> coyote engine makes ~55hp per cylinder > s2000 engine

Weak bait faggit

>>16045361
You could of had a point if you compared
the specific outputs of the two engines.

>S2000: 125 HP/L (AP1, JDM)
>Coyote: 87 HP/L (S-550 GT, USDM)

>horsepower per cylinder
shittiest troll metric yet

Because power per cylinder is the only thing that matters when comparing cars.

I dont disagree that the mustang is a pretty shit car as far as cars go, but this argument is just fucking stupid

>>16045377
> t. mustang driver

>Mustang
>435hp, 400lb-ft

>S2000
>240hp (at the top and nowhere else), 0lb-ft

I love the S2000 but you're a fucking retard who knows nothing about engines.

>>16045403
> 0lb-ft
> doesn't know how horsepower is calculated

ur a fucking faggot retard

>>16045400
I'm so far from a mustang driver its not even funny matey

>>16045418
ok good, pls go along with the shitposting and don't ruin it, or just leave the thread thanks

>>16045421
it's be fine if it were good shitposting, but this is just dumb

>>16045425
i thought it was a kinda funny idea, escalating from the hp/l thread i made yesterday, you had to ruin it though, thanks

>>16045403
good thing we invented this thing called the transmission

>>16045430
Think of something original and actually good next time, sorry for ruining your fun

>>16045431
americans don't know anything about proper control of transmissions, don't bother

>>16045439
>Americans don't have any understanding of transmissions
Americans invented the car and by proxy transmission you fucking tard

>>16045439
Mustang 3.73 is better than the S2000 ratio that necessitates screaming down the highway at 4000RPM

>tall 1st gear to eliminate wheelspin
>2nd to 5th are all closely stacked to stay in power band and have fun shifting
>6 is a severe overdrive for highway cruising

>f20c makes 160hp at 6000rpm
I wonder what a Coyote makes at 6k

what about the voodoo? that's over 100hp per liter

(((You)))

>>16045469
or most modern litre bikes that are more than 200hp per litre na.

Nobody buys a car with this metric in mind

>>16045507
Because they don't need torque to move a small mass, and rev to 15000.

>>16045507
the smaller the engine the higher the hp/l

>>16045518
irrelevant..

>>16045507
I'd be impressed if someone could get an LS7 churning out 700hp at 15000rpm.

Tesla HP per cylinder?

American engineers???

>>16045540
The LS7 actually has faster moving pistons at its redline than the S2000 does at its redline. 7000 versus 9000, but the stroke is waaaay longer

>honda
>anything else with torque

Pick one, ricerfag.

>>16045560
Which is why it makes more torks I'm guessing, but yeah piston speed throws an interesting point into it. Being glorified air pumps, and all.

>>16045377
Why is the mustang a shit car? Are you generalizing this year? This model? Because the 2016 gt350r is a top notch and all around car ask any REAL proffessional

File: IMG_2488.jpg (542KB, 2144x1424px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 2144x1424px

>>16045361
>350 TORKS PER CYLINDER
>100 HP PER CYLINDER

Where is you're god now?

>>16046174
I was generalizing the model, there are exceptions to the models, but for the most part they have way too much horsepower for their handling quality. I've driven a few and it just feels scary because of how easy it is to lose control. theres a reason why only mustangs seem to crash at car meets, stupid kids get them and slam the accelerator, and the car predictably snaps out and is impossible to control.

>>16046174
>Why is the mustang a shit car?
Ford product.
All American cars are shit. Drive a Lada, be happy.

>>16046209
>too much horsepower for their handling quality

But the situation you just cited has nothing to do with handling quality. If I drive a Mclaren F1 like that I'm going to crash despite it's superior handling quality.
The Mustang isn't a touge carver, that doesn't disqualify it from being a good sports car. Get over it.

>>16046223
Being able to withstand WOT without spinning out certainly does have to do with handling. The mustang doesnt need to drive mountain pass roads at 80 mph, but if im doing a u-turn in the rain, it's be nice not to worry about spinning out at 15 mph.

>>16046250
>what is throttle control & driving ability
My 4 cylinder honda can spin tires and has spun out in the rain. Guess you should invest in a pair of shoes because you're not likely to find many vehicles that are completely 100% perfect and safe bubbles.

>>16046261
Look man im not asking for a car that will save you from every situation(my own car handles infinetly worse than a mustang, but has way less power). but a car that can only go in a straight line is not a good car unless you're only trying to go in straight lines.

>>16046272
And I'm not over here saying that the mustang is a godmachine I'm just kind of curious how many 400 HP 30k cars there are out there with fucking stellar handling.

File: this faggot.gif (566KB, 320x277px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 320x277px

>>16045361
>hp/cyl

>>16046278
Yeah i guess you're right, I do associate mustangs with jerks a lot because that seems to be the trend with them, and then i just follow the circlejerk.

I just think that if the car itself cant handle 400hp, then all that power is being wasted because you wont ever be able to use it. you'd probably get way more enjoyment out of something with less power but better handling

>>16045549
>not wanting unlimited HP per cylinder

>GT-R makes 100hp and 80torks a cylinder

File: look and laugh.jpg (76KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x480px

>>16046412
>torks

File: GMDK-200-4.jpg (61KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x275px

>>16046429
Laugh all you want, I have a twinturbo

>>16046412
You know the GTR isn't a 4cyl, right?

File: 5589793138_46925d90db_z.jpg (64KB, 360x505px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 360x505px

>>16046447
Just had to

>>16045445
No you did not. Put down the fast food and pick up a history book. history.

>>16046447
>>16046593
Sick tarbos bros.

>>16046195
All that power, all that torque, but with the powerband of a one-legged cyclist.

>>16047197
Yeah but when you're driving it, you run from 1200rpm to 1800rpm in each gear so you are basically always in the power.

I want to stick a ricer BOV on one of the trucks with the C7 engines. They are basically overstressed ~7.5L engines and the engine noise is more turbo than it is actual engine. I bet a BOV on the thing would be loud.

>>16047219
>wanting to shift every 500 rpms

>>16045529
>the smaller the engine the higher the hp/l
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaFerrari

File: IMG_2459.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>16047278
You have no choice when they redline at 2000rpm and idle is like 800rpm.

I was driving this new Freightshaker that redlines at like 1500 or 1600rpm and that was fuckin strange. Shit had some ultra lightweight racing flywheel or something going on where you didn't even have time to double clutch between the lower gears so you have no choice but to float em.

>>16047393
Cool, a truckerfag. How many whores have you killed today?

>>16047436
It's only 10:45am on a Sunday!

So 2.

I'm not a trucker btw. I sleep in a real bed (or couch) at night.

>>16045512
> buying cars

>>16046250
I could spin the tires on a 3rd world spec Lancer that made 90bhp and sent power through a fucking CVT

You just suck at driving

>>16047454
>3rd gear
>CVT
Am I missing something?

>>16047458
>3rd world spec Lancer

Yes you are missing something

>>16047462
>CVT
>3rd gear

>>16047474
>3rd world spec Lancer
>3rd world spec
>3rd world

>3rd
>world

Anon pls drink coffee

>>16047474
3rd gear ? where ?
dumbfuck

>>16047481
Holy shit am I dense.

>>16045361
>ATS-V makes 77hp per cilinder
>Ecoboost Mustang makes ~75hp per cilinder
>Ecotec Camaro/ATS/CTS makes ~69hp per cilinder
>Hellcat makes 88hp percilinder

>S2K only makes ~60hp per cilinder
>Jap ''engineers''

>

>>16047496
>forced induction vs naturally aspirated

>>16047496
How can you fail so hard?

>>16045445
>Americans invented the car and by proxy transmission you fucking tard
Benz (German) invented the modern car, Panhard (French) invented the modern transmission. Stay cucked, amerifag.

>>16047487
It's okay anon, we all have those days

>>16047500
>Jap engineers cannot into forced induction

JAPAN BTFO!

File: images.jpg (3KB, 217x144px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 217x144px

>>16045361
GM fangirls with HP per camshaft statistics when?

File: fd_crkai_mgm_800.jpg (73KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x533px

>>16047516
Trolls gonna troll

>>16047536
>0 hp per cilinder
>doesn't even have cilinder
Stay BTFO, japcuck.

>>16046429
how is life with mental retardation going for you?

>>16047530
Made me blow air out of my nose.

>>16047544
Wouldn't that be infinite horsepower per cylinder

>>16047530
>LT4: 640/650 hp per camshaft
>Hellcat: 707hp per camshaft

>LT1: 455/460hp per camshaft
>6.4 Hemi: 485hp per camshaft

GM BTFO yet again.

>>16047551
No, because it does't generate hp from it's cilinders.

Only way you could compare a wankel to cilinders is to divide it's power output by two (since it has twice as many combustion events per rotation), then divide by the amount of rotors. 276 divided by two, divided by two again, should be about 69hp. Pretty nice, but it shows that the rotary is just wierd to calculate with.

File: koenigseggregera-018.jpg (179KB, 1170x656px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1170x656px

>>16045361
>greater than 187 hp/cyl
>greater than 250 torque/cyl

Why haven't you submitted to our Swedish overlords yet?

>>16047584
>cilinders

>>16046581
600/6=100

>>16045373
>Could of ......

>>16047586
Because there won't be any whites ones left in a decade.

File: download (2).jpg (14KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 259x194px

>>16047561
>Pneumatic Valved engines engine
>Undefined amount of HP per camshaft

/o/ BTFO again