Find me a better engine made. Pro-tip, you can't.

File: ford-sho-10.jpg (116KB, 800x601px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x601px

done

File: 8e042eee61f0146a611707ff7cef94c4.jpg (661KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 2656x1494px

>>16988448

>>16988448
Look, the 4AGE is a pretty good engine, but let's not pretend it's the end all. It just werks, but it's not a real standout either: the 1UZ-FE is more reliable and the K series is pretty much an all around better four.

>>16988457
>1990s yamaha motor
LOL

>>16988488
The 4age is a 1980s yamaha motor

File: 0984269-8564.jpg (18KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x240px

>>16988448
>OP does not mention what he wants in an engine
>therefore nobody could possibly post a better one because what's "better" to someone else may not be "better" to him
Is this basically bait designed to get people to shitpost about engines?

>>16988493
So? It's shit too.

>hutt mahhh super basic 4 cyl with shit power made popular by a cartoon is da best!!!

File: IMG_4052.jpg (176KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 600x800px

>>16988526
Shit by what metric?
Not OP btw.
Also the 1nzfe and the 4afe are better engines than the 4age.

>>16988507
>Is this basically bait designed to get people to shitpost about engines?

Wow anon, how'd you guess?

File: 03092011056 (Small).jpg (75KB, 854x479px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 854x479px

>>16988526
If you think the 4A-GE engine is only popular because of Initial-D, then you're seriously a massive moron.

>>16988536
That is literally the reason it's POPULAR in Murriccaa.

File: leecotecmaymay.jpg (103KB, 585x385px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 585x385px

muh dohc

>>16988448
K series shits all over the 4age. And this isn't even considering 6 or 8 cylinder engines.

File: n08A8NO.png (608KB, 599x804px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 599x804px

>>16988448
The 13B of course

>>16988578
1000% this

>>16988628
>gif
>no moving image
REEEEEEEEEEE

>>16988532
Why would a single cam engine be a great platform.

>>16988448
out of my way enginette fucking shits

>>16988639
>he thinks its a single cam
Aww cute.

File: ls.jpg (94KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x600px

>>16988466
ayyy

File: 1MZ-FE.jpg (862KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 2000x1500px

>>16988448
Checkmate

File: Miata-I4-engine-vs-LS3-V8-size-comparison-01-1024x567.jpg (138KB, 1024x567px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1024x567px

>>16988448

>Not even 180hp at 9000rpm
>less than 100lbs lighter than a LS

I don't fucking think so. What's the point when V8's exist?

File: 52134217342.jpg (17KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 256x256px

>>16988651
I stand corrected.

What makes these better? They seem extremely similar in the wiki page.

>>16988448
I had a 4AGE in my AW11. Not much raw power but damn was it willing to rev and it stayed in a usable power band through so much of the RPM range.

I also really like the 1.8T AUQ I have in my TT. Doesn't rev as high as the Toyota did but the engine note is a really satisfying low growl and when the turbo kicks in it gives you a serious kick in the pants.

>>16988731
Everything else on this car will die before the engine.

>>16988656
Literally shit.

>>16988748
Better head design.

>>16988754
OIL SLUDGE
I.
L.

S.
L.
U.
D.
G.
E.

File: Engines-Cummins-6BT-3823785.jpg (106KB, 800x640px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 800x640px

Done.

>>16988759
fite me

File: honda cbr600.jpg (68KB, 800x506px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x506px

Greatest.

Will go easily 200,000 miles revving around 10,000 RPM on the regular.

The Japs have got a monopoly on best engines.

>>16988554
Ecotecs are probably the easiest engines to tune.

>>16989053

Pretty good considering it's only ~100lbs heavier than the Chiron's powertrain.

>>16989103
~100lbs heavier
~100 years older
British engines are still kicking German ass.

2jz

>>16988547
with kids.

It couldn't have gained any notoriety in the from
rwd corolla gts
fwd corolla gts
MR2
Nova TwinCam
Prizm GSi
only an anime.

>>16988448

Shit engine.

>Can't handle 200+ hp without being rebuilt every 1000km and thats with a thick reinforcing dry-sump.
This is because the block is very weak and you'll beat on all the bearings due to the block flexing at any decent power-level.

>Shim over bucket

I mean seriously, who thought this was a good idea for a high-revving engine. Have fun spending 3k+ to convert to a shim-under-bucket set up (formula Atlantic).

>Displacement limited

1.6l when it has to compete with better designed engines that can reach 2.4l such as; NA engines i.e Honda engines (B,F,H.K) and engines that can handle boost and power levels over 200hp i.e. (4g63, sr20)

Overall shit engine but was good at the time it came out when engines of a similar size could barely crack 100hp.

>>16989156
Bench race much?

>>16989164

It's a bench racing question so expect a bench racing answer.

I'd love a 4age in a ae86 wether it be a stock one or an upgraded one with formula Atlantic parts because of its sound and its place as an important engine in a historical sense but when you ask a bench racer question like is the 4age engine the best (i.e reliable at high power-levels while being light and compact as possible), the answer is no.

>>16989182
But then its not a shit engine is it?
Btw people put out 500+hp.
Fwiw, its impressive.
But horsepower isnt want makes an engine good

>>16989197
>people put out 500hp
With thousands and thousands dumped into it
It can't make 200hp na and last more than a dozen hours, it's dog shit. Just deal with it stupid fanboy

>>16989207
Ok bench racer.
You have no idea what youre talking about

File: toyota_20r.jpg (33KB, 425x626px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 425x626px

fake news

this is the best engine ever made

Obviously the 13B-REW

>weighs under 400 lbs with heavy stock turbo system and all accessories
>is about one foot long (not including accesories)
>can reliably put out almost 400 whp with stock turbos and meth injection, 700 whp with stock internals and porting/single turbo, and 1000 whp with crazy shit done to it
By the way, this is with considerably less lag than piston engines
>going single turbo and deleting A/C frees up 50 lbs, aluminum side housings another 40
>rebuildable at home in hours
The god engine.

>inb4 people who abuse their piston cuck engines claim rotaries are """""""unreliable"""""""
Lmao, stop thrashing your cars when cold and skimping on oil changes. You shouldn't be doing that anyway, you fucking normies.

>>16989213
>bbbut muh feels!
Lmao faggot, fuck off to Tumblr

>>16989243
Sure showed me.
Oh lordy.
Stupid bench racer.

>>16989245
Facts remain facts
Stay mad toyotacuck

>takumi was LITERALLY a cuckold
ROFLMAO

>>16989254
You dont know the definition of cuck.
Takumi never dated whats her face anyway
You never posted facts
You only think horsepower makes a good engine
Bench racer.

>>16988448
okay well for starts the silver-top and black-top are better. i mean were you even trying with this thread?

>>16989260
What makes a good engine then? A 120hp economy engine that lasts forever? Wow... so impressive

>>>/n/

>>16989280
Well, yeah. What did you expect?
People live in the real world, not an anime.

File: itr b18c5.jpg (377KB, 1024x585px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1024x585px

>>16988448
i'll be nice, i'll even keep it the same number of cylinders

>>16989288
>4 cylinders
then it's >>16988836

>>16988836
funny, I've been around sportbikes all my life and most make 30-60k before needing major repair.

>>16989222
easy to not break when it makes 14hp
>>16989288
F20A is better and in the right way

>>16989588
>and most make 30-60k before needing major repair
maybe you should learn to into basic maintenance?
Sjaak Lucassen, did 160k miles on a r1 over a period of five years

being around bikes all your life you should know that most arent ridden often.. so 10 years and 20k miles of neglect isnt representative of how long they can actually last

>>16989288
>burns oil for factory
>good

File: maxresdefault (5).jpg (174KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1920x1080px

>>16988448
Outdated meme engine

Suprior toyota engine

File: DSC_0063.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>16989153
FWD GTS owner here

Can confirm, is very fun

>>16989213
Its a dated engine, it had its time and now its pretty much a collectors car and engine now

File: tmp_21935-c20xe_thumb1190994225.jpg (64KB, 614x462px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 614x462px

>>16989288

Let's face it, Honda really had the 4 pot magic dust in the late 80's/early 90's, even still I'll be bold and add the C20XE/LET as contenders. Good reliability in stock form, piss easy to work on and take boost extremely well, 300-400bhp without becoming too much of a glass cannon is not uncommon. You can give Opel/Vauxhall a lot of shit, but you can't deny their engines in this era were god tier.

>inb4 Opel was GM's so they're red blooded american engines

The 4AGE was a good engine, not denying it, but it's not the best in the slightest.

>>16988736
>not being able to go past 6k
>pushrods
One day you will understand that an engine isn't just about peak power output

>>16989156
Wew
>muh power outputs
Who cares, it was a mass produced 4cyl engine in the early 80s, that revs almost to 9k and got about 130ps, the v8s in America had less than 200hp by that time and were a lot heavier. Every engine you said wasnt there by that time, and yet you are still comparing them, that means it's not that bad uh?
Even by modern standards, a 1.6l NA 130+hp is a really good engine, imagine 35years ago

The M60

BMW made it shitter with the M62 in the e39

File: image.jpg (131KB, 968x689px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 968x689px

>>16989751
Forgot pic

>>16989288
> literally 18 years after the 4age
It's a better engine all right, but that's hardly a fair comparison

>>16989779
then maybe you/op should have given a time frame
but its too late for that

>>16989588
My GSF250 hit 100k before a magnet on the flywheel ate shit.
Before opening for diagnostics, it had never been opened before. Everything was fine, tappets needed adjusting though.
Same is said for a vast many 18k screamers of that era, and you can't say an extrapolated 180HP/L is detuned for reliability.

I don't know what group of faggots you associate yourself with that sit around banging the limiter and avoiding oil changes, but goodness me.

>>16989781
Then there's no point on having this award from op
The new type r engine is a better engine than that one, and the next will be even better

File: Barra_270T.jpg (521KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1024x768px

B A R R A
A
R
R
A

File: image.jpg (29KB, 460x320px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 460x320px

>>16988448
Are you even trying op?

>>16988465
is that the playmobil megablock?

>>16989843
>4 litre pigfat even bigger than the lolden v6
yeah its good but i dunno about being the best

426 hemi engine. 'Nuf said.

>>16988448
Ehhhh... they're a lot of fun.

Have a first generation TVIS 16 valve in an AE82 Corolla as a DD. It's a hoot, absolute loads of fun. Enough torque to pootle around town nicely day to day and when you put your foot down it screams all the way to redline, it's the most "eager" engine in a car that I've ever driven. Not terribly fast, but the noise it makes is something else for a four cylinder.

Also have a 20 valve silvertop in an AE86 with open ITB's. Really lacks the same torque low down, makes it a little more difficult to drive around in the city, but it picks up at around 4k or so and goes like the clappers after that.

>>16988565
This nigga knows what's up

>>16988448
Maybe in its day and displacement. And then, only maybe.

File: 10be-specs-ford-shelby-52l[1].jpg (40KB, 595x335px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 595x335px

>>16988466
daily reminder gm has never made a naturally aspirated production engine as powerful as Ford's 5.2l Voodoo, not even the ls7 with almost 2 extra liters of displacement

File: 1999_Toyota_2ZZ-GE_Type_engine_left.jpg (1MB, 1280x1154px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x1154px

Literally th

>>16990319
Fords 5.2 voodoo is so awesome Ford used it to win the races in GTLM class.

Oh wait... its shit and infinitely inferior to a truck v6.

File: KTM50-AIR-Replacement-ENGINE.jpg (86KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 640x480px

50cc, 9.5hp, 7ft lb, 15k rpm of RAW FUCKING SINGLE CYLINDER FURY

>>16990344
I wish they'd put the EcoBoost V6 in the Mustang, but it wouldn't be fair to everyone else

File: 2JZFury.jpg (150KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1280x720px

Really guys?
>realllyyyy?

>>16990351
i have a feeling the next gen mustang will have the 3.5eco and 2.3 eco. With maybe a gt350 or gt500 having a v8.

>>16990382
That engine is not good. Stop memeing.

>>16988771
You do realize that performance wise, the 4afe had a worse head than the 4age? Many people swap the 4age head into their 4afe and 7afe engines because the 4age head flows so much better and is omptimized for performance driving. The 4afe head gives you less ways to finely tune the intake and exhaust cams, especially when adjustable cams are so cheap for the 4age.

>>16989676
The C20 engine was pretty good from what I have heard.
The few cars I have seen with that engine are either still alive (around 15-20 years later) or all around the engine went to shit.

>>16990319
Daily reminder GM has never made a naturally aspirated production engine in a car with a budget near that of the Mustang GT350., therefore the comparison isn't valid.

If the new Z/28 with it's direct injected LS7 isn't ahead of the Voodoo, then you've got a point. Now, you're just comparing a new motor to an older GM product.

>>16990382
>iron block with worst engine configuration in terms of CoG
Hello understeer my old friend.

File: YAMYPC32-3.jpg (26KB, 498x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 498x300px

>>16988488
>implying that's a bad thing
Yamaha knows a thing or two about airflow and intake harmonics.

File: Muh_engine.jpg (60KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x450px

>>16988448
Done

>>16990397
>800hp on stock block
>engine is no good
???
>>16990407
worth it for the brap

>>16988565
2JZ's are already bad in terms of weight and center of gravity. it's only saving grace it output - and the 1JZ just can't compete there.

>>16989694
>implying pushrods can't go above 6000RPM
Nigga please. Even Honda managed 9500 on a pushrod block in the 70's.

>>16988752
I'm in the same position (AW11) and the engine is a "fun to drive" engine. It doesn't make a lot of power but ringing it from 4000-8000 in every gear makes you feel like you're going fast and the handling and sticky tires means you can keep whatever speed you have in the corners. It really is a quick car considering how much power it has.

I'm hoping to slap a turbo on mine this summer and push it under 6psi and pull 160hp out of it. If I have the time I'll buy a junker engine and throw some rods and pistons in it and boost it up to 250~300hp. Which is all you need in an AW11. No more than that. I would love to go the NA route and get a 20V, ITBs, and cams, but it's just way to expensive when considering a turbo can do the same thing much cheaper.

>>16990423
Wait, why are you saying the 1JZ can't compete?

>>16990433
I think he's saying that the 2jz can make stupid power on stock internals while the 1jz can't make that same power.

I would agree with that. The 1jz is a good engine, do that get me wrong. But to get into the same power numbers the 2jz gets into it will need more work. Not that it's even that relevant because making above 600hp out of an engine that size starts to become unusable with the lag involved.

>>16990462
It tops out around 600 on stock internals
It's not that difficult especially with a properly sized twin scroll, which is what the VVTi version came with anyways
1JZ is a VERY underrated engine

>>16990470
No I absolutely agree. It's overshadowed by it's older brother. That's why a lot of drifters and such pick them up as swaps for drift cars. Parts are crazy cheap compared to the 2jz, and 500hp is more than enough to get you sideways with a good power band and reliable output.

But it can't make 1000hp so fanbois aren't interested in it. The 2jz IS the better motor. The 1jz is WAY better for value.

>>16990482
>til that you can put a 1jz engine in a miata for excellent cost to performance ratio

>>16988736
And the fully dressed l4 is still smaller than the bare V8

>>16990416
800hp on the stock block is pushing it in terms of reliability - and it´s literally the thing the 2JZ does well. It packages like shit, it weighs a ton, can't rev, etc. etc.

File: 13880229_10210324254885905_6863159116941540582_n.jpg (118KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 960x720px

>>16988448
>Find me a better engine made. Pro-tip, you can't.

i just did, it was lying on a bench in my shed,

2 stroke master race.

>>16990500
>pushing 800 on a stock engine ever
I'm just saying it can do it. Most people go forged internals after 400hp anyways.
There are easy fixes to everything not perfect on the 2jz.
It's easily one of the best tuner engines ever.

>>16990497
No shit. The point is that the LS isn't as big as everyone thinks it is. I mean it's close to the same size as the Miata engine and do to the aluminum it's not much heavier.

>>16990489
If you want to make a drag/drift car yes. Good luck fitting it though and it's going to kill the weight distribution. Such a heavy engine.

File: 9555497.jpg (32KB, 320x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 320x400px

1.7 petrol from Vaz 2121

>>16990513
>There are easy fixes to everything not perfect on the 2jz
No, no, nononono, no.

Can you easily fix an iron block? Sure. Just go order a 9K USD billet aluminium block.
Can you easily fix that polar moment of inertia/center of gravity? Hell no. that's just how inline sixes roll.
Can you easily fix the packaging? Nope, see above.
Can you easily get it to rev? Sure, at the cost of rods rapidly ventilating your pan or block. Unless you get a really good flowing head + turbo combination, and a really well-balanced set of internals, it ain't gonna rev.

The 2JZ is fundamentally flawed, and it's only saving grace is that it's a horsepower factory - and even there it's easily exceeded nowadays by an iron block ''LS''.

File: a5dea96fe9da4b020aa92f351b7c5a8e.jpg (87KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x480px

>best engine thread

there is a disturbing lack of inline 6 in this thread

>>16990552
>posts another iron block boat anchor
Do you inline idiots never realise the effects of that CoG on handling? 2JZ, Barra and RB26 are all shit when you take them off the engine dyno and actually put them in a car.

>>16990566
You keep stressing CoG
You do realize that an engine can be moved towards the firewall to offset this, yes?

>>16990648
You do realise that the RB26 in >>16990552 can only be moved backwards a few inches at best, right?
You do realise that a similar V engine would have much more of it's mass towards the rear of the car, behind the front axle, with a better center of gravity, right?

Sure, you could put a 2JZ in the back seat with a transaxle - but even then, a V6 would better centralise all that mass.

>>16990531
>can you easily fix an iron block?
Stop. Right. There. Block is fine.
>Can you easily fix that polar moment of inertia/center of gravity?
CoG is fine.
>Can you easily fix something that isn't broken?
Stahp it.
>Can you easily get it to rev?
Jesus Christ, this guy thinks he's AutoJesus.
Change the cam, and forge the internals after 400hp like everyone else.
Also, high rev is not indicative of performance. It's just hp and hp not scaled with torque is shit.
And the iron block LS is called LM.
So. Much. Wrong. Here.

>>16990660
Yes, V6s have better placement because they aren't as long as an I6
HOWEVER, they have they're own balancing issues compared to an I6, and generally aren't as reliable as an I6

>>16990666
>INB4 compare long stroke commercial with short stroke racing engines

>>16990666
>Is fine
>Is fine
>Is fine
No. Is not fine. Is denial of physics.

I'm just an automotive engineer, not Jesus, and there's a reason nobody wants to use inline six engines anymore outside of ''brand image'' (looking at you there, BMW and Mercedes).

>Also, high rev is not indicative of performance.
No, it's indicative of good engine design. Which the 2JZ lacks.

>And the iron block LS is called LM.
Actually, some LM engines are aluminium. They iron blocks are called LMx, LRx, LQx, LYx and just plain Lxx by GM. You're better off calling them
>iron block ''LS'' engines
on internet forums, because nobody here knows what a third gen SBGM is. Their general design is LS-derived.

>>16990672
Balancing and reliability can be fixed, especially if you stop using a 90 degree bank angle to cut costs. This has been done in the past to use V8 tooling for V6 engines, and it messes up both balance and reliability.

You can fix poor balance and reliability. You can't fix poor packaging.

>>16990696
>I'm just an automotive engineer
You post your CAD, and I'll post mine.
Easiest way to solve that issue.

File: index.jpg (193KB, 940x659px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 940x659px

>>16990708
Just some simplistic flow through a beer cooling unit.

>>16990710
>didn't include time and date
I suspicious

>>16990716
I'll restart Solidworks for you. How many flow pipes do you want to see? That'll be proof enough I guess.

>>16990704
>implying an i6 is poor packaging
Stop being autistic about people liking an engine that you don't

>>16990497
they are both in about the same state of dress.

File: MuhEngineering.png (393KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1920x1080px

>>16990723
>not using AutoDesk Inventor

>>16990716
Just to be sure, I gave you ALL THE FLOWPIPES.

>>16990743
>implying I got to choose which software I got to use
I'm not buying a 5K license for personal use, and I have zero experience with Inventor. Did use AD Fusion360 for about two hours, and it was infuriating.

File: index.jpg (83KB, 957x567px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 957x567px

>>16990755
>Just to be sure, I gave you ALL THE FLOWPIPES.

>>16990740
>implying I6 isn't worst packaging
Requiring V12 real estate to only house 6 cilinders is objectively bad packaging anon. It's not about me not liking the inline six engine, it's just that the I6 is objectively worse.

Where it's at it's worst is in motorcycles - and that's exactly where I love my inline sixes. However, they're objectively bad, and you should feel bad too.

>>16990755
>using fusion360
No one does that.
You create your own directories on a central storage system and use a multi-seat license.
But none the less, need screen shot with time and date.

Also, as an engineer, you should know that you can fix anything with money.

>>16990768
>Inline Engines
>one set of cams, no balancer shafts, so it should respond quicker, be lighter.
>90° Engines
>separate cam shafts for each side of the V, balancing shafts, etc.

File: index.jpg (61KB, 720x534px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x534px

>>16990774
>No one does that.
Some people do when they're forced to do visual design against their will.

>Use a multi-seat license
Not when you've already standardised on Solidworks.

>Screen shot
Pic related.

You can't fix basic physics though. There is no way to make an inline six shorter, and with a better CoG, than a V.

>>16990743
Do you have the right side "blue bar" bug as well when maximized window?

>>16990791
>Inline engines
>1 cam
>1 head
>1 block

>V engines
>2 cams that are half the size (= weigh the same)
>2 heads that are half the size (=weigh the same)
>1 block that is half the size (=weighs less)
The V engine will be lighter. The loss of internal balance can be overcome, and is insignificant compared to the weight reduction, better packaging, and improved CoG.

>>16990842
>can be overcome
By adding more failure points, yeah great engine design ya got there

File: DSC03607.jpg (142KB, 934x701px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 934x701px

>>16988448
Sorry boys. There's just no contest :^)

>>16990755
>buy a license for personal use
You do know about torrents right?

File: NcLa39lyfREU8.gif (1000KB, 500x213px) Image search: [Google]

1000KB, 500x213px

>>16990858
>he used carbs

>>16990808
>that date on your computer
What kind of backwards gulag do you live in?
>No, it's indicative of good engine design. Which the 2JZ lacks.
hmm. nope. pretty sure it's indicative of safe stroke length and chamber diameter. tfw you'll never own a over hyped ferrari :(
>You can't fix basic physics though. There is no way to make an inline six shorter, and with a better CoG, than a V.
Make it shorter? Take away some pistons and bore the chamber out.
Better CoG? Take away some pistons and bore the chamber out.

>>16990865
So make it an I4/5? You're not helping dude

>>16990834
Nope. I upgraded recently though so I'm unsure of the version.
>>16990842
>The V engine will be lighter. The loss of internal balance can be overcome, and is insignificant compared to the weight reduction, better packaging, and improved CoG.
Inline engines are not lighter. If you make a generic v6 and a generic inline 6 out of aluminum, the v6 would weigh more.
I don't think you are doing math right.
>>16990860
Good luck with that. Most retail CAD programs have a fuckton of failsafes.

File: 1468194472114.gif (930KB, 400x180px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 400x180px

>>16990864
>she didn't

>>16990876
I'm just proving a point.
You can configure all sorts of engines to do whatever you want.
Basic principals of mechanical engineering don't change.

>>16990853
It actually had an identical amount of failure points, it just has more parts.

>>16990860
>You do know about torrents right?
Dear lord no. Last time My nephew used an educational license for his startup company, and got hit with a 7K fine. CAD software designers got their shit figured out.

>>16990351
>ecoboost
>mustang

ew

>>16990865
>What kind of backwards gulag do you live in?
GMT+1, where we put dates in the logical order of day, month and year. Let me guess, you CAD software uses cups, yards and Rankine?

>Take away some pistons and bore the chamber out.
A V4 is shorter than an I4. A V4 has better CoG than an I4. Cilinder count and bore size being identical, however, V engines will be shorter and more compact than inline engines, with a better CoG. Basic engineering doesn't change.

>>16990891
>If you make a generic v6 and a generic inline 6 out of aluminum, the v6 would weigh more.
Nope. As I said, you need an identical amount of material for the cams, an identical amount of material for the heads, and a smaller amount for the block. Imagine the inline six block being cut in half and slid to gether to make a single V6 block, you're saving a lot of supporting material there.

>>16990351
>I wish they'd put the EcoBoost V8 in the Mustang
ftfy

>>16990938
>A V4 is shorter than an I4. A V4 has better CoG than an I4. Cilinder count and bore size being identical, however, V engines will be shorter and more compact than inline engines, with a better CoG. Basic engineering doesn't change.
wew that strawwwwman. I'm not going to explain why the V4 didn't take off, it's just a short google search away.
>Nope. As I said, you need an identical amount of material for the cams, an identical amount of material for the heads, and a smaller amount for the block. Imagine the inline six block being cut in half and slid to gether to make a single V6 block, you're saving a lot of supporting material there.
But that's not how it works. We live in the days of DOHC. You still need to keep the blocks respective to maintain thermal properties so it won't be less material for the block, and they typically have 2 motor mounts of support like all engines.
Are you even trying?

>>16990399
Wrong.
Go read

>>16990962
>I'm not going to explain why the V4 didn't take off, it's just a short google search away.
V4's are less balanced, I know, which makes them badly suited for shitbox engines. Point still stands, V > inline, in terms of CoG and weight.

>We live in the days of DOHC
So? Two half DOHC setups weigh the same as one whole.

> You still need to keep the blocks respective to maintain thermal properties so it won't be less material for the block
Most of the blocks function is to bear the rotating assembly, not to be a heat sink. Matter of fact, you actually want to get the heat out of your block as fast as possible.
The material required for bearing that rotating assembly can be severely reduced by shortening the block. This also reduces the torsional loads that you can excessively see on long inlines. This torsional load is what eventually killed the straight eight. You can see this torsional load in reverse when you look at the loads put upon the (longer) crank- and camshafts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HltHVmQXeyo
Imagine the load snapping those cams, but now it's put on your block. Also, it requires reinforcement of your crank, which adds rotating mass. This added mass negates part of a V6's disadvantage (needing balance shafts).

> they typically have 2 motor mounts of support like all engines.
This means that both weigh the same. However, there will be less material above the motor mounts and below the heads.

>>16988457
Is that a diy supercharger?

>>16991003
Took me a bit of searching, but I found it:
http://www.fordspecialists.com/SHOnewparts.htm

File: 2100hp 1000ci.jpg (175KB, 766x509px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 766x509px

>>16989694

How do you explain this 16 liter pushrod V8 that revs to 8000rpm? What is it about then? Your bitching about peak power when that shitty 4banger makes it's full power at 9000rpm with absolutely no torque.

File: kowalski.jpg (91KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 2048x1536px

>>16990938
>where we put dates in the logical order of day, month and year. Let me guess, you CAD software uses cups, yards and Rankine?

And yet you still base your driving orientation on the ridiculous paranoia of nobles getting into pitched horseback swordfights around town.

>>16990995
>V4's are less balanced, I know, which makes them badly suited for shitbox engines. Point still stands, V > inline, in terms of CoG and weight.
Balancing was part of the issues, but the basic gestalt is that the V engine has it's limitations on how short it can be. Cost, performance, ect, are all worse the shorter they are.
>So? Two half DOHC setups weigh the same as one whole.
No. They do not. You're thinking to simplistically. Vs are more complex than straights. They have more inherent parts. They have more architecture. Two DOHC are going to have two sets of timing gears, two sets of cam shafts, two sets of covers, etc. Vs are inherently heavier. There's no way around that.
>Most of the blocks function is to bear the rotating assembly, not to be a heat sink. Matter of fact, you actually want to get the heat out of your block as fast as possible.
You went the other way. I guess I should have elaborated more. You have to use more material in a V block, so that when it heads up, you don't get cracks or warping from stress. You also have to give the molds thicker brace for where the two 90°s meet. It's a thermal structure metallurgic fatigue thing, not a heat displacement thing. I don't know what your tangent went into, but we're not talking about the same thing.
> Imagine the inline six block being cut in half and slid to gether to make a single V6 block, you're saving a lot of supporting material there.
>This means that both weigh the same. However, there will be less material above the motor mounts and below the heads.
wut? no. the motor mounts do not indicate the weight of the engine. They're pieces of metal welded to the engine bay. And no. that's wrong.
Dude. I'm not going to continue this conversation if your goal is to HEHEXD and make shit up.

File: index.jpg (6KB, 260x193px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 260x193px

>>16991083
Give me a minute or two to type a decent response. In the meantime

>basic gestalt

>>16991091
I'm not trying to get into a long drawn out conversation about V6 v I6.
My whole point was that you can modify a 2JZ to compete with modern V6s.
How this devolved into V structure vs. I structure is beyond me.
But V engines evolved because of fuel efficiency. Not because they require less material.
They're actually more labor and material intensive, otherwise the inline engines wouldn't exist outside of diesels.

>>16991083
>the V engine has it's limitations on how short it can be.
For any given bore spacing, it will always be shorter than an equivalent inline six. Cost, performance, etc. are all pretty much identical if you neglect the added material you have to put into an I6 block.

>They have more inherent parts.
>They have more architecture.
If I have two halves of the Sagrada Familia, do I have more architecture than when I have a whole one? Nope. The camshaft are going to be exactly half the weight. Two smaller timing gears that only need to carry half the weight can be made to weigh only half of the original single unit. Two sets of valve covers? Damn, didn't think about that - they'll add two sheet metal surfaces. Those sheet metal surfaces are offset by weight savings in the lower block.

>You have to use more material in a V block
That material is clearly offset by the weight savings you get by shoving the two block halves together.

>>16991108
>My whole point was that you can modify a 2JZ to compete with modern V6s.
But you can't.

>But V engines evolved because of fuel efficiency.
Please explain how they're more fuel efficient, because as an engine, they are exactly as fuel efficient as an inline. The advantage of a V is in the square packaging and the lower material requirement.

>>16991117
>vs use less material
>vs use more matieral but offset negatives
I'm done. have fun.

>>16990891
>Good luck with that. Most retail CAD programs have a fuckton of failsafes.

As it happens I have AutoCAD pirated on my PC. It was easy as fuck.

File: fordv6.png (902KB, 400x565px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 400x565px

>>16988448
Meme engine for meme people. Duratec V6 is god tier.

>>16988736
>>16988656
>>16988466
>Pushrods

Kek

>>16990319
Ford wins again

>>16989232
>reliably

Nigga it ain't doing shit reliably unless you seriously invest in cooling that thing.

File: 1477433085056.jpg (15KB, 211x203px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 211x203px

>>16991213
Wow, a fanboy.

>>16988448
Probably one of the 3S-GEs or 3S-GTEs is better. Or a 2ZZ-GE or 2ZZ-GZE.

>>16990407
>Daily reminder GM has never made a naturally aspirated production engine in a car with a budget near that of the Mustang GT350., therefore the comparison isn't valid.
The Z/28 costs more than the GT350 you stupid fucking pushcuck. Cry more.

>>16990976
You don't even link a source?
Toyota designates the g to mean a performance angle while f is designated for economy angled heads. The 4age made more power than the 4afe. Tuners consistently use the 4age head on 4afe and 7afe blocks.

Just saying wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong. You're not Trump.

You would have to be an idiot to think the 4afe is a better performance engine than the 4age. They're literally the exact same except for the head and the 4age has a head with the flow designed for performance and the 4afe has a head with the flow designed for economy.

File: coyote.png (141KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 400x300px

:3

>>16990344
Its inferior because Ford didn't use it to get class """wins"""?
also
>11mpg

File: g-f-f1.jpg (45KB, 800x302px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 800x302px

>>16991461
>he doesnt know wide angle valves are bad for performance.
Narrow angle is better.

>>16991484

>coyslowte amirite

File: fuckinford.jpg (15KB, 296x188px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 296x188px

>>16991484

"powered by Ford"

>>16991698
It's not as simple as that you idiot. There's a reason the 4afe has almost no performance potential and why anyone using the 4a Block for racing is running a g head whether it's the 20v or 16v.

>>16991776
Not him, but there are plenty of folks running 4A and 7AFEs boosted with great results, stop being a fanboy

>>16991776
It is that simple.
The F head makes better power and torque.
End of discussion

>>16991790
>>16991802
I never said the 4afe was a shitty engine. The 4age is just a little better.

4AFE-

The 4A-FE is different from the 4A-GE in terms of performance and power. Although both have the same displacement and are DOHC, they were optimized for different uses. The first obvious difference are the valves, the engine's intake and exhaust valves were placed 22.3° apart (compared to 50° in the G-Engines). The second is that it employed a "slave cam system", the camshafts being geared together and driven off one camshaft's sprocket (both camshafts' sprockets on the G-Engine are rotated by the timing belt). Some of the less directly visible differences were poorly shaped ports in the earlier versions, a slow burning combustion chamber with heavily shrouded valves, less aggressive camshaft profiles, ports of a small cross sectional area, a very restrictive intake manifold with long runners joined to a small displacement plenum and other changes. Even though the valve angle is closer to what is considered in some racing circles to be ideal for power (approximately 25 degrees), its other design differences and the intake which is tuned for a primary harmonic resonance at low RPM means that it has about 10% less power compared to the 4A-GE engine. This engine design improves fuel efficiency and torque, but compromises power. Power rating varied from 100–105 hp in the US market. Late-model engines are rumored to make slightly greater power but still received a 105 hp rating.

Although not as powerful as the 4A-GE, both engines are renowned for the power they produce from such a low displacement relative to other engines. Toyota engineers had skillfully optimized the power and torque from the company's relatively low-displacement engines.

>>16991790
>>16991802
4AGE-

Toyota designed the engine for performance; the valve angle was a relatively wide 50 degrees, which at the time was believed to be ideal for high power production. Today, more modern high-revving engines have decreased the valve angle to 20 to 25 degrees, which is now believed to be ideal for high-revving engines with high specific power outputs. The first generation 4A-GE is nicknamed the "bigport" engine because it had intake ports of a very large cross-sectional area. While the port cross-section was suitable for a very highly modified engine at very high engine speeds, it caused a considerable drop in low-end torque due to the decreased air speeds at those rpms. To compensate for the reduced air speed, the first-generation engines included theT-VISfeature, in which dual intake runners are fitted withbutterfly valvesthat opened at approximately 4,200 rpm. The effect is that at lower rpm (when the airspeed would normally be slow) four of the eight runners are closed, which forces the engine to draw in all its air through half the runners in the manifold. This not only raises the airspeed which causes better cylinder filling, but due to the asymmetrical airflow a swirl is created in the combustion chamber, meaning better fuel atomisation. This enabled the torque curve to still be intact at lower engine speeds, allowing for better performance across the entire speed band and a broad, flat torque curve around the crossover point.During rising engine speed, a slight lurch can occur at the crossover point and an experienced driver will be able to detect the shift in performance. Production of the first-generation engine model lasted through 1987.

>>16991802
The 4age has a a high peak power and peak torque for it's respective years and has a much better power and torque curve over the rev range. It's that simple.

>>16991854
>>16991867
None of this disproves my point that FE engines make great power when boosted, I've actually read the article you copypasta'd

>>16991886
Good, then you know the 4age is the better engine. I'm not saying the 4afe is shit, because it's not!!! It's a great engine! You cant deny that the 4age is better unless you start building custom manifolds and porting and such.

>>16991903
If you said "small port"
I would agree.

>>16991903
You don't need to build a custom manifold for the FE when boosting, this biggest issue is the slave/master cam setup

File: Mitsubishi 4G63T.jpg (49KB, 454x324px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 454x324px

Wrong

1nzfe > 4afe > 4age lp

>>16991912
This is what I've said in an earlier post. You can't fine tune individual cam timing on the 4afe like you can on the 4age.

>>16991905
The small port is better unmodified, but the large port is better when reaching for high power numbers.

File: 1nzfe-vvt-i-toyota-limo.jpg (33KB, 391x370px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 391x370px

>>16991936
Forgot sexy pic

>>16991935
>Needs a turbo to perform
K>>>4G

File: img_9480[1].jpg (600KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 1600x1200px

>>16991963
K-series a best

File: snell4.jpg (57KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 350x263px

>>16991968
Indeed

>>16991968
I was going to flame you for being a Honda fanboy. And then I saw the three intake runners. Mazda K > Honda K

>>16991938
Not individual, but you can adjust them to work well in tandem, it's just a bitch to do compared to the GE, but you spend less money overall when modding the FE

mezger
everything else is an argument about runner ups.

>>16991987
The problem is the aftermarket for the F is almost non-existent. The G has parts everywhere.

>>16992054
They can be found, as a matter of fact there's a shop on Facebook that sell 4A parts

>>16992211
I'm not saying there isn't support. I'm telling you that parts for the G head are plentiful and cheap compared to the F head

>>16990500
Turbo engines typically aren't supposed to be able to rev high, unless you hate streetability.

>>16991968
God tier v6

>>16992272
No, that's a delusion manufacturers have told you. ''Torquey turbo motors are great for streetability'' - right up untill the turbine chokes the engine and you're left with a mediocre top end. They just undersize the turbo, get great results on the MPG test, and normies get a nice shove at 3000RPM, and some nice HP figures at 5-6K RPM.

What you really want for a streetable turbo combination is more RPM. More RPM means more exhaust flow, which means your turbine is going to be spinning consistently, making for great throttle response up top. When you let it sink down the RPM's, sure, you'll have less power, but it won't excessively bog or anything. It's just that you are more often off boost during city driving - but in those situations you don't even need the power. This added exhaust flow is why turbo's are perfect for Wankels. Not only do those get a lot of RPM (and thus a lot of exhaust flow), they have seperated exhaust in intake ports. This means they'll retain more heat in the exhaust tract. Usually, that's a downside, untill you realise that more exhaust heat = more exhaust energy, and it'll spin up the turbine faster.

File: supra35[1].jpg (115KB, 672x448px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 672x448px

>>16990382
>2JZ
Reminder that even Toyota knew the the 2JZ couldn't compete and used a 3S-GTE in their GT500 cars

File: 1zz.jpg (49KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x428px

>>16990340
2zz is good, but in my opinion the 1zz is more fun for daily driving since it has more low/mid torque and its power delivery is more even throughout the rev range. the 2zz is fun as hell to rev high but it feels pretty dead when you're not in lift, and it doesn't respond too well to boost or bolt-ons, from what I've heard

also, not that it matters a whole lot on public roads but 1zz cars tend to be faster around corners due to that more consistent powerband

the 1zz-fe is underrated as fuck honestly, it's a versatile little engine. just keep an eye on that oil

>>16992360
delet this

>>16988536
AE82's are non existent here

>>16991484
>5k crate motor

I wish I was financially stable to buy one

>>16992369
>Doesn't respond well to boost
That's complete bullshit, my friend has a Celica GTS that's putting out 500whp with boost

>>16989799
>>16989606
>I don't know what group of faggots you associate yourself with that sit around banging the limiter and avoiding oil changes, but goodness me.
that's what happens when you use them as intended. If they just buzz around on the street maybe they will make 6 digits. I dunno, don't associate with kids who buy race replicas to putt around.

>>16992489
>muh one anecdotal story with no proof is a fact for all things!

I don't believe for a second your buddy has a 500whp celica.

>>16992360

Yeah they did that so that the centre of gravity was more central and for better weight distribution. Notice how it's a longitudinal mounted 3S-GTE as far back as possible which never went into a production car. (They're all Transverse in the GT4 / MR2 Turbo / Caldina) It's also lighter as a 4 cylinder verse a 6 cylinder. Finally due to race limitations they actually started with a 4M-GTE then moved onto a modified 3S-GTE(TTE race block) and then in 2000 moved onto 3UZ-FE V8 engine. (Thank weight saving aluminium blocks for the V8)

The 2JZ was never really an option due to weight and handling. Doesn't mean it's a bad engine, it can take far more power/punishment than a 3S-GTE.

File: gti_engine1.jpg (70KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x600px

Theres just something about it

>>16988465
>tfw you will never have ITBs

its unironically between the N55, 2JZ or any Audi V10

>>16989039
THE DEVIL Z

Almost any old medium-heavy duty diesel
Chrysler B series big blocks
Small block Chevys

The cars will fall down around the engines before they quit

>>16992697
>n55
Literally what
>2jz
Gutless engine unless you slap 10 turbos on it
>V10
weighs more and makes shit power compared to a v8

>>16989232
>God engine
>Burns oil by design
>Apex seals

>>16992697
>Audi V10
>not based inline 5

>>16988578
B series, K series, 3S, 2ZZ, 1ZZ even all shit all over the 4A-GE tbqh

>>16988448
The 3S-GE/GTE is literally better in almost every single way, and that's just looking at other Toyota 4-cylinders.

Put Initial D down and go outside.

File: 1267.jpg (131KB, 985x739px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 985x739px

This little fella right here

>>16990349
Does nobody care about an engine that makes almost 200hp/l?

>>16992889
>pushcucks on suicide watch

>>16989588
Do you consider valve adjustments to be major work or something?

>>16992889
Why, Its not unusual.

There are 1000cc engines that do put out 200hp.

>>16988448
1970s 5.0 302 v8
Those bitches keep on ticking

>>16992889
only bus riders care about hp/l.

>>16991698
>>16991790
the FE had small ports im bretty sure

>>16993018
>ticking
>pushrods

lmfaooo

File: 154_0604_03_z-jeeps_kick_ass_engine_history_4_liter-black_engine.jpg (57KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 660x495px

AMC 4.0L i6. Will outlive you and your children

File: Aprilia-RSV4-engine.jpg (143KB, 2000x1600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 2000x1600px

>>16990660
That's right mate, and that's exactly why the R32 had such a bad reputat... Oh, wait, it didn't, did it?

It dominated group A, didn't it? All this silly talk about inline six this, inline six that but you seem to forget that some of the greatest cars in the world have one at their core.


Anyway, where's the love for V4s?

File: Indestructable.jpg (112KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1000x750px

Kohler single cylinder from my grandpa's 1967 Wheel Horse Raider(not the actual engine pictures). Still used every year to mow the yard 1.5 acres. Has never been apart, uses/leaks no oil, and always starts on the first crank. He even uses it to plow his driveway in the winter.

>>16992661

It almost weighs as much as a fucking Cummins. It's a piece of shit.

>>16993752
That's a lot of doritos, can the world handle such bold flavour?

File: IMG_1893.jpg (39KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x375px

>>16993815

Not when you add some heatwave flavouring

File: 2046488.jpg (261KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1500x1000px

Serious question, /o/, why do manufacturers go for more cylinder rather than just make really big 2/4/6 pot engines?

Is it because big pistons are more likely to grenade themselves?

Is there a point of diminishing returns when it comes to friction/inertia/whatever?

I keep thinking of stuff like Toyota's 15b, a 4.1 litre turbo(?)diesel 4 banger found in pic related as well as some industrial van/small truck thingy.

Why not just go with stuff like that?

>>16993854

Packaging, weight, power delivery

There's a reason supercar manufacturers prefer lower displacement oversquare v10s and trucks have big stroke, big displacement V8s

>>16990425
I have the same plan, however I was gonna see if I can get away with stock internals until 8psi. According to matrix garage stock internals with plenty of proper sensors (like pyro gauges and knock cans) could be fine to 8psi+. I also just picked up an eBay turbo I'm going to rebuild since it's got some miles on it. Are you going with stock engine management initially? I'm considering an aftermarket maf option

>>16990349
>2 smoke
DISQUALIFIED

>>16994131
Hey, that'd make a mean bicycle engine :^)

>>16990580

/thread

>>16989623
lolheadgaskets

>>16989623

My milkshake brings all the 4runners to the yard.

>>16991055
It revs to that point, because it can only run for a short time at that rpm. Calculate the mean piston speed and you'll see its way above the speeds found in NASCAR/F1 engines. It's fundamentally a short life engine.

Also the valve train is ridiculously overbuilt and springs are pretty much a consumable at this point.

I disagree about the low torque on the 2ZZ, or similar specced Honda engines.

You have to consider that these are paired with very aggressive final drive ratios, not to mention 6 speed manuals.

>>16994342
Only Honda Ks and the 2ZZ had 6 speeds

>>16993213
too bad AMC didn't

>>16988628
Damn straight.

>>16988752
Honestly, 4age's were at their best with their corresponding factory gearbox. Gearing was such that you would shift at peak power and always land at peak torque.

They're not an amazing motor, but they're fun and bullet proof and can be stuffed into a lot of toyotas. I've owned about 5 cars with 4age's, but I've kicked the habit.

>>16992681
>>16992681
dude that looks fucking cool

>>16988813
Well I found the one other guy that is not super fucking retarded.

>>16995072
That was the other thing with the MR2, the manual was SO fucking slick and just felt...right on every shift. With the engine's power band you never felt like you were shifting too soon or too late, you just lifted off the clutch and off you went no matter where you were in the rev range. Man they got that car right.

>>16993383
The R32 would have been even better with a V6. They only kept the inline because of muh heritage, and it took them three generations of GT-R to finally quit the bullshit. The VG30DETT was a lot better as an engine - the GT-R only performed as well as it did because of it's excellent chassis, turbocharging and AWD setup.

>>16990921
Inline 6
Pros: Very smooth
Capable of higher output of power

Cons: Very long and hard to fit in an engine compartment

V6
Pros: Compact

Cons: Not fully smooth
More friction
Not as capable of producing as much power

>>16996168
Smooth can be fixed. Power isn't true, you only have more inertia. Similarly, a heavier flywheel doesn't make your engine produce any less power, it just changes the way that power is delivered. Therefore:

Inline 6:
>Pros: smoother, less internal inertia
>Cons: very long, bad CoG, bad polar moment of inertia

V6:
>Pros: Short, compact, good CoG, Good PMoI
>Cons: less smooth, more internal inertia

>>16988507
Is that supposed to be impressive? My Pathfinder has 280000 on the dash

File: DSC_0083.jpg (173KB, 1023x687px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1023x687px

>>16988448

File: amc2.5l.jpg (190KB, 961x1000px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 961x1000px

>>16988448
AMC 2.5L four cylinder. Lightweight, reaches highway speeds, fucking bulletproof, torque to drive any pumps or generators on your post apoc compound.

>>16988448
nice crank bearings you have there
mind if I take them for a spin

>>16989125
aero engines have limited rpm due to concerns of propeller cavitation,
there must be some tuning potential left
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_R#Supercharger_and_fuel

>>16988448
Why does it have a fan on the front of it?

>>16993700
Do you know of a lighter 1500hp factory engine?

>>16991117
You may be an engineer, but it is clear you are not very knowledgeable about engines.
Make no mistake; I'm not trying to argue with you on the whole inline vs. V configuration.

But you can't say a V engine weights the same as its inline equivalent.
V engines need much more rigid blocks, that's the reason some modern diesel V engines are made of materials with higher tensile strength (compacted graphite iron).
I'll grant that V engines have a lighter crankshaft (needs more counterweight, but it is still shorter and doesn't need as much "torsion resistance"), but I can assure you; valve gear is far simpler and more serviceable in an inline engine, and slightly lighter (assuming talking about camshaft over head).

Tl;dr: try not to talk about things you don't know.

File: 1305mt-04+1987-toyota-pickup+1987-22r-engine.jpg (445KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1600x1200px

>>16988448
I submit the 22R I4 Toyota engine, in carburetor form. Easy to work on, never dies, will run 100k on 3 cylinders.

>>16996508
Nice ad hominem.

A more rigid V block means you get to use twice the mass before you end up at the inline's equivalent.
Your argument for a V's rigidity mostly applies to diesel engines with a lot more torque, especially truck engines. CGI is just a solution to drop weight while retaining rigidity. Given a similar material, and similar quantity of material, you can design a V engine to be massively more rigid because of the overlap between the block. Therefore, if you choose identical rigidity (service life), you can reduce block weight on V's compared to I's.

Valve gear is just as simple, you have twice the parts, but they're twice the size, too. Sure, a transverse V6 will be a bitch to service, but no, a longitudinal one is fine. They can actually have identical weight, because cams are cams, and you can just reduce gear mass untill they have the same rotational inertia.

Again, nice ad hominem.

>>16989232
>Points for being light weight
>Points for being ridiculously tiny
>"""Reliable"""

Lost me at the last one - Reliability isn't in the game plan for any rotary my dude.

File: engine pic_1630 ACE-c471115d.jpg (43KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 300x300px

1.6 liters
3 cylinders
300 hp

File: image.jpg (94KB, 782x400px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 782x400px

>>16988448

>>16988466
>americans
honestly getting less than 100hp/l from an engine is just embarrassing

>>16988448
K24A2 is literally the pinnacle of Honda NA I4 engines. And they yield nothing to lesser designs. They even have torque (relative to displacement).

They rev, take abuse, and also respond to mods in a surprising fashion. There is a reason that the K24 is becoming a favored swap into miatas and even S2000's now.n I suspect that you'll see them stuffed into even rx-7's and RX-8's at some point.


Literally the only downside is fuel consumption, but if we are talking about motors for flogging, who gives a shit about that. We are not talking about commuter cars here.

>>16996733
Samfag here


The GM LSx is damn good. Not the best, but if you need to greatly simplify a problem of adding large amounts of power without a huge price penalty, disrupting balance, with an easy to work on design that fits in almost anything, then the LSx is it.


LS might not be the most appropriate solution, but it is damn hard to ignore as a "good" solution. They go well on anything from Jaguars, to jeeps FD rx-7's to miatas, to all sorts of domestic junk from the big three, to kraut shit like an E30, and triggers everyone.

>>16996732
>5.2L
>526HP
nigga are you really that stupid?

>>16996746
it's 427 cu. in., 7L

it even says so on the side, genius

File: lotus49_cosworthdfv.jpg (248KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 683x1024px

other answers are objectively wrong

File: 1489892057630.gif (1MB, 320x234px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x234px

>>16996750
Welp when you're right, I'll admit I'm wrong. Thought you replied to a different motor, my bad m8.

>>16996755
>ford

File: cat-launched-the-new_600x0w.jpg (62KB, 600x563px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x563px

Only correct answer.

File: IMG_2136.jpg (27KB, 236x346px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 236x346px

>>16996755
>tfw Spark plug wires in the middle of the valve covers

>>16996761
>implying
the engine was built by Cosworth in the UK

ford provided the funds to Lotus so they slapped a badge on the side

>>16996774
>Cosworth
Even worse desu

>>16996764
You've never laid a finger on any heavy equipment diesel have you?

>>16989053
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5rGyP6SSYM

The sound that engine makes...

>>16997401
Here's a '55 shoe box with a Merlin
https://youtu.be/YwcjlsrnqWw

File: images (43).jpg (25KB, 332x443px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 332x443px

>>16988448

File: images (46).jpg (33KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 470x313px

>>16990552
Fixed

File: file.jpg (99KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 960x720px

Besides the obvious issue. you can always rely on a 22R to last

File: 1491697927218.gif (378KB, 550x600px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 550x600px

>>16990425
>boost it up to 250~300hp. Which is all you need in an AW11

Damn, son. How much other work are you planning to support that power? I don't think I'd want to go past a 150-160 NA setup on my ae86.

>>16988448
Fors 300ci straight 6

>>16997543
whose dumbass idea was it to put the intake and exhaust on the same side

>>16998575
In ye olde times, you needed the exhaust heat to keep fuel droplets from condensating in the intake manifold, because carbs weren't really good, and intakes weren't well-designed with modern fluid dynamic simulations that are easy on computers. This was mostly fixed by improving manifold design, carb tech, and eventually EFI.

Also, a reverse flow head is a lot easier to make, compared to a crossflow head. This means that it was much more economically viable in the early days of the automobile. This applies a lot more to flathead inlines: you'd need a T-head for a crossflow unit there, and that's two cams, two sets of bearings, and a whole hot mess of engineering problems you cannot face with pre-WW2 tech. This meant that reverse flow heads were economically viable up to somewhere in the late 70's.

>>16996551
You won't find many engines that can sustain the same level of constant abuse a rotary can
By abuse I mean being floored around a track, not 1000 start stop cycles

>>16990743
>>not using Revit

Gtfo pleeb

File: o.jpg (2MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2656x1494px

>>16990425

I have a supercharged aw11 swap. Orignal was the bluetop. I'm at 170hp with modified cams, stock ECU.

This shit is the most fun I have ever had.

File: heavy traffic.jpg (82KB, 564x726px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 564x726px

>>16992842
Literally came here to post this, I cant name an engine as reliable with as much potential as a redblock

>>16998605
Sounds like a pretty lame excuse for Chrysler Australia to try passing off a rather pedestrian engine as a flagship performance motor.
The fact they even had the tenacity to call it a "hemi" is embarrassing.

>>17000382
Ugghhh could you not???
3800 a shit
3900 is love

>>16998575
>pushrods

>>16991484
its breddy good to be honest

>>17000416
>3900
Literal garbage

File: productthumbnail.png (73KB, 310x310px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 310x310px

Noble Men Swerve...

File: 1490186802907.jpg (24KB, 308x302px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 308x302px

Anything other than the 22R/E is an objectively wrong answer. These marvels of engineering will outlast humanity.

File: b16b.jpg (66KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x533px

>>16988448

>>16988536
Yep too think the 4age is only popular because on initial d is completely spastic.

>>17000545
Say that to my face and not online motherfucker

>>16993213
This is the most correct answer. These mills are bombproof.

>>17002226
The problem with that suggestion is the Toyota 1FZ-FE is literally everything the 4.0 AMC is, except better in every objective measure.

>>17000416
no bully