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 08-17-2007, 12:59 AM   #16
giant016
My mom says I'm cool
 
giant016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
GM doesn't make high Hp/litre engines because they can't afford to raise the compression that much it will blow the motor to pieces. and hp/litre tells you about efficiency.. and by the way Horsepower per dollar is a redneck talk. also you don't need 400 horses if your car isn't 4000 lbs.. unless you are drag racing.. and drag racing is stupid anyhow...
You take your Hp/liter efficiency, I'll take my Hp/$ effeciency and we'll see who has the faster car.

A two liter engine making 100% of it's potential power (not going to happen, but for the sake of argument) is just as fast as a 4 liter using half of it's potential. It will get about the same MPG. So why is it actually better? Effeciency is just a word in this case that makes no difference in the car's performance.

As far as drag racing: if you don't like it nobody should...right?

For the weight thing, not every car can be light. If they made the GTO a light 2 seater, they'd have a Corvette. The GTO is a car that a family man can afford and actually haul people around comfortably in while still having a car that is fun.


Quote:
suspicious or not I was doing nothing wrong...
Being pulled over is not a punishment. They are making sure you are doing nothing wrong. I think an officer would be doing his job pulling anyone over in that case, seeing as it is a sign of drunk driving.
__________________
Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society

giant016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 07:25 AM   #17
rudypoochris
CF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
what do you base your statement that it is one of the best engines out there?

Well it is used in most of the best kit cars out there and is one of the most prized of all engine swaps. The engine gets extremely good fuel economy for the horsepower (28mpg EPA rated LS1 in the camaro, thats typical, I know many guys getting over 30)... the HP and TQ to weight ratio is ALOT better than most other engines out there. Comparo LS7 HP/lb is around 1.12, S2000 engine is about .677. That means the LS7 is 1.65 times more powerful for the weight. The engine is also quite robust with 6 bolt mains. As for reliability, that is just going to be a pissing match since it can't be proven. I have never owned an LS personally, as I am guessing you haven't either. I have heard only good things though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
do you really think that 66.7 HP per litre is impressive?

No. I don't think horsepower per liter is impressive no matter the figure. It is a pointless measurement unless you are displacement limited. Hp/lb is quite relivent though, same with HP under the curve. I did a study recently, which is on my website, of a comparo between a 200rwhp 2L and a 200rwhp 5L. The 5L put down 15% more power under the curve during a 2nd gear pull. This is typical of low displacement high horsepower engines, I studied more and foudn similar results. The big torque down low also equates to more power under the curve. Means up to 15% more acceleration for the same peak HP. Point is, the LS2 has alot of torque and is large displacement = alot of HP under the curve, not just peak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
it makes 400 HP but out of 6 litre engine that does not impress me much. as to it's reliability I AM VERY skeptical about it.

What does impress you? 200hp out of a 2L? What does that mean? At the end of the day the LS2 is still twice as powerful and thus a hell of alot quicker. Do you think at the end of a road race the loser pulls up and says, "ya well, atleast I have more HP/liter?". Be real dude. Stop kidding yourself on the reliability thing too. Next thing your gunna start flamming about all the domestics. A car will give you back pretty much what you give to it. Care for it and it will treat you fine.

Last edited by rudypoochris : 08-17-2007 at 07:30 AM.
rudypoochris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 06:18 PM   #18
ateymura
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudypoochris
Well it is used in most of the best kit cars out there and is one of the most prized of all engine swaps. The engine gets extremely good fuel economy for the horsepower (28mpg EPA rated LS1 in the camaro, thats typical, I know many guys getting over 30)...
t

well I have never seen any camaro getting even 25 mpg.. (I can accept that if i haven't seen it... it doesn't mean it's not out there)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudypoochris
he HP and TQ to weight ratio is ALOT better than most other engines out there. Comparo LS7 HP/lb is around 1.12, S2000 engine is about .677. That means the LS7 is 1.65 times more powerful for the weight. The engine is also quite robust with 6 bolt mains. As for reliability, that is just going to be a pissing match since it can't be proven. I have never owned an LS personally, as I am guessing you haven't either. I have heard only good things though.

1st it makes very little sense to compare a dragster with a roadster!!!!

2nd but since you started comparing them.. your numbers for hp/lb are a little off unless you are quoting some integral value... for s2000 hp/lb is 240/2835=0.085 for camaro (let say its a 1000 hp camaro) then for hp/lb you get 1000/3500=0.286 (I am guessing this numbers) (I am not sure where u get your 1.12 number from) it might be 0.112 I would believe that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rudypoochris
What does impress you? 200hp out of a 2L? What does that mean? At the end of the day the LS2 is still twice as powerful and thus a hell of alot quicker. Do you think at the end of a road race the loser pulls up and says, "ya well, atleast I have more HP/liter?". Be real dude.

quicker on a straight line? or on a track .. and i am not talking about an oval

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudypoochris
Stop kidding yourself on the reliability thing too. Next thing your gunna start flamming about all the domestics. A car will give you back pretty much what you give to it. Care for it and it will treat you fine.

I agree if you take good care it will serve you well... but a honda will do it for much longer than a chevy..
ateymura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 09:55 PM   #19
rudypoochris
CF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
well I have never seen any camaro getting even 25 mpg.. (I can accept that if i haven't seen it... it doesn't mean it's not out there).

That doesn't change the fact that they do, and with well over 300hp. Just because you have never driven or owned one doesn't make it any less than it is. Having driven both imports and domestics I can appreciate BOTH for what they are. I own both types and love both equally. Maybe my import a little more since it is going to be my race car, that being said I gave it alot more money and time so I should love it more!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
1st it makes very little sense to compare a dragster with a roadster!!!!

Okay, the Z06 isn't a dragster, it is a sports car. So is the S2000... Right? Any way fine, compare the stock GTO motor, sedan vs sports car, ya? Equal price. Hp/lbs = .889. S2000 .677. Still 1.32 times more hp per pound. I am talking motor weights since the engine was what was brought into question (hp/liter you brought up). Strength to weight, it is what determines acceleration. The LS series engines all do alot better than the F20C and F22C. And I was being on the low side with the F20/22 engine weight... In any case, no matter how you figure it 240hp vs 400hp, thats what it comes down to. Plus an extra 250ish lbft of torque.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
2nd but since you started comparing them.. your numbers for hp/lb are a little off unless you are quoting some integral value... for s2000 hp/lb is 240/2835=0.085 for camaro (let say its a 1000 hp camaro) then for hp/lb you get 1000/3500=0.286 (I am guessing this numbers) (I am not sure where u get your 1.12 number from) it might be 0.112 I would believe that.!!!!

No, they aren't off. I was comparing engine hp/lb not vehicle. In any case with driver (150lb) GTO lb/hp = 10.06. Honda S2000 lb/hp = 12.68. Which is why the S2000 is absolutely decimated by the GTO as far as acceleration goes. That is despite the fact that the Honda makes 108hp/liter and the GTO
an unimpressive (to you) 67hp/liter. The only thing HP/liter indicates really is how peaky the curves are. Such a high HP/liter shows the S2000 to be weak under the curve, where as the GTO isn't. Hence again why the GTO is significantly faster. For instance S2000 vs Mustang Gt. They have similar lb/hp but the Mustang also decimates the S2000 in an acceleration contest. This is due to the added area under the power curve and less loss (proportionally) through gearing. The S2000 even has wider tires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
quicker on a straight line? or on a track .. and i am not talking about an oval.

Pretty sure a Z06 would eat any Honda alive on any track, throw in the NSX too, its still much faster. Base C6 also faster on the road course and drag strip. GTO would eat an S2000 alive on most tracks besides auto crosses since it has so much more power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
I agree if you take good care it will serve you well... but a honda will do it for much longer than a chevy..

I don't agree. You have absolutely no evidence to substantiate that claim. There is a reason chevrolet V8's are one of the most common motorswaps. Its because they are better than the engines that came in those cars. Is it that your jealous that Hondas extensive use of the FWD layout prohibits easy swapping?

EDIT: If you care to learn something, check out this article I wrote a while ago: http://autolounge.net/tech/hptq.html. It talks about HP and torque and is really quite simple to udnerstand. I only posted the 5.0L and the 2.0L results up, but on my computer I have about 10 different cars with similar conclusions, I just cut it down since the article is long, and bandwidth. The least you can do is try and open your mind, if only just a little bit, you could stop and read, you know, try to learn something.

Last edited by rudypoochris : 08-17-2007 at 10:11 PM.
rudypoochris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 10:51 PM   #20
ateymura
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudypoochris
Okay, the Z06 isn't a dragster, it is a sports car. So is the S2000... Right?

wrong... you are trying to compare apples and oranges.. those vehicles are not in the same class!!!

neither are GTO and S2000.. it makes no sense to compare those cars.

you can't compare a purely sports car or a sports sedan to a roadster..

honda simply doesn't make a production car in that class

Even comparing the 6L V8 from GM to 3.5L V6 from honda does not make much sence (but just to humor you) one has 400hp/400ft-lb and the other 300hp/252lb-ft
ateymura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 01:23 AM   #21
rudypoochris
CF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
wrong... you are trying to compare apples and oranges.. those vehicles are not in the same class!!!


Okay so what do you want to compare? Hp/liter? The fact of the matter is that despite what you THINK, having higher hp/liter isn't necessarily a good thing. It is good for economy when cruising because your never in the power = low fuel consumption. For performance on a road course, track, anywhere it is much worse. You don't have power as spread out.

I am just saying engine to engine alot of those low hp/liter motors you were poking fun at actually crank out alot more power and torque for their weight. More importantly, they crank out more power and torque PERIOD. Obviously smaller motors have higher hp/liter since they need to be able to keep up. More is demanded from them. If you already have a large engine its not necessary to amke 100hp/liter, what would the point be 600hp engine in normal sedans? That would be hell for CAFE fees, hell for insurance, death rate... few people wouldn't want it in reality, etc. Also, remember, power typically increases with the square of size, volume increases with the cube of size. Thus if you have a tiny engine it is going to make more hp/volume than a large motor. Which is why tiny motors can put out a decent amount of power.

In any case, don't be lame smearing a car company or a car. There just isn't any reason to. You should actually try driving one of the vehicles in question or actually own one for a bit. You might be surprised. Until then all of the specs of the vehicle speak for themselves, your going to be stuck bringing up HP/liter because its quite hard to argue with a nice sedan pushing 400hp and RWD when your advocating 200hp and FWD. Everyone is just going to giggle at you man. Think about it.
rudypoochris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 06:23 PM   #22
giant016
My mom says I'm cool
 
giant016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura


1st it makes very little sense to compare a dragster with a roadster!!!!




quicker on a straight line? or on a track .. and i am not talking about an oval
First off the Z06 pulls more Gs on the skidpad than the S2000. I'm betting a base Corvette does to, or at least is on the same level as the S2000. So it sounds like you're saying that basically the dragster outhandles the roadster.
__________________
Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society


Last edited by giant016 : 08-19-2007 at 06:31 PM.
giant016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 07:08 PM   #23
ateymura
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant016
First off the Z06 pulls more Gs on the skidpad than the S2000. I'm betting a base Corvette does to, or at least is on the same level as the S2000. So it sounds like you're saying that basically the dragster outhandles the roadster.

1st i never said corvet was a dragster.. I called the camaro a dragster...
2nd you cannot compare a roadster to a sports car makes NO SENSE.
ateymura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 07:29 PM   #24
ateymura
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudypoochris
Okay so what do you want to compare? Hp/liter? The fact of the matter is that despite what you THINK, having higher hp/liter isn't necessarily a good thing. It is good for economy when cruising because your never in the power = low fuel consumption. For performance on a road course, track, anywhere it is much worse. You don't have power as spread out.

I am just saying engine to engine alot of those low hp/liter motors you were poking fun at actually crank out alot more power and torque for their weight. More importantly, they crank out more power and torque PERIOD. Obviously smaller motors have higher hp/liter since they need to be able to keep up. More is demanded from them. If you already have a large engine its not necessary to amke 100hp/liter, what would the point be 600hp engine in normal sedans? That would be hell for CAFE fees, hell for insurance, death rate... few people wouldn't want it in reality, etc. Also, remember, power typically increases with the square of size, volume increases with the cube of size. Thus if you have a tiny engine it is going to make more hp/volume than a large motor. Which is why tiny motors can put out a decent amount of power.

In any case, don't be lame smearing a car company or a car. There just isn't any reason to. You should actually try driving one of the vehicles in question or actually own one for a bit. You might be surprised. Until then all of the specs of the vehicle speak for themselves, your going to be stuck bringing up HP/liter because its quite hard to argue with a nice sedan pushing 400hp and RWD when your advocating 200hp and FWD. Everyone is just going to giggle at you man. Think about it.

1st if you read the original post the guy said he does not race

but put this on a side... and if you felt ofended when i said GM/chevy cars are unreliable and turned it into a horsepower contest... well don't kid yourself

if you want to compare HONDA engines with GM engines try to compare the

3.5L V6 from HONDA which makes 300hp/252lb-ft to 3.5L V6 from GM found let say on Impala LS which makes only 211hp/214lb-ft or 3.9L V6 GM motor found on Impala LT which makes only 233 hp/240ft-lbs.

you see my point???? same displacement far less power

GM needs at least 5.3L V8 with 303 hp/323 ft-lbs found on Impala SS to match the performance of the HONDA 3.5L V6.

as far as the reliabillity goes I have seen many imports go beyond 250K miles haven't seen that many domestic cars go beyond 150K miles.

Last edited by ateymura : 08-19-2007 at 07:35 PM.
ateymura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 01:43 AM   #25
07exlv6
CF Enthusiast
 
07exlv6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ask ur mom
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaos84
Alright I'm currently driving a 2000 Ford ZX2 I got right before my senior year in HS. Its got about 75,000 miles on it, and I'm looking to get rid of it.I don't race or anything like that, and use the car basically for everyday purposes. Im considering the following.

2004 Infiniti G35 Sedan 27,500 miles $24,000
2006 Pontiac GTO 15,700 Miles $25,000
2007 Ford Mustang GT 10,000 Miles $26,000
2007 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 15,700 Miles $22,000


2007 Ford Mustang V6 17,000 Miles $17,000

Obviously the first 4 are a step above the last one, But is the difference between them really worth $8,000? Any additional help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

well buddy here are my 2 cents:

Out of all those i would most defenetly go with infinity no questions asked but i would prefer a coupe of course, my brother has it, very reliable, fun, 4 passengers comparing to nissan 350z 2 seater, and a descent mileage for a v6 and has a lot of different cool electronic features that will keep u comfortable, happy and safe.

My friend has a 2006 GTO, just got it, and holy shit that thing has so much tourge, you will never get sick and tired of it but thats if you love pure american LS muscle

If you put a s/c on the gt mustang then that would be one hell of a ride but thats it, never rely on ford, im sorry but its just stupid, i had 3 of them and never again

My boss at work has the new eclipse not gt though but that thing rattles like a mo fo, very cheap feel to it.

So i think if you got that infinity (just think about it, infinity...not just another chevy ford or honda) you would be really happy with it

My next ride will be Infinity G37
__________________
07exlv6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 02:04 AM   #26
giant016
My mom says I'm cool
 
giant016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura
1st i never said corvet was a dragster.. I called the camaro a dragster...
Actually, you responded directly to somebody only talking about the LS7. That engine was only ever put into a Corvette Z06. But while we're on the subject I did beat 2 out of the 3 S2000s at the last autoX I went to, while they had manuals and I was in my auto SS. On top of that I'm not a very good racer (yet). I know this was a case of the S2000 drivers not knowing what they were doing, but to put it into comparison my SS pulls about a .90 on the skidpad. Not too bad for a dragster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateymura

if you want to compare HONDA engines with GM engines try to compare the

3.5L V6 from HONDA which makes 300hp/252lb-ft to 3.5L V6 from GM found let say on Impala LS which makes only 211hp/214lb-ft or 3.9L V6 GM motor found on Impala LT which makes only 233 hp/240ft-lbs.

you see my point???? same displacement far less power

GM needs at least 5.3L V8 with 303 hp/323 ft-lbs found on Impala SS to match the performance of the HONDA 3.5L V6.

First off you're comparing GMs plane-jane, nothing special motors to what one of Honda's performance motors. The Impala LS/LT are cars for my grandparents who don't care about performance. The 3.5L Honda is geared towards people who do care about the car's performance. If you want to stick to small (semi)performance engine comparisons, the supercharged Cobalt SS got 205hp out of a 2.0 liter.

You keep pussyfooting around this: Why is less displacement better? Although the LS series engines are larger in size, they actually weigh less per hp put out. You keep saying GM can't build a motor like Honda does. Why would they want to? Seems like extra money wasted in development to me.
__________________
Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society

giant016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 02:19 AM   #27
07exlv6
CF Enthusiast
 
07exlv6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ask ur mom
Posts: 158
sorry ateymura but very childlish thinking, you cant just take two completly different engines with a same displacement and compare them in hp it doesnt work that way, intake, compression, sohc/dohc, lift, stroke, bore, there is just a lot of thing that come into play, honda has i-vtec and untill it kicks in J and F series specially, that car isnt much, (mine is J30A5 30th anniversary 2007 honda engine with 250hp....speaking from experiance), compare mazda rx-8 hp with your honda hp lol and then compare displacement, y the big difference and n/a? different kind of engine.
__________________
07exlv6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 04:51 AM   #28
ateymura
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by 07exlv6
sorry ateymura but very childlish thinking, you cant just take two completly different engines with a same displacement and compare them in hp it doesnt work that way, intake, compression, sohc/dohc, lift, stroke, bore, there is just a lot of thing that come into play, honda has i-vtec and untill it kicks in J and F series specially, that car isnt much, (mine is J30A5 30th anniversary 2007 honda engine with 250hp....speaking from experiance), compare mazda rx-8 hp with your honda hp lol and then compare displacement, y the big difference and n/a? different kind of engine.

man i did not start this comparison .. I am just humoring two pepole who keep trying to convince me that GM engines are as good as HONDA engines...

whats so wrong about comparing a 3.5L V6 with a 3.5 L V6???

all started from me saing that japanese cars are more reliable WHICH THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited by ateymura : 08-20-2007 at 05:15 AM.
ateymura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 04:56 AM   #29
ateymura
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
look below

Last edited by ateymura : 08-20-2007 at 05:13 AM.
ateymura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 05:12 AM   #30
ateymura
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant016
Actually, you responded directly to somebody only talking about the LS7. That engine was only ever put into a Corvette Z06. But while we're on the subject I did beat 2 out of the 3 S2000s at the last autoX I went to, while they had manuals and I was in my auto SS. On top of that I'm not a very good racer (yet). I know this was a case of the S2000 drivers not knowing what they were doing, but to put it into comparison my SS pulls about a .90 on the skidpad. Not too bad for a dragster.

I did respond.. with clause that I am just humoring him.. I did state that it makes no sense to compare the two cars. and I will still say you can't compare a roadster to a sports car
it was you and the other guy who brought up the s2000 not me. s2000 is a great car but is not to be compared with z06

Quote:
Originally Posted by giant016
First off you're comparing GMs plane-jane, nothing special motors to what one of Honda's performance motors. The Impala LS/LT are cars for my grandparents who don't care about performance. The 3.5L Honda is geared towards people who do care about the car's performance. If you want to stick to small (semi)performance engine comparisons, the supercharged Cobalt SS got 205hp out of a 2.0 liter.


I am comparing a HONDA sports sedan engine to a GM sports sedan engine.. I think it is perfectly valid to compare a 3.5L V6 to a 3.5 L V6.

and your cobalt SS needs a supercharger to get its 205 hp out of 2L engine but honda gets its 210 horses out of NA 2L motor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by giant016
You keep pussyfooting around this: Why is less displacement better? Although the LS series engines are larger in size, they actually weigh less per hp put out. You keep saying GM can't build a motor like Honda does. Why would they want to? Seems like extra money wasted in development to me.

I never said that less displacement better of worse.. my claim is honda engines are more reliable and given the displacement produce more power compared to a GM engine of same displacement!!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited by ateymura : 08-20-2007 at 05:25 AM.
ateymura 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 01:07 AM.

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