|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Originally posted by friction:
Major Manufacturers use many different ways to make their power. GM tunes their pushrods, Ford likes Roots blowers, Dodge likes turbos and V-10s, Honda has VTEC.. the end result is still good HP.
Except the Honda is frickin pathetic in the torque dept. How much does technology and HP/Litre matter when you're lookin at a pushrod V-8's tailights??  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 726
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 726 |
Originally posted by friction:
Really.. the HP/Liter war in DOHC vs. Pushrod is just comparing apples to oranges. HP is directly related to TORQUE. (If I remember correctly HP = (Torque*RPM)/5252. )A pushrod (or 2Valve) motor will make more useable low end torque, simply because it maintains a higher air velocity at the lower RPMS.
Also, I'm pretty sure that a stock 5-spd, 5.0 Fox body will do significantly better than 15.2 in the 1/4.
ya thats the correct formula..but that is aslo just it!!! torque x RPM!! i would like to see mustangs rev out at 8500 RPM...you would think that the fox body was faster, but it isn't. ive riddin' in both stock and modded..with sources (ie. that r&t mag) to back it up. I'm not trying to say EVER that there isn't rice rollin around..what makes me mad is the sterotypical BIG BLOCK boy trashing hondas... i had the same argument today in my shop..Chevelle this, Camaro that...untill i layed down a sport compact with that neon that runs mid 10's, N/A. People need to reconize that low displacment engines are the wave of the future, as gas prices grow, so will small car numbers...Originally posted by friction:
And even if you want to play the HP/Liter game, look at the LS6 in the Z-06 Corvette 405hp/5.7 liters. That's 71hp/liter.. more specific output than a standard 2.5 Liter duratec, and with Torque to back it up!
FINALLY!!! How long has it taken GM to get 400 hp out of their modern day 350?? playing that game, ill just bring the WHOLE fleet of Hondas/acura..gm got it right once, how about all the B series engines?? or even BMW M3 - 340 HP 3.3 liters..the list goes on, GM got it right once. Every company uses pushrods..Good low end torque to drive the kids around with..all companies (Supercoupe, GTP, SSEI..) would like Roots blowerscuz i havn't seen a centrifugal on a car yet
Originally posted by Blackie:
Except the Honda is frickin pathetic in the torque dept. How much does technology and HP/Litre matter when you're lookin at a pushrod V-8's tailights??
Who needs torque if you car only weights 2500 lbs? Obviously they are doing someithing right. I.E. S2000 or NSX.
Don't forget for you F body dudes...the fastest TA wasn't a V8, but was the turbo 6 in the late 80's
-Tim
Tim
Ex - ContourPower
2001 Saab 9-3 Viggen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682 |
I'd still take the Lotus Elise over S2000 or NSX...They are too heavy and slow and have too big engines for my taste.
98.5 Contour SVT
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country"
--US President George W Bush
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 67
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 67 |
Horsepower per liter: Most over-rated street engine stat ever.
For the record: I like hondas, I've owned them, I root for them in racing (for the record, the NSX pre-dated Honda's Indy car efforts by 3 years) , I recommend them to people. But if quick 1/4 mile times on the cheap are what I'm looking for the big H isn't the first place I'm going for them.
NEW: '05 Black Hemi Magnum
SOLD:'99 Silver Contour SVT (no mods)
R.I.P. '92 SHO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 726
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 726 |
Originally posted by Frank Grimes:
for the record, the NSX pre-dated Honda's Indy car efforts by 3 years
--then i stand corrected, but i though they had the VTEC technology in the indy cars, then introduced it to the NSX in 91, or atleast that was my understanding.
When you are talking technology, Hp/Liter (specific output) is perfect!!! How can one compare a low out put 45 hp/liter engine to a High preformance engine (100+ hp/L)....just like power to weight ratio..put a School bus full of rat kids to a bike!! hmmmm...maybe ill do that tomarrow, for research purposes only 
If i wanted to get down the 1420 (thats what it is right?) quick, i would choose a DSM..few solenoids here, exhaust there.... 
-Tim 
Tim
Ex - ContourPower
2001 Saab 9-3 Viggen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,264
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,264 |
Common, each car has it's place and deserves some respect. Yes the Trans Am is a pig on gas and is a heavy ass car, but they handle very well expecially for thier size, and to sit in one at full throttle is always exciting, the instant push at any given RPM is astounding. The Civic is not even the same kind of vehicle. I always detest these idiotic comparisons. Let's compare a Focus to a Civic, or keep the mustang for comparision to the Trans Am. Nobody can seriously expect a stock Civic to stay nose to nose with such a beast. It would be the same as comparing a Contour SVT to a Z06.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857 |
Originally posted by ContourPower:
Originally posted by friction:
Really.. the HP/Liter war in DOHC vs. Pushrod is just comparing apples to oranges. HP is directly related to TORQUE. (If I remember correctly HP = (Torque*RPM)/5252. )A pushrod (or 2Valve) motor will make more useable low end torque, simply because it maintains a higher air velocity at the lower RPMS.
Also, I'm pretty sure that a stock 5-spd, 5.0 Fox body will do significantly better than 15.2 in the 1/4.
ya thats the correct formula..but that is aslo just it!!! torque x RPM!! i would like to see mustangs rev out at 8500 RPM...you would think that the fox body was faster, but it isn't. ive riddin' in both stock and modded..with sources (ie. that r&t mag) to back it up. I'm not trying to say EVER that there isn't rice rollin around..what makes me mad is the sterotypical BIG BLOCK boy trashing hondas... i had the same argument today in my shop..Chevelle this, Camaro that...untill i layed down a sport compact with that neon that runs mid 10's, N/A. People need to reconize that low displacment engines are the wave of the future, as gas prices grow, so will small car numbers...Originally posted by friction:
And even if you want to play the HP/Liter game, look at the LS6 in the Z-06 Corvette 405hp/5.7 liters. That's 71hp/liter.. more specific output than a standard 2.5 Liter duratec, and with Torque to back it up!
FINALLY!!! How long has it taken GM to get 400 hp out of their modern day 350?? playing that game, ill just bring the WHOLE fleet of Hondas/acura..gm got it right once, how about all the B series engines?? or even BMW M3 - 340 HP 3.3 liters..the list goes on, GM got it right once. Every company uses pushrods..Good low end torque to drive the kids around with..all companies (Supercoupe, GTP, SSEI..) would like Roots blowerscuz i havn't seen a centrifugal on a car yet
Originally posted by Blackie:
Except the Honda is frickin pathetic in the torque dept. How much does technology and HP/Litre matter when you're lookin at a pushrod V-8's tailights??
Who needs torque if you car only weights 2500 lbs? Obviously they are doing someithing right. I.E. S2000 or NSX.
Don't forget for you F body dudes...the fastest TA wasn't a V8, but was the turbo 6 in the late 80's
-Tim
damn you think just like a ricer...hp per liter blah blah blah....you are also sadly mistaken on your idiotic FOX body mustangs(the pics you earlier posted were of sn95 stangs by the way)1/4 mile times....i am looking at my mustang milestones poster on my wall right now...and the stock 1/4 mile time posted for a 1989 5speed lx in a road and track magazine performance car special is 14.6 seconds@97 mph....and 0-60 at 6.0 seconds and a top speed of 138 mph....that is BONE STOCK......an automic convertible gt may run 15.2,but not a 5speed.....a STOCK 5speed stang will hand a STOCK integra its a$$ all day long period...and that's just a fact...
now i can attest to those 1/4 mile times my current 93 lx ran a 14.2 STOCK(with factory 3.73 gears,removed air silencer,k@n drop in)and has run from that down to its current 12.9's in various stages of mods...all motor...my ex wife had a 93 gt with a k&n drop in and 3.55 gears ran 14.0's all day long with her driving...no other mods....my former 88 gt automatic ran a 15.0 stock,and i had it running well into the 13's with some engine mods,before i sold it...and knew several others with fox stangs that ran from the slowest a 14.8 down to the fastest my cousins 93 cobra that ran 9.98's(it did have a massive supercharger though)so get the real world facts before you post some bulls##t 1/4 mile times...even if that was listed in some mag somewhere it certainly wasn't the norm i'll assure you...that's what having 300 lb. ft. of torque stock is like....
and while i don't love ls1 gm's you gotta give credit where credit is due those things were fast as s##t bone stock...the 98 and later ls1's were grossly underated in horsepower from the factory,and were fast as hell even in stock trim....
i also respect the fact that hondas can be fast(i have a friend that drags an 88 crx)and it is damn fast,but your horsepower per liter argument is stupid as s##t....and the so called awesome cars you list are 14 second cars...again wow i am impressed....as i said my 10 yr. old stang ran that or faster stock...i am not impressed...and as far as looks my stang is very nice looking,as are many fox stangs,so you're wrong again...
new,new ride!
'99 svt
black/mnb
'95 mustang gt sold!
'98 svt #800 sold!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 217
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 217 |
Preach on Brother! My '91 LX 5 spd was turning mid 14s with just a drop in K&N filter and some Dynomax Super Turbo mufflers and removed silencer.
George Hodge
New: Volvo S60R
Old:2000 SVT Silver Frost 1188/2150
DMD, 75mm Pro-M, HPP rear strut tower bar
Aussie 24mm sway bar (with boxed in subframe)
BAT European Handling Kit, Brullen Y-pipe
Performance Ford spherical bearing end links
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857 |
Originally posted by ghodge:
Preach on Brother! My '91 LX 5 spd was turning mid 14s with just a drop in K&N filter and some Dynomax Super Turbo mufflers and removed silencer.
w3rd some of these haters just don't want to admit to the power of the fox body stang....
new,new ride!
'99 svt
black/mnb
'95 mustang gt sold!
'98 svt #800 sold!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 170
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 170 |
Now now, children. I didn't start this thread to fight over foreign vs. american cars. All cars have their ups and downs. The only reason I posted that thing was because I thought it was amusing, and thought possibly someone else on here would too, not start WWIII. So calm down 
Midnight Red '95 Contour SE.
YoDude quasi-dual cat-back w/ Dynomax muffler.
SVT UIM and TB.
KKM True-Rev CAI.
Pre-98 SVT front and SVT rear conversion, YEAH BABY!
Alpha Kappa Psi
|
|
|
|
|
