Grr;246860 wrote:
My car, at around 3800lbs with me in it and on only 9psi went 12.20@116 on my snow tires, and 11.42@119 on DRs, both into a 40mph headwind and on 89 octane gas. I had been as high as 127mph when i went 11.7x last year making around 125hp more. I feel with a decent tune and some premium i would have gone 10.6-10.8@130.
And on my roadtrip to detroit to sell it i averaged 82mph and got a 1250mile trip MPG of 25.8. One tank i got 26.9 on that trip. Highest i recorded was a weekend fuckoff trip where i logged my distance on the GPS and managed 27.7MPG, with some backroads screwing around in there as well.
Remember this was on a completely stock motor and trans, 80mph on the interstate was 2200, 60mph was around 1850. That thing was making over 600hp and close to 600lb-ft for 2 years and never missed a beat, id do it all over again but this time in a 240sx, (right zac)

Is this supposed to be a hint, lol...

zbrown;246607 wrote:
All the Gen III/IV GM engines would do this in a light car with good aero....

granted not on big cam/head NA setup with large gears......

but on a turbo setup where you keep your overlap and stuff down, and run smaller gears, then yes easy

and still have all the power you could handle at your disposal, and have almost OEM drivability

Heck just like gary's GN,.... that thing drove like a stock/civilized car... till you let her buck, then it was a different machine

Gary what kind of mileage did you get in the GN, being full weight and everything??

My car, at around 3800lbs with me in it and on only 9psi went 12.20@116 on my snow tires, and 11.42@119 on DRs, both into a 40mph headwind and on 89 octane gas. I had been as high as 127mph when i went 11.7x last year making around 125hp more. I feel with a decent tune and some premium i would have gone 10.6-10.8@130.
And on my roadtrip to detroit to sell it i averaged 82mph and got a 1250mile trip MPG of 25.8. One tank i got 26.9 on that trip. Highest i recorded was a weekend fuckoff trip where i logged my distance on the GPS and managed 27.7MPG, with some backroads screwing around in there as well.
Remember this was on a completely stock motor and trans, 80mph on the interstate was 2200, 60mph was around 1850. That thing was making over 600hp and close to 600lb-ft for 2 years and never missed a beat, id do it all over again but this time in a 240sx, (right zac)

Joel;246545 wrote:
And the most important reason for staying with 4 cylinders...

-The look on a Hick/Yuppie Porsche/Mustang/Camaro/Corvette owners face when you pull away from them in a rusty Honda Civic hatchback that sounds like a sneezing chain saw.

I have caused this to happen once, and it was the best look from someone i've seen...

fdfreak;246572 wrote:
but now your talking about cars and technology that the average joe cant afford. other than your 4.8, what kind of gas mileage do resonably priced crate engines get?

All the Gen III/IV GM engines would do this in a light car with good aero....

granted not on big cam/head NA setup with large gears......

but on a turbo setup where you keep your overlap and stuff down, and run smaller gears, then yes easy

and still have all the power you could handle at your disposal, and have almost OEM drivability

Heck just like gary's GN,.... that thing drove like a stock/civilized car... till you let her buck, then it was a different machine

Gary what kind of mileage did you get in the GN, being full weight and everything??

fdfreak;246536 wrote:
why didn't you? what kind of gas mileage are you getting? must not be very good if a 500hp v8 would get better.

cruising with the rotary in my car i never did better than about 20-22mpg usually about 16-18mpg..... and when you were beating on the car at all you could watch the gauge fall

with the 4.8 in my car it did a bit better than 25 on the highway..... alot of vettes with a tune do around that 30 mark......

with a little more work on the tune, i could have been at 30 too

its hard to knock on that

granted a modded 4 cylinder could pull around 40, but 30 is still nothing horrible by any means

Joel;246544 wrote:
-Domestic cars that are affordable are ugly.
Oh and a honda civic hatch is not.:icon_puke_l: This is just an opinion anyway.

Joel;246544 wrote:
-ability to double the horsepower on a motor with no internal modification and keep it reliable.
ummm I'll just use the best example I know, bone stock HO 302 150ish to the wheels. Add a $1500 blower, cheaper if you get a used one, 350ish to the wheels on a motor with 0 internal mods and over 100k ticks on the odometer. Will run reliably for another 80k before it needs any major work.

On topic - a little paint on that engine would equal hot secks

And the most important reason for staying with 4 cylinders...

-The look on a Hick/Yuppie Porsche/Mustang/Camaro/Corvette owners face when you pull away from them in a rusty Honda Civic hatchback that sounds like a sneezing chain saw.

And the most important reason:

-The look on a Yuppie Porsche/Mustang/Camaro/Corvette owners face when you pull away from them in a Rusty Honda Civic Hatchback that sounds like a Sneezing chain saw.

tjamz;246533 wrote:
You should seriously reconsider that statement.

you must have missed where I said "ok, you win" after Gary's statement. ok, I was wrong. lets get over it. should we get back to the original point of this post or does someone else want to tell me im wrong?

KA-T_240;246534 wrote:
I could put a 500hp v8 in my 240. It would be faster, more reliable, get better gasmileage, and if i would have done it from the start probably cheaper. Then my KA-T setup.

why didn't you? what kind of gas mileage are you getting? must not be very good if a 500hp v8 would get better.

fdfreak;246453 wrote:
Most of us "ricers" (I hate that freaking word) build what we can afford. and its alot cheaper to hop up a 4cyl than a V8.

You should seriously reconsider that statement.

V8 parts are cheap and readily available....now if you want to start putting 200hp/liter out, that might be a little different, however a 500 whp 350cid engine is much cheaper and more reliable than most 4 cylinders trying to achieve that same goal.

capitlj;246523 wrote:
I have yet to see an I4 that makes even close to as much torque as it does horsepower.

My Accord came stock with more tq than hp and had way more tq while spraying.

zbrown;246516 wrote:
As long as it isn't FWD..... I like it

QFT

Zach really is hitting the nail right on the head for a lot of us, I just wanted to add one thing, even though the power potential of both of mister Brown's examples are similar. The LSX is going to be a lot more fun to drive on the street as its torque is going to come on much lower and in most situations will nearly match, if not beat, the horsepower #'s. I have yet to see an I4 that makes even close to as much torque as it does horsepower.

As long as it isn't FWD..... I like it

bubba;246494 wrote:
Ur forgetting that sr20's are gay to begin with...

Sorry wes, lol...

fine substitute any honda motor you want in its place..... it is a similar situation

zbrown;246492 wrote:
shit the ls1 weighs a similar amount to most I-4's and is 200lbs lighter than a 2jz

Ya but, you cant open the hood and say......** 2JZ NO SHIT?!?!**

Sorry wes, lol...

fdfreak;246459 wrote:
ok, ask travis how much he has into his civic (its nothing extravegant, but respectable). I think he said he was putting down somewhere between 320-340 in his coupe and at the track he was running mid 12's.

I dont know very many people around here with V8's, but I am willing to bet it would cost more to build a v8 to see the same track times.

Im not saying thats the case everytime. but probably majority.

weshole;246464 wrote:
What people fail to take into consideration is the very reason I went sport compact was the ability to make reasonable power not only cheap but to keep the car economical in the process. Not that it cant be done in a V8 but its not going to be cheap to make your typical SBC economical and have reasonable power to boot. Meanwhile.... someone comes along and with as quick a car (more agile too) and having half the $$ into it.

Disregard platforms I am just asking how I-4's are cheaper to mod than V-8's...

Lets just compare one motor of each one....

the SR20.... factory boost built engine

and

the lq4/lq9..... na built 6.0l LSX truck motor

lets say both stock blocks will handle around 500whp without a problem.... K fair enough
.
.
.
.
Now lets build a forged aftermarket shortblock for each.... dollar to dollar and potential to potential of each

A set of Eagle rods for a SR is gonna be nearly the same money as for a set of Eagle rods for the LSX..... even though you are getting double the amount of rods...(kind of a rip off)

aftermarket cranks, pistons, ect are gonna be a similar situation..... so you are not going to save much money on building the I-4....

Now look at the potential of each of those forged motors..... what is the built SR gonna push reliably and what is the built LSX gonna push reliably??? not even in the same category
.
.
.
.
You are going to spend similar amounts of $$ on each for a forced induction setup, it is apples to apples for both there
.
.
.
.
Ususally the V8 is in a much heavier platform from the get go, and has overcome that,..............

but if the v8 is in a lightweight RWD platfrom like an FC or S13...... where does the potential of the car go??
.
.
.
.
Don't anyone give me the argument on the V8's weighing more or whatnot..... shit the ls1 weighs a similar amount to most I-4's and is 200lbs lighter than a 2jz