daily reminder if this was in the form of a 4 cylinder, and everything

File: Science6.jpg (32KB, 739x563px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 739x563px

>>16113953
If it were a 4 cylinder it would also have half or less the less parasitic loss to drag and funny side loading that can come with V8s, at least a half as heavy (if not lighter) crankshaft due to a change from a crossplane to a flatplane crank and considerable bobweight removal then you're really muddying the upper echelon of rpm it'll wrap not to mention the torque figure and so on and so forth- Handwaving this sort of thing as "everything scaling perfectly" ignores a lot of what is fundamentally at play and is just dumb. Then again I replied to the bait so I guess I'm dumb. Eh, I know there's at least one person here who thinks this sounds legit.

>>16113953
>"Engineering"
I want a car that isn't shit. Paying for some STEMard's science experiment isn't something I factor into a purchase. Just make a fucking car. This is why German cars are trash heaps worth 3k after the warranty is out and Japanese cars hold value to the point you might as well buy new.

>>16113953
>if this was in the form of a 4 cylinder
>everything scaled perfectly

If by aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, cry some more

>>16114120
So why doesn't Japan make straight sixes?

>>16113953
>I don't understand mechanical engineering
It shows

I'm all for smaller engines. In the end, if chebby was able to cram 5.7+ liters into this small package, why is that a negative? It's not about displacement. It's about air in and air out. If displacement is what they chose to make it happen, then so be it.

>>16114238
because torque curve is extremely limited, and for starters, it makes more torque than HP, which is fine for towing shit, but is stupid in a performance application.

>I'm a stupid american and I don't understand how engines put power down other than wide tires and tall ass gears
That's why the GTR beats the corvette when being by a real racing driver.

>>16114085
?
As you scale up efficiency increases, this is basic engineering.

>>16113953
When did you go full retard and start doing Hp/L?
>replying to bait
Some idiot will think this retard is right.

>what are diminishing returns
>what are cam profiles
>what is more rotating mass thus a lower redline in tradeoff for more displacement
>>16114254
Aren't the LS torque curves pretty nice? And if it's making more torque than hp it probably has a very mild/economy cam in it. A decent cam will still give a useable torque curve and a good hp number.

>>16114272
they're "nice" torque curves, but make peak torque at something like 3k rpm, and then max out at 5 or 6 or something. Either way, you don't have any range for the RPMs which means you have to pair it with tall ass gears, otherwise you blow the tires off, or you have to have 8 gears and shift every 2 seconds which hurts the time.

This also means on a tighter track, or a tight part of a track, you are stuck using an inappropriate gear.

>>16114256
Efficiency of what? That's not some universally applicable concept, valve area being a prime example- If you're looking to something like a giant ship engine or something as modal upscaling for this case that's an apples to oranges comparison and something like a ship engine doesn't experience as dynamic a life cycle as a passenger car engine, same reason why the gobs of engineering thrown at an auto ICE produce something on the shy side of 20% efficient while your el cheapo special forced air furnace can be some 70% energy efficient. But hey clue me in, I'd love to find out how you mean.

>>16114293
Peak torque isn't *super* relevant if the torque curve is fairly flat, and there's nothing wrong with tall gears since you're making assloads of power. It's just how engines work. If you rev high, you have a smaller engine and gear lower. If you rev low, chances are you have a larger engine and don't need to gear as low to achieve similar acceleration characteristics. And final drive ratio doesn't determine gear spacing, which is what would affect your gear choice on a tight track.

>>16114256
no, look at all the highest hp/L engines ever made. theyre all 50cc, 125cc, etc. motorcycle engines.

>>16114308
>there's nothing wrong with tall gears since you're making assloads of power.

yes there is. It is by far not the most efficient way of getting a car around a track.

>Increased gear size means added weight
>increased torque means stronger/heavier components
>increased transmission tunnel size, rear diff size etc.

clearly you've never driven a car with tall gearing around a tight track. You're always in the wrong gear.

http://www.onpointdyno.com/2015/12/understanding-torque-and-horsepower-lets-try-this-again-with-tractive-force/

>>16114254
>more torque than HP not being a blast
A fox body makes almost 100 poon more of torque than horsepower. I guarantee you'll have a blast driving like a faggot in one alot more than a gutless i4 that makes it's power on the top only.

>>16114085
Rotating mass doesn't affect power output as measured on a steady state (read: normal) dyno.

>>16114120
If you want a car that isn't shit, why are you apparently shilling for GM?

>>16114254
Torque doesn't actually matter, regardless of what you're doing with it. Horsepower is what's important. Not just the peak number, but the average horsepower between shift points.

>>16114309
That's because all those tiny engines are made to go in motorcycles, which have different engineering constraints than cars. They're designed to go 20,000 miles between rebuilds instead of 200,000 miles, and if you were to put the weight of a car behind a maxed out 50cc 2 stroke making 350 HP/L you'd probably shear the crank in half.

>>16114338
A foxbody is a slow shitbox with an awful chassis

I had more fun in a 100hp Honda than I did a 4.9

>>16114120
News flash, every car made in the past 15 years has been a STEM "science experiment".

>>16114349
Horseshit, rotating mass affects the maximum RPM capability of an engine which is DIRECTLY proportional to an increase in power.

>>16114374
Sure, but there's plenty of other limiting factors that need to addressed before weight starts to become an issue. For example, the limiting factor in an LS engine is valvetrain inertia. If weight was an issue, you'd be able to safely increase your redline quite a bit just by using a 30 pound lighter flywheel. Basically, the only way to make rotating mass the sole limiting factor is to cast your crank and flywheel out of tungsten.

>>16114349
>hurr shilling GM
Show where I mentioned GM, negatively or positively. Otherwise KYS.

>tfw the modular and the windsor are superior to the LS in every single way

And dont get me started on EcoBoost

>>16114453
inertia can be mitigated by using stronger pushrods but that adds to the rotating mass, so in this context you guys are both right and wrong. increasing inertia decreases rotating mass and vice versa. tungsten is pretty brittle and wouldn't handle the fictitious forces between the pivot joints.

>>16114700
>modular
>Superior
TOP KEK

>>16114929
What isnt superior about the modular?

File: does not have pushrods.jpg (148KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1200x800px

>>16114929
>GM has never made a mor powerful production engine than the 5.8 trinity
>GM has never made a more powerl N/A engine than the 5.2 Voodoo
>GM powered street cars have never gone as fast as pic related
>GM LS engines have never ever run the quarter mile in 5 seconds http://forums.corral.net/forums/svt-dohc/1880250-mihovetz-gets-into-5s-first-modular-powered-5-second-1-4-a.html

stay mad an triggered kek!!!!

>>16114937
>Weight
>Dimensions
>power/torque numbers (needing a supercharger to get to 400hp LOL)
>Durability for all N/A motors (can't handle more than 8psi of boost while a stock LS3 lower end can handle 12, IIRC)

File: Copia de assmad GM fangirl.gif (644KB, 400x1168px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 400x1168px

>Weight
Modular powered cars are still faster
>Dimensions
Modular powered cars are still faster
>power/torque numbers (needing a supercharger to get to 400hp LOL)
Modular powered cars are still faster
>Durability for all N/A motors (can't handle more than 8psi of boost while a stock LS3 lower end can handle 12, IIRC)
>12
>iirc
top kek, post an LS engine capable of taking over 65 psi of boost on stock block and crank
https://accufabracing.com/accufab-mustang

File: 1469408807152.jpg (31KB, 501x372px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 501x372px

>>16114948
>what is the 5.8l supercharged
>what is the voodoo

You know nothing about the modular, do you?

>>16114256
Its called the law of diminishing returns, you have it backwards

>>16114766
>increasing inertia decreases rotating mass
What the fuck am I reading?

>>16113953
Fuck off Alex

Don't you have a Turbo Veloster to fit a baby seat into?

>>16113953
And 60mpg (but engines don't scale the way you think they do)

>>16115132
>he thinks the engine is the sole reason for the mpg

lmao

>>16115132
Except that's a shitty strawman and not at all how it works. You would indeed cut the fuel usage in half (theoretically), but also the power output. So BSCF (which is fuel/[power*time]) would stay the same. So when you need, say, 12 horsepower to overcome friction, rolling resistance, etc, power would stay the same, time would stay the same, and BSFC would stay the same. Therefore, both engines would theoretically get the same fuel economy.

>>16115150
>>16115163
You made my point for me.

I used the same logic the op used. Doesn't work that way does it? Now you can see why the original post is so stupid.

>>16115169
the problem is the engine is the sole hp maker

mpg has outside influences

>>16115174
No shit.

>>16114327
Again, final drive doesn't affect the gear spacing of the transmission. Unless you have stupidly tall fuel economy gearing where you never get out of second or whatever, your gear spacing will give you a gear that works for a given speed.

File: Jaguar_5.3_V12_Engine.jpg (234KB, 1024x753px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1024x753px

>>16113953

121hp from 6 cylinders and 2.6 liters.

You literally can't make this shit up.

File: 1265054849475_f[1].jpg (165KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 500x375px

>>16115469
62.5hp from 4 cylinders and 2.5 liters.

>>16114349
Torque totally matters. Hp is simply
(TorqueXRPM)/5250 An ICE takes gasoline and burns it, creating pressure inside a cylinder, this pressure acts on a piston and creates a force equal to cylinder pressure X piston surface area. This force acts on the crankshaft and becomes a moment(torque). power is (force x displacement)/time. So the torque of the motor is what determines the power. If a motor makes no torque, the motor is spun to high rpms to produce power, which is then converted back into torque trough lower gearing.

Conversely, torque at the motor can be transformed into power at the wheels trough higher gears.

With proper gearing,two identical cars, one with a high torque lower revving motor, the other with a lower torque higher revving motor can be made to behave very similarly.

>>16115605
Sure. But when comparing the attributes of two vehicles, peak torque is about as relevant as the lug nut to cupholder ratio. It doesn't matter what RPM range you expect to use a vehicle at; the average horsepower over that range is the determining factor of how it will perform. The only reason torque is graphed on a dyno sheet at all is as a tuning aid.

>>16113953
Reminder that you thought your car was broken because you did a burnout wrong

>>16115742
True. peak numbers don't mean much.
For the comparison to be fair they would need to have similar power bands in their respective rpm ranges.

>torque curve for tuning
Yeah, that's actually true, you seem to know a bit more than the average /o/tist.

File: 12079557_10101983289124556_890460263764529143_n.jpg (16KB, 480x565px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x565px

>>16114350
>fuck that slow shit box with an awful chassis
>my even slower fwd shitbox is totally better
Aftermarket fixes most of the fox body issues very easily, but don't let that stop you from shitposting

>>16114963
There was the Hot Rod Magazine 500 buck junkyard special that accepted some 30 on stock block, crank, rods, pistons and rings.

>>16115987
still les than 65 psi
Modular > ls, stay BTFO

>>16113953
Daily reminder that all these threads are fucking retarded considering that motorcycle engines have so far eclipsed anything done in the world of cars that it's like watching a retard call another retard a retard

>>16115776
And aftermarket fixes most of the problems on the Honda, what's your point?

>>16116000
Pressure is just a measure of restriction- I could plumb a fat GT45 turbo to a Honda or some shit with intake ports the size of dimes, wing the cocksucker and it'll make 65 pounds of boost, probably more- Hell, when you get into real wild tuning on forced induction setups you can run into situations where reducing the boost pressure off an arbitrary indexed value can increase power due to lower intake air temps. I do agree though, numbers for numbers shootout in a dyno cell the Mod motor is better.

File: 1376512316098.jpg (311KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1280x853px

>>16113953
>implying you cant go 270mph with half a v8

try again

>>16116020
As soon as you start getting into serious performance territory, FWD will be a much more limiting factor than RWD.

>>16116041
That wasn't the basis of the post dipshit. Personal enjoyment was. If your only personal enjoyment comes out of being a dyno queen that's cool but don't assume the rest of us feel the same.

>>16113953
lol so what my ls1 only makes 150hp at the wheels according to your dumb logic.

Typical /o/ benchracing retardation.

Torque wins races, not peak horsepower

>>16116023
so you admit gm can't compete?

>>16116054
Compete in what?

File: 1320406864108.jpg (272KB, 565x377px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 565x377px

>>16116050
horsepower wins races

Torque is a meaningless number unless its given as torque over time(aka horsepower)

>>16116060
with Ford
in everything

>>16116062
lol /o/ loves to oversimplify things

Besides if you have a stock LS1 your doing it wrong im gonna cam mine and get well over 200hp per 2.85l or whatever the fuck op is on about

>>16116065
If they couldn't, wouldn't that mean GM would no longer be in business?

File: 78DEA112-1FF4-4600-A59F-820F5AE3C42D-16516-00000550AEED44A5.jpg (116KB, 799x597px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 799x597px

>>16116075
I dont have a stock LS1
I have a heavy modified one
>>16116065
>sure see a ton of ford mod motor swaps running around

oh wait everything is turbo LS these days not turbo ferd
Nearly all fast fords today are running LS swaps or are R302 based

>>16116088
>wouldn't that mean GM would no longer be in business?
they wouldn't be without government intervention
therefore we can conclude gm can indeed not compete

File: look at this moran.gif (2MB, 288x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x216px

>>16116062

>>16116097
Ford took bailout money too.

File: 1380493168392.jpg (205KB, 1200x805px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1200x805px

>>16116098
Horsepower is a measurement of the amount of work that an engine can do

Torque is just the amount of rotation force at that instance. My impact gun has 700lbs of torque maybe I should swap it into you civic.

Torque numbers are useless when it comes to racing.
High horsepower tells you the engine either has high rpm or high torque or better yet high torque at high rpm.
Horsepower is simply torque times RPM divided by 5252.
Torque does not win races or towing contests or anything. Generally high torque low horsepower engines will last much longer than high horsepower low torque engines because their powerbands are usable at a much lower RPM.
More RPM is better for racing because you can use more gearing to get more wheel torque overtime.
Horsepower always has and always will be what wins races

>>16116170
Get too high strung though and things get kinda janky in my experience- Stepping and fetching for gear just to keep the damn thing making power in like a pack or something can be more consuming than some people would think.

>>16116108
They didn't get bailed out tho. stay mad, gm fangirl

>>16116216
I didn't say they got bailed out I said they took bailout money- I mean hell, Ford was the chief lobbyist pushing the bill to begin with.

>>16116234
>damage control
gm can't compete, stay BTFO

>>16116242
this

>>16116004
Will a motorcycle engine bolted up to a car make the same exact power and be as reliable as a car engine?

tfw live in europe and I cant find an LS engine for cheap, FUARK

File: initial-B.png (302KB, 540x308px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 540x308px

>>16116020
It fixes FWD and no tork? Yeah no dawg sikkkk Honda 100hp is way more fun than a V8 shitbox. It's totally light and ready for the toe-gay, right bro?

>>16116049
You can personally enjoy a dick up your ass, but that doesn't mean your not a retarded faggot that's wrong.

>>16113953

Daily reminder when you start stuffing air down its throat like all you Jap car faggots love to do with your little lawnmower cars they make over 9000 whp on a 200k-mile junkyard truck engine bottom end and that's from the 4.8 and 5.3L motors.

File: thiskid.png (1MB, 1131x604px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1131x604px

>>16114350
>I had more fun in a 100hp Honda than I did a 4.9
This you?

File: GjavAXy.jpg (87KB, 1024x548px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1024x548px

>>16114947
>LT4
>Look at GM's performance division. Crate motors literally btfo everything ford has and they're all stock kek
>http://www.hotrod.com/articles/worlds-quickest-street-car-blows-past-record-at-drag-week-2015-test-and-tune/
>mod motor. Ford only allowed. Muh kiddie section

kek.

>>16114127
Because rb engines were too based

>>16114963
>65 psi
>Still only 2000hp
Pitiful

>>16113953
Thats on a stock shitty ls1, a 5.3 lm7 can do 360+hp with just a tune. That means 180hp from a 2.6. which in the grand scheme of things is amazing for a truck motor. Ported heads, new cam, and not truck intake gets you 445/434 NA hp/tq on a 5.3, or 220/215 on a 2.6 compare that to an f22c's 240/160 hp and its no contest when you also consider the ls only revs to 6300 rpm, and has 9.5:1 compression compared to 11.1:1 compression.

LS is the best, torque for life.

Beating on a stock 2.0L turbo is still incredibly fun. Weak cars are the best to hoon,as they are not insane to repair or maintain or feed. That and you can max them out without worrying too much about laws.

File: 1444522949079.jpg (57KB, 525x604px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 525x604px

>>16117658
>LT4
lol overheats after a lap

>Look at GM's performance division. Crate motors literally btfo everything ford has and they're all stock kek
lol not production
lol still make less than a nascar Cammer from the 60's

>http://www.hotrod.com/articles/worlds-quickest-street-car-blows-past-record-at-drag-week-2015-test-and-tune/
Jeff Lutz doesn't run an LS engine, you dumb dumb

>mod motor.
meaning modular


dumb faggot

>>16117681

>Weak block unless you trade an organ for a N1 block
>Any tuning error or over-rev (or even staying in the 7000-8000 zone) will shatter oil pump gears (even aftermarket ones)
>heavy and long (iron block I6)

RB engine a shit

>>16117725

Well using a shitty internet ET-MPH-HP calc:

Record run (5.88@250mph) @ 2500lbs

Gives a power figure of approx. 3200hp which is at the level of Pro-mods & TAFC.

All this was done using a OEM block teksid block and Ford GT heads.

>>16118731

Even more amazingly, boost pressure compared to power can be used to evaluate the breathing capability of an engine.

This means that a stock 4.6 head casting is competing on the level of 526ci BAE/TFX Hemis (which run around 55-65 psi) from TAFC that feature bore sizes of 4.500"-4.600" compared to the 4.6 modular bore of 3.552".

File: 133180.png (321KB, 552x533px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 552x533px

>>16117595

>>16116095
muh dik

>>16118749
>Tsukuba
lmao nice try, and Civic SiRII != basemodel shitbox Honda some retard is driving.

>>16117738
And it does that with an 8 valve head too.

Feels good with 77.5HP/cylinder and 127.5Nm/cylinder (94lb-ft/cylinder for your retards that still somehow use imperial trash)

Has HP/L ever been relevant?

V8fags constantly get btfo and whine like bitches

its hilarious

>>16113953
>tfw fluid mechanics and engineering like that don't scale
Silly canucks

>>16119599
It's relevant every time, everywhere.
If you can't make your engine efficient it's gonna cost more to both make and to run.

inb4 "buh muh power"
Power at the smallest possible size is what pushes engine tech forward.
Otherwise we'd still be at 2-valve 30 liter engines producing 20HP.

>>16114127
They did for the landcruiser

>>16114256
>confirmed for liberal arts major pretending to be in stem
This shit applies to packaging and hull material ratio, but is inverse for EVERY TYPE of motor: regular pistons, rotaries, even for fucking rocket motors, more doesn't mean better.