*ANYTHING*
> is an entirely new game with different rules.
> ***
Heh :-)
Incidentally, every 9 second import I have ever seen has had forced
induction of some sort. Usually a turbo. And they are usually in the
600hp range.
The fast all-motor Civics (running 10's) actually only put out around
250hp, if you can believe it. Can you imagine how light those cars
are? Can you even call them cars anymore?
> >As far as I know there are no 400hp 9-second imports.
>
> ***
> Check out mkiv.com. You will find 400 hp imports. They aren't 9
seconds though.
I have driven a 400hp import (Eagle Talon AWD) before. I ran a 12.2
in it. :-)
> That is one complaint I have. Then, 90% of the yahoos who follow
what's going
> on claim that their fully equipped, street-tired, thumpin' stereo
Honda is a
> tire-munching, arse-kicking monster. In a way, the advertising is
deceptive.
Is NASCAR any different? I have seen more trucks, Monte Carlos,
80's Grand Prixs with damn NASCAR stickers and racing numbers on
them. It happens with every type of auto racing.
It is just that the younger, more impressionable import crowd takes
this to a new level.
Patrick Weaver
<>
> I once saw an Indy (or was it F1?) car that spun out when leaving the
> pits. The driver just got on the throttle too much after being pushed.
> He didn't wait for his crew to come give him a push. There was no time.
> He was facing the wrong way and completely stopped. He just revved up
> the engine, engaged the gearbox. The tires spun madly, and he did
> another 180. Then he just went on his merry way.
>
> I'd say that the car could handle a drag race or two.
>
you get moving.
>
> I don't know the real reason the crew pushes the car. Perhaps it is
> just to save the clutch and the gearbox from possible damage. But
> definite damage? Naah.
>
of a race. Indy cars have also been known to lose gears over hard launches.
Believe it or not the gears in those monsters are rather delicate.
>
> For a similar example, have you seen that Acura commercial with the
> F1 car just doing donuts on a skid pad? Sends shivers down my spine
> whenever I see that. :-D
>
have to corner at low speeds and accelerate away from turns. Same thing for
CART road race cars. They are IMHO the ultimate automobiles.
>
> If you had built your engine more for top end, you may have had an
> easier time keeping the tranny in the car. :-)
>
slant six is a long stroke truck motor. I had to go for low end torque. I
didn't have a choice. It worked out ok though. We finally wound up putting
in two speed torque glide and holding it in top gear all the time. I hate
slush boxes but it worked. It's all about balancing what your working with
against what you are trying to acheieve. There are a lot of different ways
to get to what you want. Sometimes the conventional wisdom just doesn't
apply.
Bruce Chang
>
> Is NASCAR any different? I have seen more trucks, Monte Carlos,
> 80's Grand Prixs with damn NASCAR stickers and racing numbers on
> them. It happens with every type of auto racing.
>
I believe that the people that have NASCAR stickers are supporting NASCAR
not claiming they're fast or wanting to make themselves fast.. It's the same
with NHRA. These people are part of the NHRA, doesn't necessarily mean that
these people think that they're fast.
(This is kinda off topic, I just want to vent some steam)
I personally know a riceboy, he has an 90 Accord and he ALWAYS asks me what
he can do to make his car faster. It pisses me off.. He asked me the other
day about an electric air charger on ebay (I'd call it a supercharger but it
was only 3psi.) It's a 700 watt 50 amp electric motor that you attach to
your intake tubing. His car is leaking more oil than Valdez tanker and he
wants to go fast? It just pisses me off.. He lowered his car a couple
months ago and didn't get a camber kit to adjust camber. He did manage to
get the proper springs amazingly. Well, now he asks me why his tires are
getting worn on one shoulder and not on the outer shoulder. Pisses me off..
I told him he better get a camber kit installed when he lowers his car, but
did he listen to me?! NO..... FREAKIN' (*#@$& UGH. Oh yeah.. stickers..
He just put a set on.. *sigh* Now he wants to get 18" rims.. 18?!?! What
the hell for?! For those high speed corners he's gonna be taking with the
camber totally off.. I just don't understand... It's too hard to concieve
what goes through the mind of true ricers. don't worry josh, I'm not
calling you a ricer, this kid is the epitomy of a ricer. He asks me every
DAMN QUESTION about his car. He knows nothing. Doesn't even have a
complete set of sockets which also pisses me off.. I'm always the one
bailing him out of his car work.. "I can't get this bolt loose any
suggestions?" Yeah.. Stop working on your car and you won't have to worry
about it and he'll laugh and then ask it in a different way.. AGH!!!! So I
being too nice of a guy, will go over there with my tools, break the bolt
loose, help him with whatever he's attempting to do.
Okay.. I"m done..
carry on.. carry on..
Jason
>
> In article <8ec098$lit$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > The fact that an S2000 with its 150lb-ft of torque can keep up with
> you
> > and your 240lb-ft of torque at all proves that horsepower (and
> > proper gearing) is more important.
>
> Let me correct myself here. I should have said that it is equally as
> important. You want the area under the torque curve to be large.
> You want high torque numbers between the RPMs where you will spend
> all of your time. You want your gearing to be such that your
> drop in RPM after a shift will put you at the beginning of the
> high torque numbers. High horsepower numbers should result from this
> arrangement.
>
> Honda VTEC engines have VERY flat torque curves across the entire RPM
> range. This means that they will accelerate at the same rate pretty
> much anywhere on the curve. They NEED to be geared to take advantage
> of this and their sky-high redlines.
EXACTLY! Also note the extra advantages too! FFD vs RRD, 200 lbs less,
6 month experience with a stick vs his 9 years PLUS racing experience...
I've never even been on a drag strip! If what you've said true, I
should of lost BIG time!
Even if he pops his clutch @ 8300RPM, then drops to 6000RPM (don't wanna
go below the V-tec...) he has 2300RPMs to pull til the next gear @ about
150lb-ft of torque... while on the other hand, I drop at 3000RPM w/
220lb-ft and I can keep that thing there at the start and work my way up
to 6000RPM with 30+lb-ft of torque over his all the way!
Mr. Floppy
news:3909CF30...@pacbell.net...
> EXACTLY! Also note the extra advantages too! FFD vs RRD, 200 lbs less,
> 6 month experience with a stick vs his 9 years PLUS racing experience...
> I've never even been on a drag strip! If what you've said true, I
> should of lost BIG time!
>
> Even if he pops his clutch @ 8300RPM, then drops to 6000RPM (don't wanna
> go below the V-tec...) he has 2300RPMs to pull til the next gear @ about
> 150lb-ft of torque... while on the other hand, I drop at 3000RPM w/
> 220lb-ft and I can keep that thing there at the start and work my way up
> to 6000RPM with 30+lb-ft of torque over his all the way!
Wait a minute, you guys actually are racing V-tecs? Why?
Jason
Brad
> I once saw an Indy (or was it F1?) car that spun out when leaving the
> pits. The driver just got on the throttle too much after being pushed.
> He didn't wait for his crew to come give him a push. There was no time.
> He was facing the wrong way and completely stopped. He just revved up
> the engine, engaged the gearbox. The tires spun madly, and he did
> another 180. Then he just went on his merry way.
The best CART race I saw last year had a rained-out street course. They
slapped on the rain tires and went at it. They'd spin out around a
blind corner and wind up facing the wrong way, so they'd have to do a
quick 180 burnout to spin the car around and get moving before the cars
behind them came flying around the blind corner. Wish I had that race
on tape.
Brad
> The fast all-motor Civics (running 10's) actually only put out around
> 250hp, if you can believe it. Can you imagine how light those cars
> are? Can you even call them cars anymore?
You sure? Last I looked, the fastest all-motor Civic was around 11.8 or
9 @ a whopping 112-113mph.
Bruce Chang
battle to become one. He says, "Oh, I don't want to be like that..." But yet....
oh bother it all.. he's just beyond help...
-Bruce
Kirk Lane
> > > So you don't think that an Indy car could rev his engine way up
> > > on the launch and blow the stock import out of the water?
> > >
> > Nope it will stall, or break the crank, or eat the transmission. Indy
> cars
> > can't drag race, they aren't designed for it. That's why the crew
> pushes
> > the car to get it rolling before the driver lets out the clutch. It's
> not
> > all gearing either. There isn't a transmission made that could take
> the load
> > if you dropped the hammer at full song in a standing start. It's the
> > ultimate maximum horsepower/high RPM top end type of racing.
A bone-stock Civic eating a Champ car for lunch? If the champ car was made
anywhere after 1911 and isn't having severe problems, I'd kill myself =)
> I'm not saying that the transmission would last long :-)
>
> I once saw an Indy (or was it F1?) car that spun out when leaving the
> pits. The driver just got on the throttle too much after being pushed.
> He didn't wait for his crew to come give him a push. There was no time.
> He was facing the wrong way and completely stopped. He just revved up
> the engine, engaged the gearbox. The tires spun madly, and he did
> another 180. Then he just went on his merry way.
>
> I'd say that the car could handle a drag race or two.
>
> I don't know the real reason the crew pushes the car. Perhaps it is
> just to save the clutch and the gearbox from possible damage. But
> definite damage? Naah.
It makes it a lot easier on the clutch and gearbox; however there must be
some other reason, because in all forms of racing with common pit stops
(i.e. not World of Outlaws since they always need a push but they're friggin
fast =) the crew pushes the car to get it moving away...my guess is maybe
the clutch isn't designed to have any easy points to let it out at (i.e.
it's almost an on-off switch) but merely to hold up to 800+hp and umpteen
shifts (though NASCAR guys ONLY use the clutch for pits...they always
powershift...Hmm, reminds me of a Martinsville race a while ago, Jeff
Gordon's tranny locked into 4th gear, and he burned his clutch leaving the
pits only once like that...yeah, they must not be designed to be let out
smoothly)
> > > For a more sane example, look at the Honda S2000. Launch it at idle
> > > and the car is going to perform horribly on a drag strip. Launch it
> > > at 8500RPMs (yow), and it runs low 14s and high 13s.
Jeez, 8500RPM launch???? How do you manage to keep the tires glued? Cool
lookin little cars, aside from the HUGE backup lights...somehow a teacher at
my school bought one (ever found out how much Arizona teachers get paid?
the guy must do a little work 'on the side' =)
> There is a guy in the DSM community that built the first 2.3L DSM
> stroker. Just about 2 years ago, I think. The engine made HUGE
> ammounts of torque down low. It spooled larger turbos more quickly
> than a normal DSM engine. Sound great, doesn't it? In fact, it ran
> 11.46@122 with a 1.64 60-ft time.
>
> He sold the car not half a year after he built it. Why?
>
> The car made TOO MUCH torque! It kept on spitting transmission
> parts all over the track. He got sick of it.
Well, I would imagine those DSM trannies simply aren't designed to take that
much torque...it's like dropping a blown 502 into a Camaro with a 4.11 posi
and monster drag slicks and using a stock 200R4 for the tranny...not gonna
work =)
Kirk Lane
> that matched each RPM perfectly. Torque would be maximized at every
> RPM without the problems that large cam cars have at idle, etc...
> The Honda system of 2 cams to vary lift and timing over 2 RPM ranges
> is actually pretty damn good. But it could get better. And they
> are working on it.
And to think that the 6.0 liter TRUCK engine GM has based off of the LS1
puts out 325 hp stock, on 87 octane gas, low compression, and...hmm...just
one pushrodded cam and a timing chain =) Low tech still can work wonders...
Hehe...I've thought about this for a while. Ditch cams altogether, use a
computer and solenoids or some equivalent! The ultimate in valve control...
you could have it do a super-mild 'grind' for part-throttle (super smooth
idle) and when you slam the throttle to the floor it optimizes the profile
every 100 RPM or so...maybe even do the Caddy V 8-6-4 the right way =)
WOOHOO!
>
>So I would guess that from your scientific research, a 3000GT/Stealth without
NOS
>could never beat a Viper with Nos....guess again...watch for yourself:
>
That was a Twin Turbo Stealth owned by a guy who owns a race shop. Go figure.
That would be like showing up in a blown Camaro and saying, "hey let's race".
The Viper would go hide it's ugly head. Once again it's time to glorify the
exception, ignore the rule.
Rick Heidebrecht
they have to accelerate quickly from slower speeds through sharp corners,
they're not always running top speed on an oval track....
And think about it, these cars weigh ~1,800 lbs with 750+ hp.... you'd have
to have one really tall first gear to slow something like that down to a 6
second 0-60....
Rick H.
Brad wrote in message <39089D98...@ix.netcom.com>...
Rick Heidebrecht
>> That's why it's a curve.
>> That's why cars have a powerband. When you build an engine for maximum
>> horsepower you steepen the torque curve and narrow the powerband.
>That's
>> not what you want for drag racing.
>
>Why not? So long as the gearing you have keeps the engine in the power
>band, what is the problem? I don't see one.
If you have a narrower power band, you need more gears to stay in that power
band and every time you shift, you're losing time on your 1/4 mile.... Ever
notice how many drag cars use a 2-speed Powerglide?
Rick H.
Stealth
www.electricsupercharger.com
--Stealth
94' Mustang GT
Best 1/4 of 12.2 @ 119
Steeda Tri-ax, Bissani X-Pipes, Vortech S-Trim
70mm TB, 95 Cobra Intake, 3.73 Gears, Shorty Headers
Steeda Underdrive Pullies -- Making 443HP/507ft. lbs
Bruce Chang wrote in message <3909D06C...@cisco.com>...
Jason
--
sh...@my-deja.com
"Rick Heidebrecht" <ri...@nstar.on.ca> wrote:
> >Why not? So long as the gearing you have keeps the engine in the
power
> >band, what is the problem? I don't see one.
>
> If you have a narrower power band, you need more gears to stay in that
power
> band and every time you shift, you're losing time on your 1/4 mile....
But when you have a 7500RPM redline with 5 gears, you have plenty of
room to move within reason.
And shifts don't take all that long...if you are good at them :-)
> Ever
> notice how many drag cars use a 2-speed Powerglide?
I'd say that using a poweglide has more to do with the transmission
staying together with tons of power than with the single shift you
have to make.
You lose so much power through the powerglide that I am sure you
probably negate any benefits that you may have gotten via the
single shift.
Brad
Rick Heidebrecht wrote:
>
> The 0-60 times I've seen for Indy cars were 2.9 seconds.... Don't forget,
> they have to accelerate quickly from slower speeds through sharp corners,
> they're not always running top speed on an oval track....
>
> And think about it, these cars weigh ~1,800 lbs with 750+ hp.... you'd have
> to have one really tall first gear to slow something like that down to a 6
> second 0-60....
Alright, that's it, don't make me go and get out the magazine review
now...
Oops! Too Late! I just did!
I knew Motor Trend or someone did a review of one recently, and now I
was curious enough to go look. Some highlights:
730hp Infinity Indy V8, 10,300 rpm redline. 385 lbs-ft@8200 rpms. 1840
pounds.
Six speeds. 1st to 103mph, 2nd to 145, 3rd 195, 4th 219, 5th 220, 6th
223.
0-60 of 3.8 seconds, gained another 60mph in the next 3.8 seconds,
finished with a 10.6@153mph.
I happened to come across a Winston Cup Racer review too.
750hp, 535 lbs-ft@6500, 3400 lbs. 9000 redline. Top speed 198mph.
4-speed manual. (4-speed!?)
0-60 of 4.3 seconds to avoid wheelhop, 60-100 in 3.8, finish with
12.1@130mph.
Aaron Apruzzese
tranny, and all internals are stock...and the Viper was running NOS and is owned
by a guy in Houston who has a parts shop...we are talking a tricked out muscle car
versus a moderately modded Stealth. From all your yapping, the Viper should have
won...Now what's your point?...and by the way, the car that Matt has tricked out
is a Mitsu Eclipse GSX...that would be unfair to run against even your blown
Camaro....the bottom line is that it doesn't matter where the car was made, sports
cars come in different shapes, sizes, and characteristics. That's to meet the
individual tastes of each consumer...it's narrow minded punks in both the domestic
and import crowds that have ignorant, ill-informed arguments on a car's
performance based on where its corporate office is located. American cars can go
fast, European cars can go fast, and Japanese cars can go fast...the biggest
differences between each car are how much money you have to spend (which doesn't
necessarily favor a domestic owner), and more importantly, how well you can
drive. When you have an intelligent statement to present, come chat again...
Bird Of Fire
> You lose so much power through the powerglide that I am sure you
> probably negate any benefits that you may have gotten via the
> single shift.
Actually the 'glide puts more power to the ground then the other automatic
options for most domestics (the turbo 350/400) and those 2 we KNOW eats
horsepower like a madman. You just choose the lesser of two evils is all.
> Josh Wingell
> '97 Eclipse GSX - 12....@104.55mph / 1.726s 60ft
> Best 60ft - 1.68s
> Car web page -> http://www.geocities.com/shapegsx/
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
-*Bird Of Fire*-
1967 Pontiac 400ci coupe, TH400
Still slow as sin.
http://www.rglobal.net/users/phil/main/pontiac/
Jason
> That's to meet the
> individual tastes of each consumer...it's narrow minded punks in both the domestic
> and import crowds that have ignorant, ill-informed arguments on a car's
> performance based on where its corporate office is located. American cars can go
> fast, European cars can go fast, and Japanese cars can go fast...the biggest
> differences between each car are how much money you have to spend (which doesn't
> necessarily favor a domestic owner), and more importantly, how well you can
> drive. When you have an intelligent statement to present, come chat again...
I have to disagree with ya there bud... If you compare paper specs,
yeah, you can't really tell from car to car... buncha numbers that
every car have: dimensions, leg room, trunk space, horsepower, torque,
etc... But not every car is made the exact same way to get those
horsepower and torque and how many miles per gallon a car gets! From
the consumers point of view, Japanese cars are associated with
technology and high mileage cars while Europeans and Germans build 'tank
like' cars... Domestics are, well, don't seem too advance... but they
are cheaper then import cars with the same 'paper specs'...
my 2 cents
Bruce Chang
> Aaron Apruzzese wrote:
> > That's to meet the
> > individual tastes of each consumer...it's narrow minded punks in both the domestic
> > and import crowds that have ignorant, ill-informed arguments on a car's
> > performance based on where its corporate office is located. American cars can go
> > fast, European cars can go fast, and Japanese cars can go fast...the biggest
> > differences between each car are how much money you have to spend (which doesn't
> > necessarily favor a domestic owner), and more importantly, how well you can
> > drive. When you have an intelligent statement to present, come chat again...
>
> I have to disagree with ya there bud... If you compare paper specs,
> yeah, you can't really tell from car to car... buncha numbers that
> every car have: dimensions, leg room, trunk space, horsepower, torque,
> etc... But not every car is made the exact same way to get those
> horsepower and torque and how many miles per gallon a car gets! From
> the consumers point of view, Japanese cars are associated with
> technology and high mileage cars while Europeans and Germans build 'tank
> like' cars... Domestics are, well, don't seem too advance... but they
> are cheaper then import cars with the same 'paper specs'...
>
> my 2 cents
>
<snip ridiculously long sig>
High mileage? Are we talking efficiency or life span?! I have yet to see any import car
go over a significantly large amount of miles (and yeah, I know that's a relative term
and I haven't seen that many cars compared to all the cars in the world but I did work
in a repair shop and plenty of cars went through there each day). I've seen dozens if
not more (not counting thousands of cars that I haven't seen) domestic cars that have
flipped the odometer, if nore more than once. If we're talking gas mileage, I think
most people would first think of the Geo Metro. It does get the best gas mileage..
From what I gather from the customers that came into the auto shop and from talking
with friends and such, Japanese cars are associated with high cost and dependability and
gas efficiency, European cars (which includes Germany) are associated with luxury costs
and high class and performnace and domestics span from unreliable and cheap to
inexpensive and gas guzzlers to high performance and muscle cars. I wouldn't say that
domestics aren't advanced. There are engines out there that seem a little archaic but
what are we debating? Power? Just the fact that there's newer technology out there?
The LS1 is a pushrod motor. It's a great motor and it's found in the Corvette, Camaro
and Firebird. IMHO these cars will outperform any car that is in the same price range.
Personally I don't see European cars as tanks.. I see Caddilacs, the Grand Marquis,
the New Yorker and all the US made luxury cars as tanks. They're huge.
I've run out of things to say... Imagine that..?
-Bruce
Jason
thing, it's debatable... I mean, you're thinking the bigger the better... I'm thinking
strong for it's size factor.... As for your signature comment, yes, it's a little long...
but that's why it's at the end! And my reply messages are at the top!!! But I'm sure to
you, scrolling past what I've just read to see a reply is no where near as bad as scrolling
past my signature from which no one has to scroll past if you put your reply at the
top......
: ) <-- my signature at work
Aaron Apruzzese
"tank"....do you?
Jason wrote:
> Aaron Apruzzese wrote:
> > That's to meet the
> > individual tastes of each consumer...it's narrow minded punks in both the domestic
> > and import crowds that have ignorant, ill-informed arguments on a car's
> > performance based on where its corporate office is located. American cars can go
> > fast, European cars can go fast, and Japanese cars can go fast...the biggest
> > differences between each car are how much money you have to spend (which doesn't
> > necessarily favor a domestic owner), and more importantly, how well you can
> > drive. When you have an intelligent statement to present, come chat again...
>
> I have to disagree with ya there bud... If you compare paper specs,
> yeah, you can't really tell from car to car... buncha numbers that
> every car have: dimensions, leg room, trunk space, horsepower, torque,
> etc... But not every car is made the exact same way to get those
> horsepower and torque and how many miles per gallon a car gets! From
> the consumers point of view, Japanese cars are associated with
> technology and high mileage cars while Europeans and Germans build 'tank
> like' cars... Domestics are, well, don't seem too advance... but they
> are cheaper then import cars with the same 'paper specs'...
>
> my 2 cents
>
Michael Ereon
From: sh...@my-deja.com Re: Hondas
>This is a blanket statement that can be
>proven false. Diesels generally provide
>tons of torque, but can't rev for crap.
And if you gear it correctly, it doesn't need to rev.
>You need gearing that matches the
>engine's power band. Wheel torque is
>what accelerates a car, not engine
>torque. And engine torque is multiplied
>by the gearing.
Right. The new Civic Si had very little crank torque, but at the
wheels, it very comparative to average 4 bangers, due to its gearing,
BUT, high gearing leads to a small powerband. Its good for a high end
rush, but on the street/daily, its not that good. Below 6K, the Si is a
DOG.
>Are you seriously suggesting that
>building an engine for maximum torque
>with disregard for horsepower will
>produce a car that will win in a drag
>race? I bet that you aren't. But your
>statement leads me to that conclusion.
Sure. Build a Pontiac 455 for tq from idle to 4000 and install an od
tranny and 4.10 rears and chances are, in a 3Klbs car will do hella
fine.
>Horsepower is what wins a 1/4mi battle.
You are kidding, right? Hp does not accelerate a car. Try accelrating
at the hp peak and then at the tq peak.
HP is just a measurement of torque over a period of time(revs).
Josh Wingell
See ya!
Mike
Michael Ereon
From: sh...@my-deja.com Re: Hondas
>I have no idea what you are getting at
>here. Horsepower is horsepower, no
>matter where it is made in the RPM
>band. There are 10,000RPM V8s, too.
Where? IRL Olds and Nissans? We are talking about street cars.
> Are they winding the living **** out of
>their engines, too? Or is that normal,
> just because it is a V8?
No, they HAVE to, they are on a race track, road course or oval. Do you
run WOT on the street going to work? You don't want to run half
throttle going for a top speed run now do you?
>hp = torque * RPM / 5252
>The higher the RPM, the more
>horsepower you make, given a flat
>torque curve.
>The 9 second DSMs are making over
>600hp to the wheels.
THe only reason they are fast cause of AWD.
> 400hp is small potatos.
Yup, just like $2000 SBC's!
Michael Ereon
(EDT+4) From: sh...@my-deja.com Re: Hondas
>hp = torque * RPM / 5252 is all I need to
>know about the torque and horsepower
>relationship.
The whole point is WHERE engines make power. Its proven that low end
crank torque with modest gearing is better than high end hp and high
gearing.
>The fact that an S2000 with its 150lb-ft
>of torque can keep up with you and your
>240lb-ft of torque at all proves that
>horsepower (and proper gearing) is
>more important.
And the fact that the S2K weighs hella less than a GS-T and I bet you
the GS-t will be better around town.
Brad
> From: sh...@my-deja.com Re: Hondas
>
> >I have no idea what you are getting at
> >here. Horsepower is horsepower, no
> >matter where it is made in the RPM
> >band. There are 10,000RPM V8s, too.
>
> Where? IRL Olds and Nissans? We are talking about street cars.
High-winding street V8s are up around 8000 rpms. Or even more, I
s'pose. Maybe not 10,000, but getting in the ballpark.
> >The 9 second DSMs are making over
> >600hp to the wheels.
>
> THe only reason they are fast cause of AWD.
Now that's just silly. I think the horsepower (and even torque!) has a
little something to do with it. Better put would be, "The main reason
even the weaker ones can holeshot damn near anything on street tires is
because of the AWD."
Besides the RWD hybrid one, the first, (or was it second), 9-second DSM
was FWD. Currently at 9.4 or thereabouts. I guess they don't need AWD
after all!
Brad
>
> Group: alt.autos.camaro.firebird Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2000, 7:13pm (EDT+4)
> From: sh...@my-deja.com Re: Hondas
> >Horsepower is what wins a 1/4mi battle.
>
> You are kidding, right? Hp does not accelerate a car. Try accelrating
> at the hp peak and then at the tq peak.
On a typical car, the torque peak is around 3000 rpms, and the
horsepower peak is around 6000 rpms. I'd say launching from 6000 rpms
would give me more oomph off the line than launching at 3000 rpms.
Provided there is traction, of course.
>
> HP is just a measurement of torque over a period of time(revs).
It's "just a measurement...?" Without the time factor, torque is next
to useless.
Brad
> Hehe...I've thought about this for a while. Ditch cams altogether, use a
> computer and solenoids or some equivalent! The ultimate in valve control...
Someone made a camless engine this year. BMW? "Coming soon to a
dealership near you." Maybe.
Jason
like that... When say European or German cars, the 1st ones to pop in
their heads is the 'box, 4 door, family' type cars... thinks that pop
into our heads? Z3, Boxter, SLK, and the likes.. hehehe
Aaron Apruzzese wrote:
>
> Not quite sure what your not agreeing with...and I never considered the Porsche to be a
> "tank"....do you?
>
--
Sean Brittain
Bruce Chang <brc...@cisco.com> wrote in message
news:390DC9E6...@cisco.com...
Are you on dope? I love domestic cars too but they need to get their cars in
shape as compared to the current crop of import/import designed cars. So you
are saying that a domestic car will last longer than an import? Why don't
you go look around and see how many 84 Civics are on the road and they see
if you can find any 84 Escorts or Cavilers and what shape are they in. Now
let's educate you in gas milage...you site the Geo Metro which is sold at
Chevrolet dealers but in fact is a Suzuki Swift..aka an import car! Then you
state that you would not say that American cars are not advanced.... well
that is your opinion I'll use your example to prove other wise. The
GREAT-ALL MIGHTY LS1... what and old, tired engine design. An OHV, push-rod
V-8. In the Corvette form 5.7 liters pushing out 345 hp, not bad but this
gives you a 60.5 hp per liter ratio. In Camero Z28 form you get 305
hp...with a 53.5 hp per liter ratio. Lets look at the other American V-8,
the 4.6 SOHC GT V-8, which has 270 hp which gives you 58.69 hp per liter.
Not bad atleast Ford has gone to OHC designs and retired that old 5.0. Let's
see and look and some comparison...3000GT VR4 3.0(DOHC V-6, AWD AWS) liter
and 320 hp...106.7 hp per liter...300 ZX TT (DOHC V-6) 320 hp from a 3.0
WOOHOO!
It's the Coates Spherical Rotary Valve. A 4.6 litre Ford tester shown on their
site stated an output of 1,000 horses with a tame idle. Because of all the
popularity, guess which two engines will be the first to receive retrofits...
the Ford & Chevy smallblocks of course...
WOOHOO!
>Are you on dope? I love domestic cars too but they need to get their cars in
>shape as compared to the current crop of import/import designed cars. So you
>are saying that a domestic car will last longer than an import? Why don't
>you go look around and see how many 84 Civics are on the road and they see
>if you can find any 84 Escorts or Cavilers and what shape are they in. Now
>let's educate you in gas milage...you site the Geo Metro which is sold at
>Chevrolet dealers but in fact is a Suzuki Swift..aka an import car! Then you
>state that you would not say that American cars are not advanced.... well
>that is your opinion I'll use your example to prove other wise. The
>GREAT-ALL MIGHTY LS1... what and old, tired engine design. An OHV, push-rod
>V-8. In the Corvette form 5.7 liters pushing out 345 hp, not bad but this
>gives you a 60.5 hp per liter ratio. In Camero Z28 form you get 305
>hp...with a 53.5 hp per liter ratio. Lets look at the other American V-8,
>the 4.6 SOHC GT V-8, which has 270 hp which gives you 58.69 hp per liter.
>Not bad atleast Ford has gone to OHC designs and retired that old 5.0. Let's
>see and look and some comparison...3000GT VR4 3.0(DOHC V-6, AWD AWS) liter
>and 320 hp...106.7 hp per liter...300 ZX TT (DOHC V-6) 320 hp from a 3.0
Don't forget the repair costs. At some point something is going to break. A
friend recently ditched his Supra after the gasket blew and the engine melted
down. A replacement (new) would have been $3,000, not including installation.
Too bad, it was a nice car.
Bruce Chang
Sean Brittain wrote:
> Are you on dope? I love domestic cars too but they need to get their cars in
> shape as compared to the current crop of import/import designed cars. So you
> are saying that a domestic car will last longer than an import? Why don't
> you go look around and see how many 84 Civics are on the road and they see
I don't believe caviliers were made in 84.. Escorts...... I think they were..
> let's educate you in gas milage...you site the Geo Metro which is sold at
> Chevrolet dealers but in fact is a Suzuki Swift..aka an import car! Then you
I'm pretty sure the Geo Metro came first and Suzuki joined in with Chevy to
produce the Metro and put the Swift name on it.. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> state that you would not say that American cars are not advanced.... well
> that is your opinion I'll use your example to prove other wise. The
> GREAT-ALL MIGHTY LS1... what and old, tired engine design. An OHV,
Just because the LS1 is a pushrod motor doesn't mean that it's not advanced..
Sure there's more advanced engines out there with overhead cams, the Ford Cobra
engine has DOHC.
> push-rod
> V-8. In the Corvette form 5.7 liters pushing out 345 hp, not bad but this
> gives you a 60.5 hp per liter ratio. In Camero Z28 form you get 305
> hp...with a 53.5 hp per liter ratio. Lets look at the other American V-8,
> the 4.6 SOHC GT V-8, which has 270 hp which gives you 58.69 hp per liter.
> Not bad atleast Ford has gone to OHC designs and retired that old 5.0. Let's
> see and look and some comparison...3000GT VR4 3.0(DOHC V-6, AWD AWS) liter
> and 320 hp...106.7 hp per liter...300 ZX TT (DOHC V-6) 320 hp from a 3.0
Let's see Mitsubishi come out with a 5 liter car, that boasts 106.7 hp/liter..
If we're talking max hp/liter, yeah, you win. Hands down. The point the
previous poster was making was that numbers on paper don't mean much, torque
curves are much better representation of a cars performance. Recently I was
watching several dyno's. The LS1 Corvette's torque curve was amazingly flat,
dropping off as it neared the high end of engine speed. There was also a Supra,
it started off alright and once the turbos kicked in, the numbers shot up likc
crazy but only for about half of the graph.
I fully see your point, that the pushrod motor is a tired and old design but
you can't say it can't hold it's own..
-Bruce
BadBird66
>you go look around and see how many 84 Civics are on the road and they see
Are you kiddin? I never see any 84 civics around. They had such rust problems.
Motors are great, but the sheet metal got eaten up real quick. I do see a good
amount of 84 f-bodies, and a number of old G-bodies around though. Hell the
first car I had was a 79 Caprice that had just over 227,000 on the clock.
>Now
>let's educate you in gas milage...you site the Geo Metro which is sold at
>Chevrolet dealers but in fact is a Suzuki Swift..aka an import car!
Well GM owns a controlling interest in Suzuki, and the car was a joint effort.
>Then you
>state that you would not say that American cars are not advanced.... well
>that is your opinion I'll use your example to prove other wise.
Cadillac's 4.6 DOHC Northstar was putting out 300hp 7 years ago when lexus and
acura were about 50 or so hp shorter.
>The
>GREAT-ALL MIGHTY LS1... what and old, tired engine design. An OHV, push-rod
>V-8.
You know OHC has been around since the 30's. Its not a new design either.
>In the Corvette form 5.7 liters pushing out 345 hp, not bad but this
>gives you a 60.5 hp per liter ratio. In Camero Z28 form you get 305
>hp...with a 53.5 hp per liter ratio. Lets look at the other American V-8,
>the 4.6 SOHC GT V-8, which has 270 hp which gives you 58.69 hp per liter.
>Not bad atleast Ford has gone to OHC designs and retired that old 5.0. Let's
>see and look and some comparison...3000GT VR4 3.0(DOHC V-6, AWD AWS) liter
>and 320 hp...106.7 hp per liter...300 ZX TT (DOHC V-6) 320 hp from a 3.0
>
Well now you're comparing forced induction engines to a naturally aspirated
one, that's really not fair. And as you increase the number of cylinders, the
efficiency goes down, and therefore hp/l. And those numbers up there aren't
impressive. Honda's S2000 has 120hp/l NA. The import crowd always seem to trump
on hp/l, guess to make excuses when the lose a race. A 1L engine putting out
200hp is nice, but against a 5.7L engine with 345hp in the same car it will
lose the race every time.
Cy Welch
pushrod motors all beat the high tech mustang motor. And isn't the Viper a
pushrod motor too? And it REALLY walks all over the mustang.
--
Cy Welch
89 RS 5.0 TBI, its not fast, but I like it anyways
67 Shortbed Stepside C10 (slow going restoral) w/1966 250 Straight 6
Remove the *'s to email me (spam prevention)
"Sean Brittain" <sbri...@wfubmc.edu> wrote in message
news:8emk8h$s...@f1n1.spenet.wfu.edu...
> are saying that a domestic car will last longer than an import? Why don't
> you go look around and see how many 84 Civics are on the road and they see
> if you can find any 84 Escorts or Cavilers and what shape are they in. Now
> let's educate you in gas milage...you site the Geo Metro which is sold at
> Chevrolet dealers but in fact is a Suzuki Swift..aka an import car! Then
you
> state that you would not say that American cars are not advanced.... well
> that is your opinion I'll use your example to prove other wise. The
> GREAT-ALL MIGHTY LS1... what and old, tired engine design. An OHV,
push-rod
> V-8. In the Corvette form 5.7 liters pushing out 345 hp, not bad but this
Aaron Apruzzese
comes up because these arguments continue to go full circle . For all intents
and purposes, the gasoline engine could in itself be considered an old, tired
design. Adding computers, turbos, supercharges, and changing cam placement,
amongst other things, all are improvements to the same general idea. What so
many people in this thread are missing is that no matter who manufacturers a
performance engine, whether import or domestic, that car can be modified at any
given time to beat a competitor, no matter who manufactured the competitor. If
you are running a 10 second quarter mile, then it is a ten second quarter mile
regardless of how it was done. What is left over is the packaging. A "rice
boy" Civic doesn't have any of the sophistry of a Corvette, 911, or 3000
GT...yet, modified correctly any one of these four vehicles can have the same
times. What really is the bottom line to these arguments with no logical
conclusion?
Aaron Apruzzese
continent. Any one can be made to out perform the next...the bottom line is that because
different types do exist, the consumer has a choice to find a car that suites personal
preference.
Patrick Weaver
"Aaron Apruzzese wrote
changing the engine, block and all, you'd win my undying
admiration? Some cars are just easier. If you can't build a
reasonably fast 350 GM small block by just picking some parts
out of a catalog you are one hurting puppy. On the other hand if
you could tell me how to make my 1987 1400cc Dodge (Mitsubishi)
Colt go fast at a fairly low cost I'd really appreciate it.
Dropping it out of a plane at 40,000 feet isn't an option >8-O
Sean Brittain
sh...@my-deja.com
GrandP...@webtv.net (Michael Ereon) wrote:
> Group: alt.autos.camaro.firebird Date: Fri, Apr 28, 2000, 12:30pm
> >know about the torque and horsepower
> >relationship.
>
> The whole point is WHERE engines make power. Its proven that low end
> crank torque with modest gearing is better than high end hp and high
> gearing.
Better? Better for what? Better for pulling a stump out of the ground,
I will grant you that :-)
> >The fact that an S2000 with its 150lb-ft
> >of torque can keep up with you and your
> >240lb-ft of torque at all proves that
> >horsepower (and proper gearing) is
> >more important.
>
> And the fact that the S2K weighs hella less than a GS-T and I bet you
> the GS-t will be better around town.
The S2000 and the GST aren't as different in weight as you might think.
The S2000 is 2809lbs, which is certainly more than you would think
by looking at it.
The 2G GST is 2970lbs. The 1G GST weighs less.
So, a 160lb difference. Different drivers could make up a lot of that
difference.
But I agree with you, the GST would probably be better around town.
Given the choice between torque and revs...I'll take both! :-)
> See ya!
> Mike
sh...@my-deja.com
"Patrick Weaver" <zymur...@citlink.com> wrote:
> That if you could build a ten second Yugo without completely
> changing the engine, block and all, you'd win my undying
> admiration? Some cars are just easier. If you can't build a
> reasonably fast 350 GM small block by just picking some parts
> out of a catalog you are one hurting puppy. On the other hand if
> you could tell me how to make my 1987 1400cc Dodge (Mitsubishi)
> Colt go fast at a fairly low cost I'd really appreciate it.
> Dropping it out of a plane at 40,000 feet isn't an option >8-O
Ok, this goes against the rules, but Nate Pharr has a POS Colt running
11.6@124 on the stock transmission. :-)
Why is it against the rules? Well, the engine came out of his
smashed 91 Galant VR4. 2 liters of turbocharged fun! He actually
drives this car around on the street. I think it is his daily driver!
Michael Ereon
From: sh...@my-deja.com Re: Hondas
In article <29733-39...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
GrandP...@webtv.net (Michael Ereon) wrote:
Group: alt.autos.camaro.firebird Date: Fri, Apr 28, 2000, 12:30pm
(EDT+4) From: sh...@my-deja.com Re: Hondas
hp = torque * RPM / 5252 is all I need to know about the torque and
horsepower
relationship.
The whole point is WHERE engines make power. Its proven that low end
crank torque with modest gearing is better than high end hp and high
gearing.
Better? Better for what? Better for pulling a stump out of the ground, I
will grant you that :-)
>The S2000 and the GST aren't as
>different in weight as you might think.
>The S2000 is 2809lbs, which is certainly
>more than you would think by looking at
>it. The 2G GST is 2970lbs. The 1G GST
>weighs less.
I never realized the S2K is such a pig!
>So, a 160lb difference. Different drivers
>could make up a lot of that difference.
>But I agree with you, the GST would
>probably be better around town. Given
>the choice between torque and revs...I'll
>take both! :-)
Both engines are 4 bangers, right? Lets have a drag between both of
them and the rev limit will be 4K. Hmm, who will win? The one with
more crank torque, the GST, thank you very much. = )
Brad
> out of a catalog you are one hurting puppy. On the other hand if
> you could tell me how to make my 1987 1400cc Dodge (Mitsubishi)
> Colt go fast at a fairly low cost I'd really appreciate it.
> Dropping it out of a plane at 40,000 feet isn't an option >8-O
An 87 Colt should have either a 1.5 carbureted N/A or a 1.6 fuel
injected turbo. If you have the turbo 1.6, you're in business. They
run really rich and you can trick the computer to allow up to 20psi on
pump gas without doing a whole lot.
Patrick Weaver
"Brad" wrote
Brad
>
> "Brad" wrote
> > An 87 Colt should have either a 1.5 carbureted N/A or a 1.6 fuel
> > injected turbo. If you have the turbo 1.6, you're in business. They
> > run really rich and you can trick the computer to allow up to 20psi on
> > pump gas without doing a whole lot.
> >
> Nope no turbo. I'ts got one of those funky electronic carbs on it.
Not much you can do then. You know what they say, "If you have a V6
Camaro and want more power, trade it in for a V8." Go trade that 1.5
Colt in for a turbo 1.6 and then we'll have it whip on some "muscle
cars" for a few hundred bucks. Hope you like torque steer though. 8|
S.b.M
motor..LOL...actually..those suckers are fun if they are running right..
--
http://debndev.home.netcom.com/automotive.htm
We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the
entire works of Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL, we know this is not possible.
Brad <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39110A9B...@ix.netcom.com...
Michael Ereon
From: BigP...@ix.netcom.com (Brad) Re: Hondas
>On a typical car, the torque peak is
>around 3000 rpms, and the horsepower
>peak is around 6000 rpms. I'd say
>launching from 6000 rpms would give
>me more oomph off the line than
>launching at 3000 rpms. Provided there
>is traction, of course.
And this is in direct drive? (1.00) I sure hope not...
>It's "just a measurement...?" Without the
>time factor, torque is next
>to useless.
An engine makes torque(power, twisting force). Over time(rpms), it
measures hp.
Engine power is a REAL thing. Torque over a period of time(HP) is a
MEASUREMENT.
See ya!
Mike
Brad
>
> Group: alt.autos.camaro.firebird Date: Mon, May 1, 2000, 5:52pm (EDT-1)
> From: BigP...@ix.netcom.com (Brad) Re: Hondas
>
> >On a typical car, the torque peak is
> >around 3000 rpms, and the horsepower
> >peak is around 6000 rpms. I'd say
> >launching from 6000 rpms would give
> >me more oomph off the line than
> >launching at 3000 rpms. Provided there
> >is traction, of course.
>
> And this is in direct drive? (1.00) I sure hope not...
Look at any car magazine. Torque is usually peaked around three maybe
four thousand rpms, and horsepower peaks around 6000. Is this what
you're disputing?
If a stock LT1 driver with more torque than horsepower could launch from
6000 rpms (hp peak) and not worry about traction or breaking, don't you
think he would in order to get a faster, more powerful launch?
(more below, lots of quoted stuff)
>
> >It's "just a measurement...?" Without the
> >time factor, torque is next
> >to useless.
>
> An engine makes torque(power, twisting force). Over time(rpms), it
> measures hp.
>
> Engine power is a REAL thing. Torque over a period of time(HP) is a
> MEASUREMENT.
Yeah, it's a measurement of how much a higher horsepower car is going to
kick the crap out of yours down the 1/4 mile. :)
Does algebra exist? Are numbers real? Not really, but we use them to
measure things.
Musashi already replied to this in the "torque rules" thread the other
week. Since she already layed down the law on this one, I'll just quote
what the Silver PowerRanger Ultra-Emily said:
>
> >Torque is the deciding factor on any engine...Remember..HorsePower
> >doesnt really exist..its a mathmatical formula based on torque at a
> >certain rpm.
>
> That is totally wrong. Hp is a _derived_ unit, but it does exist. Does Wattage exist? It can't be
> measured directly, but it most
> certainly exists. Weight doesn't actually exist, either, it's just mass times gravity's acceleration. I don't
> believe that you would argue that we should do away with weight as a unit of measure, though.
>
> >Anytime your engine makes more torque at a higher rpm, it will result in
> >more mathmatical horsepower.
>
> True, which is the same as real horsepower.
>
> >At lower RPMs, theres more torque but less horsepower.
>
> Not always.
>
> >The engine with more low speed torque and good gearing and tires are the
> >BOMB to drive everyday on the street.
> >Very few cars with good low speed torque will ever see more than 4500
> >rpms on the street.
> >And they usually leave harder and faster and are so much fun to drive.
>
>
> Were you paying attention? You can leave at any rpm you like, and power is what accelerates you,
> not torque. Torque has no time component, and acceleration _requires_ a time component. Try
> running the quarter with a powerstroke diesel. It has more torque than just about any gasoline engine,
> but I doubt it'll win many races.
>
>
> >5,000-7,000 rpm mathmatical computated horsepower is better left for
> >track reasons...
> >which is why a good V8 will always be more fun than a 4 cylinder.
>
>
> More fun, or faster? I don't care what's more fun, we're talking about speed here. A miata is fun
> because you can toss it around and play with it and feel like speed racer, even though it's really slow as
> shit. The same thing goes for a "hard leaving" torque monster that runs just 14's. Sure, it may make
> noise and squeal its tires and feel fast, but it's really not.
>
>
> >Too many guys I met say that their 4 cylinder has more horsepwer per
> >cubic inch than a V8...
> >which means dick to me...they dont even know what torque is...torque at
> >a certain rpm can be calculated into horsepower...
>
>
> Hp per unit displacement is talk for bench racers and mag writers. Talk about BSFC and derivative
> power curves, area under the curve, etc. It's about like talking about torque as if it is the only thing that
> matters. They are just opposite ends of the bullshit curves.
>
>
> >remember, on the street you drive torque but ADVERTISE horsepower...
> >thats why those pesky 4's with 200 or so horses seem so slow around town
> >until you rev them to 6000 rpms...they make their good torque at a much
> >higher rpm and they say oHHH its horseower...BS...its worthless on the
> >street.
>
>
> So is my bike, with its 12,500 rpm redline, prime power curve from 7500-11000 rpm worthless on the
> street? I ride it in the lower revs in town, but when I want to go, just drop a cog and go. Sure, just pinning
> the throttle from 4000 rpm would be slow, but who would do that? It's stupid.
>
>
> >Maybe on the highway at insane speeds over the limit might be make a 4
> >cylinder run fast...
>
>
> You do realize that there are more than just the one gear in most cars, right? They're there for a
> reason, you know.
Sean Brittain
little 4.6 SOHC engine! Could they beat the 5.4 Cobra R? The Camaro and T/A
get their asses spanked buy DOHC 3.0 6's all the time in the form of VR4's
and Supra TT's! What is your point? The 5.8 push-rod is old! At least Ford
has the guts to try to insert new ideas into it's cars. Maybe that is why
the Mustang out sells the combined sells of the GM F body! Maybe that is why
GM is stopping the Camaro/Firebird! Again I throw out the numbers 270 hp
from a 4.6 = 58.69 hp/liter. 320 hp from a 5.8 = 55.17 hp/liter. 450 hp from
a 8.0 (V-10) = 56.25 hp/liter. If you look at the power to displacement
ratio which has the bigger numbers???? Now lets throw in a VR4....320 hp
from a 3.0 (V-6) = 106.67 hp/liter! Oh , I know how about the ratio from my
Stealth ES....222 hp from a 3.0 = 74 hp/liter. This is what I was talking
about engine power by size. Not this can out run that sh*t! Once again what
is your point????
Cy Welch <cy*welch*@*hotmail*.*com> wrote in message
news:8eni5r$q...@chronicle.concentric.net...
> And in competition the ford motor gets tromped on all the time. Those old
> pushrod motors all beat the high tech mustang motor. And isn't the Viper
a
> pushrod motor too? And it REALLY walks all over the mustang.
>
> --
> Cy Welch
> 89 RS 5.0 TBI, its not fast, but I like it anyways
> 67 Shortbed Stepside C10 (slow going restoral) w/1966 250 Straight 6
> Remove the *'s to email me (spam prevention)
> "Sean Brittain" <sbri...@wfubmc.edu> wrote in message
> news:8emk8h$s...@f1n1.spenet.wfu.edu...
> >
Kenny H
<sbri...@wfubmc.edu> wrote:
>Well I hope to GOD that a 5.8 GM and a 8.0 V-10 ($70,000+) could beat a
>little 4.6 SOHC engine! Could they beat the 5.4 Cobra R?
First off the Cobra R isn't even a mass produced vehicle. Second, the
LS1 is a 5.7, not a 5.8. Third, no excuses for cubic inches. You run
what you brung.
The Camaro and T/A
>get their asses spanked buy DOHC 3.0 6's all the time in the form of VR4's
>and Supra TT's! What is your point?
Really? Stock Z28, 12.89 in MM&FF last year. Have you ever heard of
a stock Supra TT or VR4 going 'that' fast? Percy Kincy went 13.08 in
his bone stock Z28 two years ago. David Trittermery (sp?) went 12.98
in his bone stock Z28 as well. Where are all the stock high 12s and
low 13 second VR4s and Supra TT?
The 5.8 push-rod is old!
Just how old is this 5.8? Its funny, I don't see GM making any 5.8s,
I do see them making a 5.7. Also, I do hope you know the LS1 isn't a
350, its a 346. Its a completely new small block, nothing is the same
as the tried and true 350.
At least Ford
>has the guts to try to insert new ideas into it's cars.
No, Ford wasn't confident in its ability to get the 5.0 HO to pass
emmissions, plain and simple.
Maybe that is why
>the Mustang out sells the combined sells of the GM F body!
This has more to do with dealer markup, dealer availabity, and target
market. The Mustang appeals more to the masses with its softer ride
etc, the FBody is more of a hard nosed performance car.
Maybe that is why
>GM is stopping the Camaro/Firebird!
Really? Do you always believe rumors? Remember when Ford was going
to stop making the Mustang in '88 and turn it into a Probe?
Again I throw out the numbers 270 hp
>from a 4.6 = 58.69 hp/liter. 320 hp from a 5.8 = 55.17 hp/liter. 450 hp from
>a 8.0 (V-10) = 56.25 hp/liter.
First off the 4.6 SOHC has 260 horsepower. And it puts down 225 to
the wheels on average. Thats 48.9 hp/liter. The LS1 puts down 290
horsepower in stock form on average. Its a 5.7, thats 50.8 hp/liter.
The Cobras 4.6 DOHC puts down 265 horsepower on average (sometimes
even less). Thats 57.6 hp/liter. The LS1 is physically lighter,
physically smaller, and more fuel efficient then the 4.6 Even the LS1
mated with a 4 speed automatic is more fuel efficient then a 4.6 mated
with an auto, so the 6th gear .50 overdrive ratio can't even explain
all of the difference. Thats a complete ricer arguement anyways. Are
you really 'glad' your engine is smaller when you get beat by an LS1?
If you look at the power to displacement
>ratio which has the bigger numbers???? Now lets throw in a VR4....320 hp
>from a 3.0 (V-6) = 106.67 hp/liter! Oh , I know how about the ratio from my
>Stealth ES....222 hp from a 3.0 = 74 hp/liter. This is what I was talking
>about engine power by size.
The Japanese motors make nice power, but they all do it with a power
adder. The only one of the cars you mentioned that can run with an
LS1 stock vs stock is the Supra TT. The VR4 launches well because of
AWD, but the LS1 is much stronger at speed.
The Stealth with 222 horsepower is a joke. All that money for a car
that runs door handle to door handle with a 4 door Nissan Maxima 5
speed.
The
>> > GREAT-ALL MIGHTY LS1... what and old, tired engine design. An OHV,
>> push-rod
Old and tired? The whole engine/block is quite new! You need to
educate yourself.
>> > V-8. In the Corvette form 5.7 liters pushing out 345 hp, not bad but
>this
>> > gives you a 60.5 hp per liter ratio. In Camero Z28 form you get 305
>> > hp...with a 53.5 hp per liter ratio. Lets look at the other American
>V-8,
If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know the
LS1 in the Vette, Firebirds, and Z28s all pull outs the same amount of
power. I actualy 'have' an LS1, and I've actually seen dyno charts.
>> > the 4.6 SOHC GT V-8, which has 270 hp which gives you 58.69 hp per
>liter.
>> > Not bad atleast Ford has gone to OHC designs and retired that old 5.0.
Yeah, that 5.0 was junk! Quick in stock form, easy to work on, cheap
to modify....who wants that?
BTW, GTs have 260 horsepower, not 270.
>> Let's
>> > see and look and some comparison...3000GT VR4 3.0(DOHC V-6, AWD AWS)
>liter
>> > and 320 hp...106.7 hp per liter...300 ZX TT (DOHC V-6) 320 hp from a 3.0
The 300 ZX TT is not a fast car, plain and simple. 13.8 1/4 mile
times do not impress me.
Brad
> The 300 ZX TT is not a fast car, plain and simple. 13.8 1/4 mile
> times do not impress me.
Aw, cut the 300ZX a little slack, Kenny. The thing is 10 years old!
13.8 stock is still very respectable even by today's standards. Now you
go over there and apologize to that 300ZX before it starts to cry.
BadBird66
>little 4.6 SOHC engine!
First off GM doesn't make a 5.8, if you knew anything about cars thats about as
obvious as you can get.
>Could they beat the 5.4 Cobra R?
Sure can. Viper will walk all over it, vettes and f-bodies run about the same
1/4 mile times as it, and for a hell of a lot lower price.
>The Camaro and T/A
>get their asses spanked buy DOHC 3.0 6's all the time in the form of VR4's
>and Supra TT's!
Why don't you stop fucking comparing forced induction to natural aspirated
engines. And f-bodies hardly get spanked by those cars. An f-body will toast a
VR4 and run right with a supra.
>What is your point? The 5.8 push-rod is old!
Is that why Saleen still uses it in their mustangs?
> At least Ford
>has the guts to try to insert new ideas into it's cars. Maybe that is why
>the Mustang out sells the combined sells of the GM F body!
Yeah because they're having no problem selling women the crappy V6's.
>Maybe that is why
>GM is stopping the Camaro/Firebird! Again I throw out the numbers 270 hp
>from a 4.6 = 58.69 hp/liter. 320 hp from a 5.8 = 55.17 hp/liter. 450 hp from
>a 8.0 (V-10) = 56.25 hp/liter
Didn't you try this before. You sound like a goddamn ricer every time.
Horsepower is what wins races, not hp/L. And btw, as displacement increases
efficiency drops.
>Now lets throw in a VR4....320 hp
>from a 3.0 (V-6) = 106.67 hp/liter!
Forced induction, stop comparing apples to oranges. At least use an S2000 which
makes 120hp/L.
>Oh , I know how about the ratio from my
>Stealth ES....222 hp from a 3.0 = 74 hp/liter.
Yeah and speaking of cars not in production anymore. As a matter of fact
neither are VR4's, or Supras.
>This is what I was talking
>about engine power by size. Not this can out run that sh*t! Once again what
>is your point????
What's your point? Do you go out and brag at stoplights to f-body owners that
your POS has more hp/L before getting trounced??? Beat it ricer.
Bird Of Fire
job Kenny H, I didn't have to bother. Thanks alot man. :)
BTW - Didn't the Chevy Cosworth Vega have a DOHC 4 banger back in the
70's? And what about the Chevy Corvette ZR-1? Wasn't that a DOHC 350 motor?
My answer to all of this crap is, who gives a fat shit about power per
liter? Model airplanes engines put out 1.1 horsepower at over 10 thousand
RPM, but are only .0065 litres in size. That's about 160 hp per liter give
or take (I'm terrible at math). But is it going to win you any drag races?
No. So why even bother arguing the fact that your engine makes more hp/per
liter if it still gets its ass smoked in a drag race? Maybe big numbers on a
dyno and a math equations are impressive to some, but I'd prefer seeing
small E.T. numbers on a little slip of paper rather than hp/per liter crap.
--
-*Bird Of Fire*-
1967 Pontiac 400ci coupe, TH400
Still slow as sin.
http://www.rglobal.net/users/phil
"Kenny H" <ken...@injersey.infi.net> wrote in message
news:391974c6...@news.injersey.infi.net...
> On Wed, 10 May 2000 08:29:08 -0400, "Sean Brittain"
> <sbri...@wfubmc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Well I hope to GOD that a 5.8 GM and a 8.0 V-10 ($70,000+) could beat a
> >little 4.6 SOHC engine! Could they beat the 5.4 Cobra R?
>
> First off the Cobra R isn't even a mass produced vehicle. Second, the
<SNIPPED>
Kenny H
wrote:
>Aw, cut the 300ZX a little slack, Kenny. The thing is 10 years old!
>13.8 stock is still very respectable even by today's standards. Now you
>go over there and apologize to that 300ZX before it starts to cry.
LOL. But the 300ZX never got a boost in power. Back in '90 a 13.8
was great, not now. Now we have luxury 4 door sedans running damn
close to that. The last year of the 300ZX TT ('96?) and it was not
any faster....
Kenny H
wrote:
>You know I was going to retaliate to this post, but....you did such a good
>job Kenny H, I didn't have to bother. Thanks alot man. :)
Thanks.
> BTW - Didn't the Chevy Cosworth Vega have a DOHC 4 banger back in the
>70's? And what about the Chevy Corvette ZR-1? Wasn't that a DOHC 350 motor?
>My answer to all of this crap is, who gives a fat shit about power per
>liter? Model airplanes engines put out 1.1 horsepower at over 10 thousand
>RPM, but are only .0065 litres in size. That's about 160 hp per liter give
>or take (I'm terrible at math). But is it going to win you any drag races?
>No. So why even bother arguing the fact that your engine makes more hp/per
>liter if it still gets its ass smoked in a drag race? Maybe big numbers on a
>dyno and a math equations are impressive to some, but I'd prefer seeing
>small E.T. numbers on a little slip of paper rather than hp/per liter crap.
Exactly my point! My buddies big block GTO can kill my Formula. I
don't run around and make cubic inch excuses about it. His car is
faster, plain and simple.
Bird Of Fire
Hate to be a stickler, but remember, Pontiac never made a "Big Block." :)
> don't run around and make cubic inch excuses about it. His car is
> faster, plain and simple.
Exactly. I don't care if you're running a 'basically stock' 5.0 Mustang, a
440 Mopar, or a nitroused 4 banger. If you can beat me down the
1320.....more power to you.
Kenny H
wrote:
>> Exactly my point! My buddies big block GTO can kill my Formula. I
>
>Hate to be a stickler, but remember, Pontiac never made a "Big Block." :)
His car has a crate 455 from Jim Butler in Tennessee. He paid a lot
for the motor, but it kicks some ass....
Scanner
Brad
>
> There is no replacement for cubic displacement.
Now now, don't start with that now. There's no replacement for
displacement _all else being equal_, which it often isn't.
Michael Ereon
From: BigP...@ix.netcom.com (Brad) Re: Hondas
>Now now, don't start with that now.
>There's no replacement for
>displacement _all else being equal_,
>which it often isn't.
Two identical 4 bangers with the same amount of turbo boost. One is
1.8L and the other 2.4L. Gee, wonder what engine will produce more
power.
See ya!
Mike
Michael
measured at the point of rotation and the other is measured
a given distance from the centre of rotation. Engine torque
is measure in lb-ft at the crank and the force generated by
a wrench because of leverage is in ft-lb.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Got Balls?
>
> "Kenny H" <ken...@injersey.infi.net> wrote in message
> news:391a38b7...@news.injersey.infi.net...
> > wrote:
> >
> > >You know I was going to retaliate to this post, but....you did such a
> good
> > >job Kenny H, I didn't have to bother. Thanks alot man. :)
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > > BTW - Didn't the Chevy Cosworth Vega have a DOHC 4 banger back in the
> > >70's? And what about the Chevy Corvette ZR-1? Wasn't that a DOHC 350
> motor?
> > >My answer to all of this crap is, who gives a fat shit about power per
> > >liter? Model airplanes engines put out 1.1 horsepower at over 10 thousand
> > >RPM, but are only .0065 litres in size. That's about 160 hp per liter
> give
> > >or take (I'm terrible at math). But is it going to win you any drag
> races?
> > >No. So why even bother arguing the fact that your engine makes more
> hp/per
> > >liter if it still gets its ass smoked in a drag race? Maybe big numbers
> on a
> > >dyno and a math equations are impressive to some, but I'd prefer seeing
> > >small E.T. numbers on a little slip of paper rather than hp/per liter
> crap.
>
> Hate to be a stickler, but remember, Pontiac never made a "Big Block." :)
>
Compair a 326-455 to a 301 and say that with a straight face.
Mac
Bird Of Fire
news:391B5D...@yahoo.com...
> Bird Of Fire wrote:
> >
> > "Kenny H" <ken...@injersey.infi.net> wrote in message
> > news:391a38b7...@news.injersey.infi.net...
>
> Mac
But nobody really cared about the 301. What about the 265? You didn't
mention that one. Yeah you can technically call them a small block, but
they're so obscure and weak, I don't think anyone even bothered to build
these up, let alone buy them on purpose. Point is nobody in the Pontiac
engine building world calls the family of 326-455 big OR small blocks. And
seeing as they don't neither will I.
John Salmi
-john
"Scanner" <Los...@die.net> wrote in message
news:9QCS4.3$5i1...@news2.randori.com...
Brad
What two four-cylinder cars are identical and have identically-designed
engines save for the difference in cubic inches? It's not that easy.
An L98 has 350 cubic inches. A 5.0 Mustang has 302 cubic inches. How
come the car with 48 more cubes got its ass kicked half the time? If
you put decent boost on an LT1 it'll probably blow before you beat many
quick boosted 4-bangers that were designed for forced-induction. Or
maybe an Incon turboed 5.0 versus a 488 cube Viper. I'd say those twin
turbos would replace those 186 cubes quite nicely. How about an LS1
versus an old big-block Mustang? Betcha the smaller-engined car wins
that one too because the rest is not equal.
Someone stop me before I say the two words that strike both fear and
wonder in the minds of many a V8 owner: "Grand National."
OOoooooooooo....
WOOHOO!
editorN...@automotive-review.com.invalid says...
>
>Foot-pounds and pound-feet are not the same thing. One is
>measured at the point of rotation and the other is measured
>a given distance from the centre of rotation. Engine torque
>is measure in lb-ft at the crank and the force generated by
>a wrench because of leverage is in ft-lb.
>
. . . if you say so. Torque can be measure at either end, using the proper
instruments. Some people say foot-pounds, others say pound-feet. In both cases,
the term refers to the amount of force applied a certain distance from a
fulcrum. A bolt torqued to 70 lb-ft. can hold 70 pounds 1 foot from its center
before loosening (ignore friction). An engine generating 200 lb-ft. of torque
would require a 200 lb. load 1 foot from the crank's center to stall it. Either
way, the components involved are the same.