Hitech vs Lotech.. ;)

[RC45]

Just to stoke the fires of "Car Chat" - which seems to have been stuck in boring econo-box mode for a couple days... :P

Hitech vs Lotech - DOHC vs Pushrod etc etc.. (Turbo vs NA or any other situation where one can show a progression in performance while reducing complexity)

And this is more than just a simple poll - lets get all passionate and discuss stuff :)


10 Years Ago: Then Versus Nowhttp://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0211_vv_cover2_s.jpg

We've done this before; a little more than a decade ago, in fact, in our Feb. '92 issue. In the ensuing decade, the joint horsepower number for this pair has gone from 775 to 905. The Viper's 0-60-mph time has come down by seven-tenths of a second, but the amazing story is that of today's Z06 versus the $65,000-plus Corvette ZR-1 of '92. The Mercury Marine-built DOHC V-8 hauled the C4-based ZR-1 to 60 in 4.9 sec. Yet today's "less sophisticated" overhead-valve small-block LS6 gets the job done three-tenths of a second quicker--in a better-handling C5 that costs $15,000 less (in today's dollars). The '92 pair cost just over $120,000, with today's duo running about $130,000. Adjust for inflation, and America's two true sports cars have gotten both faster and cheaper. Now, that's progress.


So - in summary - if something gets quicket while going down in price and losing complexity - That my friends is the TRUE measure of progress :)

Let's warm up the flame throwers and put your best examples of why hitech is better than lotech ---- or vice versa... ;) :lol:

[mindgam3]

yeah the vette is a great way of showing how a simple car can be quick, but ultimately if you want to go faster technology has to move on

[RC45]

yeah the vette is a great way of showing how a simple car can be quick, but ultimately if you want to go faster technology has to move on

See above - I was hoping to make it a little more than just "Vette vs the rest" (which we have won resoundingly already... :P ;)) - but I am in the "new for newer sake" is not the only way to exctract the most.

Sometimes, refining is better than re-inventing.. :)

[rob_e1]

yeah the vette is a great way of showing how a simple car can be quick, but ultimately if you want to go faster technology has to move on

Yes, but hi-tech can also be simple, see lotus elise.

[mindgam3]

yeah the vette is a great way of showing how a simple car can be quick, but ultimately if you want to go faster technology has to move on

Sometimes, refining is better than re-inventing.. :)

I wouldnt say anyones reinvented the internal combustion engine :P

Wankle may have changed it slightly, but the basic otto cycle four stroke combustion engine has been around for a fair old while ;)

So I would say just about every new engine is a refinement not a re invention :P

Agreed, sometimes keeping it simple is the best way to go. But then again new technology can be more simpler. I just feel if you want better engines, you have to create new technology in the long run

[DanielW]

I'm gonna design an engine that will have 10 valves per cylinder, and a seperate cam for each cylinder. yeah. that will be very high tech. super cool. oh and it will have 300hp/l

[hemi_fan]

Im all for the lowtech! As my dad always says, "The less bells and whisles you have on your car, the less there is to go wrong."

[mindgam3]

but more simple dosen't neccesarily mean its less technologically advanced.....

[nthfinity]

ived owned, and will likely own another turbocharged 4 banger...
but not one of those turbo'd cars had the balls of a 91 L98 corvette i had once driven :)
mabey one day, i will drive a turbo 4 that will change my mind (ive passenger'd in an evo Viii... as it is very fast, i really isnt in the same league as the vette)

besides the vette, the other massive v8's ive driven seem to have one thing in common... a much longer torque curve then any variable valv turbo 4 can re-produce (sti) its a much more limited need to downshift for the quicker accelleration feel. in my old saab... sure, i could lay on the gas at 70mph, build up the boost... and gradually feel more power in 5th, or 4th for that matter... but from 50-85 was really for 3rd gear... opposed to several camaro's and mustang's ive driven that the torqe is felt as strong at lower revs, as it is at higher revs.

i love hi-tech, i love 'lo-tech'
but what i love the best the seat of my pants feeling :)

[hemi_fan]

but more simple dosen't neccesarily mean its less technologically advanced.....

Guess that sums it up for me then! I love simplicity whether its high or low tech. As long as it has the power to back itself up 8)

[graywolf624]

Hitech vs Lotech - DOHC vs Pushrod etc etc.. (Turbo vs NA or any other situation where one can show a progression in performance while reducing complexity)

Theres only one problem. Many modern day pushrods are just as hitech as their dohc competitors. Same with turbo and na.

[mindgam3]

IMO dosen't get much better than a porsche CGT V10 or ferrari V8 howling away....

[RC45]

Hitech vs Lotech - DOHC vs Pushrod etc etc.. (Turbo vs NA or any other situation where one can show a progression in performance while reducing complexity)

Theres only one problem. Many modern day pushrods are just as hitech as their dohc competitors. Same with turbo and na.

I guess were are discounting the technology of the control systems for the newer engines then.

As the newest generation of "lo-tech" engines would not be able to extract all the power they do without the complex control systems supporting them - or the advanced specification materials used.

So the hi vs lo-tech would then need to be seen in the context of the design - not the execution.

The transverse composite leaf spring on the Vette rear suspension being a good example.

The styeel eliptical leaf springs of a solid axle Morgan is old-tech lo-tech... where as the Vette would be new-tech lo-tech... as apposed to the DOHC and 4wd of a 1932 Bugatti is old-tech hi-tech vs the DOHC and 4wd execution of the EVO VIII which would be new-tech hi-tech... ;)

Does that make any sense? :lol:

[mindgam3]

lol, yeah it does, makes arguing for and against lo and hi tech kinda difficult tho ;)

My view is that if it gives the engine better overall perfromance then they're can't be much wrong with it. I know you don't agree, but high HP/litre from NA engines is equally impressive as the actual overall performance

[graywolf624]

. I know you don't agree, but high HP/litre from NA engines is equally impressive as the actual overall performance

oh good grief.. Get off it already.

[mindgam3]

. I know you don't agree, but high HP/litre from NA engines is equally impressive as the actual overall performance

oh good grief.. Get off it already.

lol, problem? :lol:

[graywolf624]

lol, problem?

The hp/liter thing is getting old. At best it is a purely accademic point. If you can look me in the eye and tell me youd take an engine with less hp, worse fuel economy, takes up larger space under the hood, and weighs more, simply because of hp/liter credit, then Id just think your a nut.

[mindgam3]

lol, problem?

The hp/liter thing is getting old. At best it is a purely accademic point. If you can look me in the eye and tell me youd take an engine with less hp, worse fuel economy, takes up larger space under the hood, and weighs more, simply because of hp/liter credit, then Id just think your a nut.

lol, i'm not gonna argue, you've got your opinion and i've got mine

[graywolf624]

lol, i'm not gonna argue, you've got your opinion and i've got mine

Still didnt answer the question:

Would you take an engine with less hp, worse fuel economy, takes up larger space under the hood, and weighs more, simply because of hp/liter.

I'll trade you your car engine for my engine with higher hp/liter.

[mindgam3]

Give me a few examples and i'll tell you. If it had a high, not just higher HP/litre then generally yes

[graywolf624]

Give me a few examples and i'll tell you. If it had a high, not just higher HP/litre then generally yes

gas powered rc car versus ls2 (corvette) engine..

Lawn mower engine versus many car engines.

early 90s motorcycle versus ferrari 360.

So you still want to trade?

Im sure Id be willing to trade you a 15 dollar gas motor for your cars engine.
It would clearly have much better hp/liter..

Hopefully this succeeded in showing you how stupid hp/liter really is. IF not..well I guess your hopeless, and Id like to sell you some prime swamp land in florida.. It has high water per acre:)

[nthfinity]

Hopefully this succeeded in showing you how stupid hp/liter really is. IF not..well I guess your hopeless, and Id like to sell you some prime swamp land in florida.. It has high water per acre:)

lmao!!!!

relating to old tech... i found this one quite amusing. im sure it would've been quite dificult to get the rear contact patches locking up :)
this is at the Gilmore car museum
http://img25.exs.cx/img25/2762/35duesenberg.jpg
http://img25.exs.cx/img25/5240/35duesenbergtxt.th.jpg (http://img25.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img25&image=35duesenbergtxt.jpg)

[mindgam3]

Give me a few examples and i'll tell you. If it had a high, not just higher HP/litre then generally yes

gas powered rc car versus ls2 (corvette) engine..

Lawn mower engine versus many car engines.

early 90s motorcycle versus ferrari 360.

So you still want to trade?

Im sure Id be willing to trade you a 15 dollar gas motor for your cars engine.
It would clearly have much better hp/liter..

Hopefully this succeeded in showing you how stupid hp/liter really is. IF not..well I guess your hopeless, and Id like to sell you some prime swamp land in florida.. It has high water per acre:)

lol, now your just being rediculous, i never said HP/litre was the one and only thing that you should use to compare engines, but it gives you and idea of how efficient they are....

I'm not gonna argue with you on this subject anymore, we obviously have completely different views on the matter and will never agree

[DjPtsatsot]

I voted befoer i read the excerpt. I think what you need for "progress" is the route to take (taht was my approach to answering w/ more complexity... as in whatever you need to get there) but after reading that it seems that isnt always true.

[Regie]

When it comes to engines, I'm a big fan of hi-tech, and am more fond of a NA engine than a turbo/super-charged engine.

However with things like suspension, brakes and steering I'm a low-tech kinda guy (on a track of course, on public roads ABS and power steering to name a couple are a boon).

Todays cars seem to flatter a driver's ability what with all the electronic gadgetry and wizardry employed. Sure adaptive air dampers will make a car corner flatter than springs and oil filled shocks, but the fun of driving is gone. The same can be said of traction control - foot to the floor and that is all, no modulation or feathering just let the electronics sort themselves out. Quite mundane IMHO. I would like to see cars with fully switchable traction control, EBD and other electronics. Then one can have their fun on a track and then drive home safely without having to worry about locking up the brakes or spinning the wheels on tram tracks or patches of oil.

There was an interesting article in the September issue of Car (UK), where two staffers have a drag between an Ariel Atom and a Merc CL65. Sure the Atom is an engine + some scaffolding , but I'd rather that for track work than a CL65 or any other automatic barge, sorry car. ;)
To those that will say that the CL65 is a car built for the roads, ok I agree. BUT how much power does one need on highways around the world? Unless losing a license isn't a big deal (i.e. one has their own chauffeur)
Or if you are one of the lucky sods living in derestricted areas such as the Isle of Mann or the Northern Territory (Aus). If you do live there then I doubt one would have the finances to afford such a car (CL65).


The hp/liter thing is getting old. At best it is a purely accademic point. If you can look me in the eye and tell me youd take an engine with less hp, worse fuel economy, takes up larger space under the hood, and weighs more, simply because of hp/liter credit, then Id just think your a nut.
How can an engine have less hp, but take up more volume and have a greater hp/litre? I think you didn't mean to include the takes up larger space under the hood.
graywolf624, I'd say your being a bit pedantic, comparing apples with oranges so to speak. I'm sure this discussion never intended to take into account RC car engines, bike engines or even lawn mower engines (though I'd love a Honda mower to cut my grass ;))

edit:- Speaking of HP/litre,

I place more importance in Torque produced per litre.

[graywolf624]

How can an engine have less hp, but take up more volume and have a greater hp/litre? I think you didn't mean to include the takes up larger space under the hood.

A cars hp/liter has no direct correlation with the external volume of the engine (very lightly correlated). Take the ford mustang 4.6 Liter and put it next to its previous 5.0 engine. It is clearly much larger. Take the 5.7 liter dohc engine out of the older corvette zr-1.. Youll find it larger then the 6.0 ls2 just developed.

It also has no correlation with the engine weight. I can show you numerous examples of both these situations. I just figured Ill use examples of ones Ive worked on specifically. Go to the other thread on hp/liter and youll see pictures and specs of these engines side by side.

Another one.. the ford gt engine versus the ls2. the ls2.. while larger in capacity, and less hp/liter.. is far smaller. and.. there will be a version of it pushing more hp then the gt.


lol, now your just being rediculous, i never said HP/litre was the one and only thing that you should use to compare engines, but it gives you and idea of how efficient they are....

Its useless. IF it isnt a consistant measure its pointless.
Compare an engines power output, gas usage, physical external size and weight. Just like cars thats what effects the real world.

[ae86_16v]

Hmm, I do not mind hi tech at all. But once it starts taking away from the driving experience that is where I start to think it is a bit too much.

For example, I have no problem with DOHC and variable cam timing and such. But I do have a problem with electronic suspensions. I have no problems with newer tire technology. But not at the cost of performance.

[Paco]

I thought it was about this :P

http://www.autogazeta.com/c/7/b/2001_lotec_sirius-1.jpg
http://www.autogazeta.com/c/7/b/2001_lotec_sirius-2.jpg


More of this monster http://www.lotec-gmbh.de/ for those who don't know it.


Oh, and I would go for the best of both worlds. We don't want to go back to drum-brakes and low-yielding engines, but at the same time we can do without electronics that can cripple a whole car if you turn on the windshield wipers.

[nthfinity]

that looks familiar... but i dont remember what from...

and by the way, i love your avitar/sig ! the three amigos is one of my favorite all time films!

[tigerx]

well lotech only get you so far ahead, but once you pass that point, hitech will kick in, kinda like NA vs. Turbo, once at a certain rpm, the turbo start going crazy.

[SFDMALEX]

If it wasnt for high technology we'd be all driving pre war caddies or some shit like that.

It depends what you mean specificaly by high technology. I for example would not mind a car packed with every electronic aid known the the human race as long as there is a BIG OFF BUTTON.

[tigerx]

^^^ three thumbs up to that ^^^

it's good to have the options as long as i can turn it off ;)

[nthfinity]

it's good to have the options as long as i can turn it off

a reason why i will never buy a mercedes-benz (vipers dont have esp, so doesnt count yet)

[RC45]

I for example would not mind a car packed with every electronic aid known the the human race as long as there is a BIG OFF BUTTON.

Sometimes just having an off switch is not enough.

Having to be constantly on the look out for "updates" will become more and more of a problem.

As it is, there are a bunch of recall patches from manufacturers that involve ECU reflashes that blow away custom tuning and lock down previously exposed tuning points and areas.

An ABS system or Launch Control System or Stability Control System or Active Handling - or even a Fuel Management System on their won are not a hassle or problem - and if they are selectable and well programmed can be great driver aids.

However, with the way auto manufacturers have the various Body Control Modules tapped into each other and depending on each other - and as they build in more and more tamper resistant guards - they will be come more difficult to tune - and more difficult to maintain - and more error and failure prone.

I seriously think I am at the point where I will not buy any future automobile model. The potential for data logging and having incriminating evidence gathered from the car, real time plotting of the cars movements and positions (all big brother stuff that law enforcement and the insurance industry is fighting so hard to get their hands on) and the frequency of even current automobiles needing "reflashed ECM's" when ever you end up at the dealer are the main concerns.

:)

Let's take OnStar - that little "helping aid" is going to be the biggest shock once the Pandora's box of data gathered begins to be opened and used against people for increasing insurance costs etc.. :)

SO apart from engine technology - and a few electronic aids - my opinion is that much like any open class superbike of the last 5 years is already faster than most peoples abilities and will remain just as fast 10 years from now - the current crop of sports cars are fast enough - and with cheap mods can be made faster and actually offer more performance than most people can use anyway.

I am satisfied to remain with this - the last generation of cars before full reliance of all-software driven systems and direct-link to big brother become the norm.

:D

[nthfinity]

I am satisfied to remain with this - the last generation of cars before full reliance of all-software driven systems and direct-link to big brother become the norm.

this is something that a large amount of engineers ive spoken to dislike. for the time being, we are lucky enough that most manufacturers are not willing to fully integrate every driver aid, as the potential of unrecoverable failure increases dramatically.

a few cars are known for thier data collection, and analysis... such as some ferrari's.

i am unsure of most of the large automakers, but from the looks of things at Ford, i dont think this will be the case. there are plans to have available, essentially out of the factory, cars set up with options from the Ford Racing parts catalouge. its important to realize the significance this has on tuning one's car as a knowlege base, rather then freebase so to speak.

its not so dissimilar to Subaru's deal of getting a 1 year membership in the SCCA for buying an STi... or the video that comes with the corvette.

another question relating to auto data collection would be the invasion of privacy aspect. not that secret deals have been conducted in the past... i feel we are still safe for some time to come. time will tell