Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-21-2006, 07:20 AM   #16
Vlad
CF Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Antelope, CA
Posts: 278
I say go for the porsche. I like the 944 turbo, awesome car. If you can find a 944 turbo S even better. Z's are cool too.
Vlad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2006, 09:01 AM   #17
speeder
CF Enthusiast
 
speeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in the Alps, Location unknown.
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant016
I never really understood the whole HP/liter argument. The 5.7 Liter LS1 is rated at 18/27 MPG. A 2.0 liter 2006 Evo is rated at 18/24 MPG. I know that supposedly AWD sucks up some MPG, but considering that this car has less power and is probably lighter (not 100% sure), that should make up for it. Yeah, it makes more HP per liter, but was does it matter if your getting less MPG?

Not really. I understand that AWD cars are less fuel efficient, but I'm talking about power per liter. I mean the guy wants a porsche I think he's less worried about MPG, and more about power. Besides where I come from we have to pay very high road tax depending on the cc 's of the cars. I feel getting 280bhp out of a 2.0 liter is alot better and than getting 282hp out of the 3.3 liter.
__________________



"All units be advised, be on the look out for a black sports car, last seen going airbourne near the highway overpass. The SPEEDER is travelling at well over the speed limit, pursue with caution"

Last edited by speeder : 02-21-2006 at 09:05 AM.
speeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2006, 09:32 PM   #18
giant016
My mom says I'm cool
 
giant016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by speeder
Not really. I understand that AWD cars are less fuel efficient, but I'm talking about power per liter. I mean the guy wants a porsche I think he's less worried about MPG, and more about power. Besides where I come from we have to pay very high road tax depending on the cc 's of the cars. I feel getting 280bhp out of a 2.0 liter is alot better and than getting 282hp out of the 3.3 liter.
I didn't know that they taxed according to how many cc's you have. He is in America anyway, so it doesn't matter. I'm just sick of ricers bragging how their cars makes more hp per liter. It just doesn't matter.
Quote:
the fact that smaller is better and more efficient
How exactly is a smaller engine better?

P.S. sorry for getting so off topic.
__________________
Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society

giant016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2006, 11:11 PM   #19
newyorker
MXman
 
newyorker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,291
Check my sig
__________________
04 Mazdaspeed Miata #2373/4000: IHI, BBS, Harddog, Flyin'Miata.

newyorker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2006, 11:57 PM   #20
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant016
I didn't know that they taxed according to how many cc's you have. He is in America anyway, so it doesn't matter. I'm just sick of ricers bragging how their cars makes more hp per liter. It just doesn't matter.

Many countries tax based on displacement. An most cases, 2 liters is where the big tax shift happens, so getting an engine at 2 liters or less can save you thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars.

So, in countries where engines are taxed on displacement, or in racing series where displacement is tightly regulated, more hp per liter is important. Everywhere else, it's simply an interesting bit of trivia, but less important than overall power, power curve, power per lb, and power per dollar.


Something that the "smaller is better" crowd forgets is it's not just hp that moves the car. It's hp, torque, and the hp/torque CURVE. And in a street car, a stratospheric rpm to make good hp at isn't really the best solution, especially when it means torque production is low (of course, high power, small displacement fans will point out that you can then change the gearing to increase effective torque to the ground and bring the stratospheric rpm figures at a lower road speed, thus partially negating that disadvantage).

But again, for a street car, an understressed larger engine makin gthe same hp and more torque is a better solution for both driveability AND relibility/longetivity.

For you fans of small engines, think about why Honda, on their premier sports car, the S2000, increased displacement but kept hp identical... they improved the torque curve and improved overal driveability, even though teh hp/liter figure went down.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2006, 12:18 AM   #21
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Many countries tax based on displacement. An most cases, 2 liters is where the big tax shift happens, so getting an engine at 2 liters or less can save you thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars.

So, in countries where engines are taxed on displacement, or in racing series where displacement is tightly regulated, more hp per liter is important. Everywhere else, it's simply an interesting bit of trivia, but less important than overall power, power curve, power per lb, and power per dollar.


Something that the "smaller is better" crowd forgets is it's not just hp that moves the car. It's hp, torque, and the hp/torque CURVE. And in a street car, a stratospheric rpm to make good hp at isn't really the best solution, especially when it means torque production is low (of course, high power, small displacement fans will point out that you can then change the gearing to increase effective torque to the ground and bring the stratospheric rpm figures at a lower road speed, thus partially negating that disadvantage).

But again, for a street car, an understressed larger engine makin gthe same hp and more torque is a better solution for both driveability AND relibility/longetivity.

For you fans of small engines, think about why Honda, on their premier sports car, the S2000, increased displacement but kept hp identical... they improved the torque curve and improved overal driveability, even though teh hp/liter figure went down.

Good post.

Just like to mention the reason why they kept the horsepower rating the same on the S2000 is not because it didn't make any more horsepower than the 2.0L did (because it does, check dyno results of the 2.0L vs. 2.2L, the 2.2L is consistenly 5-10rwhp higher), it was done because the 2.0L didn't quite make 240 crank horsepower. In fact many dyno pulls put in the 230-235hp range (most of the time pulling right at 195-200rwhp). But, it was found once the 2.0L S2000 was broken in, many would pull much higher on the same dyno (pulling closer to 205rwhp). But, the new 2.2 S2000 in most dyno proven cases, will do over 240 crank horsepower. So basically Honda was making up for the last mistake.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2006, 10:33 AM   #22
speeder
CF Enthusiast
 
speeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in the Alps, Location unknown.
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant016
I didn't know that they taxed according to how many cc's you have. He is in America anyway, so it doesn't matter. I'm just sick of ricers bragging how their cars makes more hp per liter. It just doesn't matter.

How exactly is a smaller engine better?

P.S. sorry for getting so off topic.


When I quoted 'smaller but more efficient' I mean't small engines that can do big things mate. like i said more power per liter and also honda's vtec and mitsubishi's mivec system. Down here the road tax is really really really high. That's why most of our cars have small engines but high horsepower because if you get something above 2.0 liters your asking for trouble.

I hope when you said:

I'm just sick of ricers bragging how their cars makes more hp per liter[/quote]

You weren't refering to me man cause I take my cars very seriously. I understand that it is better to have a bigger engine than a 2.0 liter producing the evo's 280bhp cause there is less wear and strain on the engine. Maybe it's just me but i like things performing at optimum levels. I like the evo's and most japanese sports cars because of this.
If I came of rude earlier I'm sorry mate.
__________________



"All units be advised, be on the look out for a black sports car, last seen going airbourne near the highway overpass. The SPEEDER is travelling at well over the speed limit, pursue with caution"

Last edited by speeder : 02-22-2006 at 10:50 AM.
speeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2006, 10:40 AM   #23
speeder
CF Enthusiast
 
speeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in the Alps, Location unknown.
Posts: 135
Besides that there are alot of aftermarket parts for the japanese high performers to increase performance and achieve cleaner combustion.
__________________



"All units be advised, be on the look out for a black sports car, last seen going airbourne near the highway overpass. The SPEEDER is travelling at well over the speed limit, pursue with caution"

Last edited by speeder : 02-22-2006 at 10:46 AM.
speeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2006, 08:02 PM   #24
giant016
My mom says I'm cool
 
giant016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by speeder
I hope when you said:

I'm just sick of ricers bragging how their cars makes more hp per liter
You weren't refering to me man cause I take my cars very seriously. I understand that it is better to have a bigger engine than a 2.0 liter producing the evo's 280bhp cause there is less wear and strain on the engine. Maybe it's just me but i like things performing at optimum levels. I like the evo's and most japanese sports cars because of this.
If I came of rude earlier I'm sorry mate.
No, I wasn't taking a shot at you. Unlike ricers, you seem to display knowledge about cars (not that I know much, but I don't talk crap). I was talking about the kids I see running their mouths about how Vtec is God. If they loose a race, it's O.K., because they have more hp/liter, and even though they lost they still won't shut up. Once again, no offense intended towards you. Thanks ChrisV, your post was very informative.
__________________
Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society

giant016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.