no_slow_clap;213570 wrote:
^^^agreed.

my honda was slow

lol..... funny

my honda was slow

bubba;213476 wrote:
I'd rather have the non-smooth power delivery of a 500hp 4cyl...
your a fucktard....

capitlj;213438 wrote:
Chuck touched on this lightly but 8 <u>is</u> sort of a "magic" number. An 8 cylinder four stroke engine has two cylinders on the "power" stroke at any given time vs a 4 cylinder engine which only has one. Why is it you think a V12 ferrari with 500 hp feels different than a V8 ford with 500 hp. Its because the engine has three cylinders on the "power" stroke at any given time so its power delivery is smoother, although it does not have any more power than the V8 engine.

I'd rather have the non-smooth power delivery of a 500hp 4cyl...

inspector01;213354 wrote:
Why don't they use V12s or bigger if displacement is the best thing ever??? 8 cylinders is the magical number i guess??

Chuck touched on this lightly but 8 <u>is</u> sort of a "magic" number. An 8 cylinder four stroke engine has two cylinders on the "power" stroke at any given time vs a 4 cylinder engine which only has one. Why is it you think a V12 ferrari with 500 hp feels different than a V8 ford with 500 hp. Its because the engine has three cylinders on the "power" stroke at any given time so its power delivery is smoother, although it does not have any more power than the V8 engine.

horsepower is still the determining factor in the rate of acceleration of any vehicle though

http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html

really good article, there was a second more in depth section but do you think i could find it

zbrown;213379 wrote:
yes HP is determined from TO and RPM............. but a car's acceleration G's is directly proportional to the HP curve .......... not the TO curve

Wrong. A car will accelerate exactly matching its torque curve, not its horsepower curve. A car will accelerate hardest at its peak torque.

300 foot pounds of torque will accelerate you just as hard
at 2000 rpm as it would if you were making that torque at 4000 rpm in the
same gear, yet, per the formula, [HP= (Torque * RPM) /5252] the horsepower would be double at 4000 rpm.

capitlj;213341 wrote:
Torque moves cars horsepower sells them. Why exactly did engines from the 20's come up? I should damn well hope that a newer smaller engine makes as much, or more, horsepower. We have had over 100 years to develop the internal combustion engine, wheras they had <u>maybe</u> 30. If technology is the replacement for displacement then why are race teams, drag teams in particular, using massive V8 engines? With all the technology the top teams have access to why aren't they building small inline 4 motors, or even small V8 motors for that matter. The arguement that RPMs are a replacement can be made, i.e. indy cars, but what are you doing when you run an engine at higher RPM. Moving more air into and out of the engine, pretty my the same thing as using a bigger one in the first place. Except with a bigger one you don't have to put as much time into making it hold together so its cheaper.

Why don't they use V12s or bigger if displacement is the best thing ever??? 8 cylinders is the magical number i guess??

GoldyHatchPSI;213334 wrote:
Torque can lick balls.

Yep, torque really sucks

I make peak power at 6200-6400 and peak tq at 4800-5100 640ftlbs....

Car weighs 3600lbs and runs 9.75 @ 138 N/A

You just have to gear the car correctly to use the power curve.

The argument was, "no replacement for displacement"

But reguardless of model trim, no one can deny there are replacements for displacements. Whether it be technology, forced induction, or nitrous. That's why they're popular and work in the real world.

EDIT: found one:

The original 448 in³ (7.3 L) Lincoln V12 was used in the large Model KB line for 1932 and 1933. It produced 150 hp (112 kW) and was an unusual 65° L-head design

Mind Blowing.

2ND EDIT:
I bet someone responds to this with something about torque

KidSupreme;213127 wrote:
If there is no replacement for displacement, how do things like this happen:

1988 Camaro RS. 5.0 L, 170 hp

1989 CRX SiR - 1.6 L, 160 hp

One year apart. 3.4 L. 10 hp.

You're right. No replacement for displacement.

And I would've gone further back in time but I had no resources for those old 1920's-30's v12's that made like 50 hp.

1988 Camaro RS. V-8 5.0L (305CI) 4 Barrel Carb 170HP@4400 and 250Ft/lbs@2800

1989 crx SiR - 112 @ 7100

Wow only 1 year apart 3.4 L 138 Ft/lbs

No replacement for displacement. and BTW, next time you make a comparison between two vehicles you could probably use the top package for BOTH vehicles. You chose the lowest 5.0l motor option that gm offered. Lets try this comparison again evenly.

Low Package Comparison:
1988 Camaro RS. 5.0 L, 170 hp 250 ft/lbs

1989 crx sohc 8 valve - 62hp, 90ft/lbs

High package comparison:
1988 Camaro Z28 5.0L, 220hp 290 ft/lbs

1989 CRX SiR - 1.6 L, 160 hp

Displacement ftw, ....again :owned:

1988 Camaro RS. 5.0 L, 170 hp

1989 CRX SiR - 1.6 L, 160 hp

One year apart. 3.4 L. 10 hp.

You're right. No replacement for displacement.

And I would've gone further back in time but I had no resources for those old 1920's-30's v12's that made like 50 hp.

Raider;213038 wrote:
I personally perfer more displacement myself....I like the instant tq...nothing like having 300+ft/tq by 2500rpms

cept a cummins making 600 by 2k???

speaking of jet/gas turbine engines........... I may way off base but i think i remember reading this somewhere

Don't they make insane ##'s for TO?? I mean their HP # is dwarfed by the TO #??

thought so anyway

FWIW, the engine in the red car was stock as was the engine in Matts Probe the last couple years. The engine in my black car has aftermarket rods and pistons, as does the engine Matt is building for this year.

Dave FTW