motor

mindgam3 · 08-03-2004, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by RC45

Originally Posted by mindgam3

A TVR's tuscan/350C beats the vette anyday on sound tho.... along with most other things

Thats true - including more time spent in the workshop, bad build quality and atrocious fit and finish.

Oh - and the fact that it's a Russian car now...

Fit and finish and build quality are great, but not now. Plus, they're ALOT more stylish than anything else in the price range; more stylish than most cars.

Engine reliability is the one thing that has let TVR down, but they've worked alot on this, and their newer cars (tuscan onwards) have much better reliability.

Originally Posted by "T-Bird

yeah accept handling but don't stray from the topic we aren't talking TVR here.

I'm not straying, we're talking all things C6. A fair few TVR's are rivals of the C6, probably better rivals than the 911's

DanielW · 08-03-2004, 04:48 PM

rc that vid you posted plays upside down for me

RC45 · 08-03-2004, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by DanielW

rc that vid you posted plays upside down for me

That's a new one for me... :shock:

jon_s · 08-03-2004, 06:02 PM

I got no sound..........which kind of defeated teh point of the vid lol Never fear though, I resorted to making engine noises myself

RC45 · 08-03-2004, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by jon_s

I got no sound..........which kind of defeated teh point of the vid lol Never fear though, I resorted to making engine noises myself

Well - I guess I better go re-encode it for the video and audio impaired then hey...

jon_s · 08-03-2004, 06:07 PM

hehe, well I enjoyed re-creating push rod V8 noises

RC45 · 08-03-2004, 06:14 PM

Well - a DivX 5 encoded version is busy uploading.

I hate using that DiVX crap - the files end up larger than LSX encoded stuff and the quality is lower.

graywolf624 · 08-03-2004, 06:18 PM

HP/litre is a good way of comparing engines.

hp/liter shows nothing.. it effects nothing in the real world whatsoever.. Hp/per engine point is a good place for a real world non ricer comparison.. I donno about the porsche but the vette is up at the top of that pack.

hp/liter doesnt show efficiency either.. that would be gas usage by output of hp. Not related to hp/liter.. sorry.
in reality it shows nothing.. nothing at all
it doesnt show weight of the engine, gas mileage, performance of the car, or even emissions.. Its useless. Its a claim used by cry babies with a shitty car that have to point to an imaginary number to make them feel better.

edit.. and those magazines u listed quote cross drilled rotors as a performance object.. so your barking up the wrong tree with that comparison.

RC45 · 08-03-2004, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by graywolf624

HP/litre is a good way of comparing engines.

hp/liter shows nothing.. it effects nothing in the real world whatsoever.. Hp/per engine point is a good place for a real world non ricer comparison.. I donno about the porsche but the vette is up at the top of that pack.

hp/liter doesnt show efficiency either.. that would be gas usage by output of hp. Not related to hp/liter.. sorry.
in reality it shows nothing.. nothing at all
it doesnt show weight of the engine, gas mileage, performance of the car, or even emissions.. Its useless. Its a claim used by cry babies with a shitty car that have to point to an imaginary number to make them feel better.

edit.. and those magazines u listed quote cross drilled rotors as a performance object.. so your barking up the wrong tree with that comparison.

Although you have to agree that Carrera Cabriolet we ran across in Houston sure gave us a run for our money... but then again I don;t think it was HP/l, but rather the Porsche drivers sheer willingness to be an absolute brainless reckless fuck and pull some to the stunts he did...

Did a drop-top Porsche really beat us up that on-ramp?

hehehe

mindgam3 · 08-03-2004, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by graywolf624

HP/litre is a good way of comparing engines.

hp/liter shows nothing.. it effects nothing in the real world whatsoever.. Hp/per engine point is a good place for a real world non ricer comparison.. I donno about the porsche but the vette is up at the top of that pack.

hp/liter doesnt show efficiency either.. that would be gas usage by output of hp. Not related to hp/liter.. sorry.
in reality it shows nothing.. nothing at all
it doesnt show weight of the engine, gas mileage, performance of the car, or even emissions.. Its useless. Its a claim used by cry babies with a shitty car that have to point to an imaginary number to make them feel better.

lol, read my post on the last page..... Im not talking about the efficiency of how much petrol you put in compared with the waste products you get out..... Im talking about performance efficiency. I think TT said something about a 500cc engine producing 500hp, which is unrealistic, but that would be an example of a very effcient engine.

What is it with everyone relating HP/litre with ricers??

graywolf624 · 08-03-2004, 06:28 PM

And finally.. toi revisit the people defending the nsx..

2003 nsx numbers:
Engines: Manual: 3.2 V6 290 bhp @ 7100 rpm, 224 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm. Automatic: 3.0 V6 270 bhp @ 7100 rpm, 210 lb-ft @ 5300 rpm.
Performance: 3.2/290: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.5 seconds.

2003 corvette c5 numbers:
Engine: LS1; V-8, 5.7L (350 cu)
345 hp @ 5600 rpm
350 lb-ft @ 4400rpm
0-60: 4.7 sec
1/4-mile: 13.5 sec @ 107mph
3223 lbs.

2003 corvette zo6(closer to the c6) numbers:
12.5 sec 1/4
Type
Drivetrain
Valvetrain
Cylinders
Cylinder Configuration
Displacement
Horsepower(HP)
Torque(FT-LBs.)
Redline 5.7 Liter Gas
Front Engine / RWD
16-Valve OHV
8
Vee
5,665 cc
405 @ 6000 RPM
400 @ 4800 RPM

Care to tell us how that could possibly be close?

graywolf624 · 08-03-2004, 06:29 PM

lol, read my post on the last page..... Im not talking about the efficiency of how much petrol you put in compared with the waste products you get out..... Im talking about performance efficiency. I think TT said something about a 500cc engine producing 500hp, which is unrealistic, but that would be an example of a very effcient engine.

What is it with everyone relating HP/litre with ricers??

Efficient in what.. it isnt efficient in anything.. size of the interior capacity versus hp shows nothing.
If you want to argue size of the engine.. then not only are you still off, but several smaller per liter engines are larger in stature in the engine bay.

Tell me one thing it does in the real world better.. just 1.. Sorry.. but that isn't efficiency. Its a made up number.. its like arguing i sweat 1 ounce less a mile then you do in a run.. it has no effect on anything.. not the calories I consume, not how fast we are, nothing.
Its a pointless number people use to make themselves feel better.. always has been always will be.. The magazines you listed cater to those people...

Hell next thing you know youll start argueing hp per big mac the designer ate.

mindgam3 · 08-03-2004, 06:40 PM

lol, i don't think your understanding.

I'm not saying it IS the efficiency, i'm saying its related to the efficency of the engine. The porsche engine burns less air/fuel for the same amount of power it produces, therefore is more efficient.

For example. The vettes C6 is a 6 litre, it produces 400-500 bhp

The Enzo is has the same capacity - 6 litre and produces 660bhp and is therefore a more efficient engine.

If you want to compare engines, its pretty hard to do so without leaving this figure out.

You say its a pointless "made up number". So in the same respect, power to weight ratios, you're saying they mean nothing too??

2 of the magazines i mentioned are for engineers, people who actually design and develop them, they use the hp/litre to compare engines. I'm sorry, but you're arguing against the most of the motor industry.

Please go do some physics and then come back and have this discussion

T-Bird · 08-03-2004, 07:12 PM

So if a car has a 1.8T motor and another has 2.0 that 1.8 making more power is more efficient because it makes more power with less air? although it uses more air/fuel than the 2.0 because the Turbo compresses the air meaning it uses more and more fuel is put in the mixture because of it. So if you throw a Turbo on a Vette engine it makes more power yes but why does it do that? it uses more air, doesn't mean it's more efficient than the N/A version does it? This efficiency thing doesn't work in your arguement Efficiency has nothing to do with power!
What you are saying is that an engine that brings in less air/fuel but has to have all these fancy things to make it burn better is more efficient than a bigger one that is a more basic design.

The biggest reason that Porsche and Subaru make more power out of their engines is because of the layout the Boxer design has alot less parasitic loss through the connecting rods and crankshaft because of the lesser effort needed to move the pistons outward(in this case) than an engine that has to push them upward.

graywolf624 · 08-03-2004, 07:20 PM

The porsche engine burns less air/fuel for the same amount of power it produces, therefore is more efficient.

Actually it doesnt burn less fuel. As proven by the mpg. Even with a larger engine you have to take into account the rpm. on each cycle the corvette will burn more fuel.. but how many cycles does it have in a given time period comparably.. this can be seen in rpm. In other words.. your arguement only works if were looking at an individual rotation.. not the ouput of the engine.. so its completely pointless.

So in the same respect, power to weight ratios, you're saying they mean nothing too??

Hp/liter is very poorly(if at all) correlated to power per weight.. power per weight is what gives us handling and acceleration. hp/liter effects nothing.. hp/liter doesnt even give power /engine weight.
Prime example.. the 5.0 liter in the 80s mustangs is over 100 pounds lighter then the modular 4.6 liter in the newer ones(without the turbo)

The difference between arguing about something that directly effects acceleration... f=ma thus less mass means more acceleration
versus.. something that effects nothing.