The advance of engine technology
#21
☠☣☢ Semper Ebrius ☢☣☠
Re: The advance of engine technology (Jimwood)
The Corvette Engine is obsolete in light of Fords supercharged 4.6 and 5.4.
Ironic...
Ironic...
That's the thing. If you throw either of the Ford engines in the Corvette you'll get better 1/4 times and worse track times. The engines are heavy and large, putting the Corvettes center of gravity further forward and higher. Meanwhile the Chevy LSx engines are about the same weight as a Mazda rotary engine.
[Modified by Scissors, 9:25 PM 1/18/2004]
#22
Race Director
Thread Starter
Member Since: May 2000
Location: Redondo Beach USA
Posts: 12,487
Received 1,974 Likes
on
1,188 Posts
Re: The advance of engine technology (Scissors)
Meanwhile the Chevy LSx engines are about the same weight as a Mazda rotary engine.
I recall seeing a "dressed weight" spec for the LS1 (inlet and exhaust manifolds, all accessories - alternator, a/c compressor, p/s pump and drive belt) with an auto trans flex plate and it was about 500 pounds.
I can't imagine that a rotary is much more than my Cosworth Vega engine, which is a little over 300 pounds, with only an alternator and 18 lb. flywheel.
Duke
#23
Drifting
Member Since: Feb 2002
Location: Chapel Hill NC
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The advance of engine technology (SWCDuke)
I believe if you take the complete weight of a RX-7 twin turbo with all the intercooling stuff, you get very close to the weight of a Gen III. :cool:
#24
Race Director
Thread Starter
Member Since: May 2000
Location: Redondo Beach USA
Posts: 12,487
Received 1,974 Likes
on
1,188 Posts
Re: The advance of engine technology (I Bin Therbefor)
Yeah if you include all the turbo hardware from the TT it would add up, and that's probably fair because the naturally aspirated rotarys don't have anywhere Corvette type power, but the 12B and 13B engines in the first generation RX7 looked like you could just reach into the engine compartment and lift them out with your hands.
Duke
Duke
#25
☠☣☢ Semper Ebrius ☢☣☠
Re: The advance of engine technology (SWCDuke)
Isn't that stretching it a bit? I've not seen a weight spec for a Mazda rotary, but they are light and tiny
Edit: And, yes, I believe it was the turbo engine. After all, if you're comparing weight and power, it's best to get one of them to be close to the other. ;)
[Modified by Scissors, 9:52 AM 1/19/2004]
#26
Get Some!
Re: The advance of engine technology (Jimwood)
.
400HP and 6L is great, but its relative. Just like the 5.0
400HP and 6L is great, but its relative. Just like the 5.0
Duke I've been arguing on this forum from the git go that pushrods do not mean old tech, nor to double overhead cam etc. equal high tech, but I think the ***/German advertising has taken it's toll and it seems a lost cause.
#27
Racer
Member Since: May 2002
Location: Sacramento Ca
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The advance of engine technology (CPT Z06)
.
400HP and 6L is great, but its relative. Just like the 5.0
If all you care about is cheap RWHP and drag racing then a mustang is the way to go.
400HP and 6L is great, but its relative. Just like the 5.0
If all you care about is cheap RWHP and drag racing then a mustang is the way to go.
Does less HP=More advancement?
The rustang engine is probably poorly constructed but, this discussion is not about engine quality its about engine technology. If the rustang engine was made out of the same materials it would be better, Im sure.
[Modified by Jimwood, 12:41 AM 1/20/2004]
#28
Race Director
Thread Starter
Member Since: May 2000
Location: Redondo Beach USA
Posts: 12,487
Received 1,974 Likes
on
1,188 Posts
Re: The advance of engine technology (CPT Z06)
Duke I've been arguing on this forum from the git go that pushrods do not mean old tech, nor to double overhead cam etc. equal high tech, but I think the ***/German advertising has taken it's toll and it seems a lost cause.
It ain't a lost cause until the enemy kills you. ;)
Duke
#29
Race Director
Re: The advance of engine technology (SWCDuke)
It ain't a lost cause until the enemy kills you. ;)
Duke
Todd
#31
Team Owner
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Conroe Texas
Posts: 35,361
Received 865 Likes
on
608 Posts
CI 1-4-5-8-9-10 Vet
St. Jude Donor '03,'04,'05,'07,08,'09,'10,’17
Re: The advance of engine technology (SWCDuke)
Duke I've been arguing on this forum from the git go that pushrods do not mean old tech, nor to double overhead cam etc. equal high tech, but I think the ***/German advertising has taken it's toll and it seems a lost cause.
Yeah, there are a few guys who understand, but most don't get it. That's why I started the thread.
It ain't a lost cause until the enemy kills you. ;)
Duke
Yeah, there are a few guys who understand, but most don't get it. That's why I started the thread.
It ain't a lost cause until the enemy kills you. ;)
Duke
#32
☠☣☢ Semper Ebrius ☢☣☠
Re: The advance of engine technology (need-for-speed)
F&F taught me that having your floor pan fall off is a very serious and common problem for those who use nitrous.
#33
Get Some!
Re: The advance of engine technology (Jimwood)
.
400HP and 6L is great, but its relative. Just like the 5.0
If all you care about is cheap RWHP and drag racing then a mustang is the way to go.
What does cheap RWHP have to do with the advancement of engine technology. Seems to me the more hp you can get with less cost shows advancement, as significant modifications do not need to be made.
Does less HP=More advancement?
The rustang engine is probably poorly constructed but, this discussion is not about engine quality its about engine technology. If the rustang engine was made out of the same materials it would be better, Im sure.
[Modified by Jimwood, 12:41 AM 1/20/2004]
400HP and 6L is great, but its relative. Just like the 5.0
If all you care about is cheap RWHP and drag racing then a mustang is the way to go.
What does cheap RWHP have to do with the advancement of engine technology. Seems to me the more hp you can get with less cost shows advancement, as significant modifications do not need to be made.
Does less HP=More advancement?
The rustang engine is probably poorly constructed but, this discussion is not about engine quality its about engine technology. If the rustang engine was made out of the same materials it would be better, Im sure.
[Modified by Jimwood, 12:41 AM 1/20/2004]
First go read some engineering history, the double overhead cam, 4 valves and a supercharger were on the 1930s Dusenburgs, and the push rod V-8 was the holy grail of engineering because it would be more compact and less complicated. Other than computer control, the only real new advancements out there are the various variables, like variable camshafts, intakes, exhausts, and now from Saab displacement! And the only reason those German and *** engineers are forced to come up with these advances is because their engine displacements are taxed so heavily, if they had cheap gas and low taxes they would have the same engines that we do :yesnod:
[Modified by CPT Z06, 10:47 PM 1/20/2004]
[Modified by CPT Z06, 10:51 PM 1/20/2004]
#34
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 24,333
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
St. Jude Donor '03-'11
Re: The advance of engine technology (SWCDuke)
I don't know why this turned into a Ford / GM thing, but in terms of h/liter, the LSx engines are not what I call state of the art. Take a look at M3 engines, any of the high performance Honda engines, and a whole bunch of others who are squeezing out 100 hp/liter... by that standard, LS2 would have to produce 600 hp, normally aspirated.
Before the flames start, I know those other engines rev higher, but the difference is too great to ignore.
Having said that, there is alot more to an engine that hp/l. driveability, area under the curve, NVH, fuel efficiency, emissions and weight all factor into it. I'm happy with the compromises GM has made to make these engines a complete package.
Before the flames start, I know those other engines rev higher, but the difference is too great to ignore.
Having said that, there is alot more to an engine that hp/l. driveability, area under the curve, NVH, fuel efficiency, emissions and weight all factor into it. I'm happy with the compromises GM has made to make these engines a complete package.
#35
Racer
Member Since: May 2002
Location: Sacramento Ca
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The advance of engine technology (CPT Z06)
Same materials? Is GM's steel and aluminum better than Ford's I don't think so, the engine is fine, nothing wrong with it really. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make :confused:
Also, I supposed I hijacked this thread a little bit. Sure GM has made excellent advances on old technology. To that extend you are correct. To the extent GM is advanced technology, I would have to disagree. Its just like improving the steam engine, its still a steam engine at the end of the day.
Just a comparison of HP output per Lt.
400HP out of 6L V8 (66.6 Hp per Lt.), is just not terribly impressive in 2005.
330hp out of 7.4(44.6 HP per Lt.) stock carb V8, Mercruiser in 1980.
410hp out of 4.6 (89.1 HP per Lt.) (Im not using Fords underated estimate)
By the way the reason I use HP is because that was your rationale for demonstrating the advancement.
And CPT :flag
Dont you think that advances with DOHC show better advances then with the pushrod. Hell even GM thought that was the best and made the LT5 :eek:
I havent seen your advanced pushrod technology beat any of the LT5 endurance records yet. :eek:
Whats your point again? SOHC, DOHC has made more advances then pushrod.
The argument that DOHC, SOHC came out before the pushrod doesnt mean anything when you are talking about engine advancement. As the pushrod is such recent new and god sent technology, then according to your reasoning it should be leaps and bounds farther then SOHC, DOHC, but its not.
Trust me I have looked at this throughly. Oh I forgot the 4.6 S/C has much more torque also all the way across the powerband.
The only legitimate argument I have read yet, is that technically a S/C is considered more displacement, at sanctioned racing.
The reason the C6 still uses pushrod is because old tech is cheaper to improve then replace outright. Improvement only means advancement in a vacuum. If you look at other engine designs currently out there the pushrod is outdated based on its HP and TQ numbers per litter.
:cheers:
[Modified by Jimwood, 6:40 AM 1/21/2004]
#36
Get Some!
Re: The advance of engine technology (CPT Z06)
Jim I'll just say this, you need to read "Corvette From The Inside" by Dave McLellan to understand WHY they made the LT-5 and that will help explain this last line of my last post:And the only reason those German and *** engineers are forced to come up with these advances is because their engine displacements are taxed so heavily, if they had cheap gas and low taxes they would have the same engines that we do.
Also, you should count your SC displacement in a HP/Liter ratio. After I would pass a Porsche at a track I never had one of them walk up to me and say "Well at least I have variable valve timing" :lolg:
Also, you should count your SC displacement in a HP/Liter ratio. After I would pass a Porsche at a track I never had one of them walk up to me and say "Well at least I have variable valve timing" :lolg:
#37
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Jun 1999
Location: Minneapolis Minnesota
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Re: The advance of engine technology (CPT Z06)
A lot of this discussion is based on reality, which is not what appeals to the people who buy Porsches or Ferraris. It's kind of like telling a Rolex owner that your Timex keeps better time and is 1/100 the cost. When you get to the point in life where you stop trying to impress people and can base a purchase decision on true value, it's amazing how much money and inconvenience you save. Take a look at some of the Porsche boards and do a search on RMS (rear main seal) and see what you come up with. :lol:
#38
Race Director
Re: The advance of engine technology
:jester
a man only 3 feet tall can build a house with 4' ceilings and get twice as many rooms :jester
(hp/liter argument) :rofl:
a man only 3 feet tall can build a house with 4' ceilings and get twice as many rooms :jester
(hp/liter argument) :rofl:
#40
Drifting
Member Since: May 2001
Location: Palos Park IL
Posts: 1,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cruise-In III Veteran
St. Jude Donor '06-'07-'08
Re: The advance of engine technology (Jimwood)
...
Just a comparison of HP output per Lt.
400HP out of 6L V8 (66.6 Hp per Lt.), is just not terribly impressive in 2005.
330hp out of 7.4(44.6 HP per Lt.) stock carb V8, Mercruiser in 1980.
410hp out of 4.6 (89.1 HP per Lt.) (Im not using Fords underated estimate)
By the way the reason I use HP is because that was your rationale for demonstrating the advancement.
...
Trust me I have looked at this throughly. Oh I forgot the 4.6 S/C has much more torque also all the way across the powerband.
[Modified by Jimwood, 6:40 AM 1/21/2004]
Just a comparison of HP output per Lt.
400HP out of 6L V8 (66.6 Hp per Lt.), is just not terribly impressive in 2005.
330hp out of 7.4(44.6 HP per Lt.) stock carb V8, Mercruiser in 1980.
410hp out of 4.6 (89.1 HP per Lt.) (Im not using Fords underated estimate)
By the way the reason I use HP is because that was your rationale for demonstrating the advancement.
...
Trust me I have looked at this throughly. Oh I forgot the 4.6 S/C has much more torque also all the way across the powerband.
[Modified by Jimwood, 6:40 AM 1/21/2004]
No doubt the SC 4.6 is a great motor, but its hp/liter output is due far more to the SC than to OHC technology.
There are drawbacks and benefits to both OHV and OHC, but to compare the two you need to talk about them in the same context - two engines with the same displacement, both either with FI or not, etc. Only then can you really compare the TECHNOLOGY of OHV vs. OHC.
On the other hand, if you just want to compare the 4.6 SC engine to LS1, etc., then obviously that's a different matter. But that argument does nothing to prove the advantage of OHC vs. OHV. It's simply a comparison of two different motors.
[Modified by COBrien, 9:24 AM 1/21/2004]