You're the one trying to say things like:
"But if a 4cyl had 306ci..."
and
"If V8 torque curves are so great, what about F1 cars?"
Anyways, time for work...can't wait to see the stupid crap that ensues here over the next 7 hours.
You're the one trying to say things like:
"But if a 4cyl had 306ci..."
and
"If V8 torque curves are so great, what about F1 cars?"
Anyways, time for work...can't wait to see the stupid crap that ensues here over the next 7 hours.
Then don't subjectively say "AWD is the easy way out", since it's obviously not!
I did? I simply said exactly the same you did, just with my chosen car type.
Far from it, actually.. Wankel engines are perfectly reliable, considering most of them are Naturally aspirated putting out 125bhp per litre, which, if I may, when compared to what an American car may be producing, some 58bhp per litre.
So straight away I've put forward that in actual fact your car is not special. Infact if we scale it up to be a 5.4l ...
5.4/1.6 = 3.375
For ease of comparison we'll say it has 100bhp (more like it had 109 or something, but anyway).
100x3.375 = 337.5bhp.
Now I know you cannot directly scale up like that, but it works in getting the point across.
Now isn't that strange, all the figures I can find for a 2.0 Saab 93 show 37mpg combined. Unless of course you're talking about the Aero which is the performance model..which is obviously going to use more fuel, being turbocharged with 230bhp or so..common please.
Your "premium" fuel is our lowest grade, pahhaa
Was I saying about fuel economy? I simply said why buy a 250bhp V8 when you can get a much more fuel efficient 6cyl that does the same power/torque and gives more MPG, the 330 will happily give 32mpg combined..
Unless you like not having air condition, and power steering, and central locking, and CD players, and fuel injection, and electric starting, and electic sunshine roof, etc, ssh. Because things don't tend to break in cars, things are GENERALLY built to last, especially mechanical things.
As you say, it's a two way street. I also doubt you'd like to be hit by an all steel body. Nor does it do anything for weight, handling, ride, braking or acceleration, let along fuel economy.
And here you are talking about the real world. :rolleyes:
And I know, but all I was basing it off was the engine power and torque outputs, which don't magically change from publication to publication, or from one report to another.
Approx 160 without checking. Equally so there are NA 2L's kicking out 190
You mean American V8's*
European V8's rev to 8300rpm and produce over 400, the closest match to an American V8 would be the 4.3L in the AMV8 which produces something like 365bhp, which even I think is quite a poor effort. But the car has such a sense of class, theatre and occasion that I can over look that. What's more it doesn't just happen to go in 3479393 other models of car. It's (pretty much) unique to one car.
GM was just Americas version of British Leyland, and they f#cked up and all..
But it's always excuse with you. "My car WOULD go faster but the carbs weren't opening properly"
"My car WOULD go faster but it has shot bearings and this and that"
The fact is, it DIDN'T go faster.
And it's a well known fact, 90% of engines, that if they say rev to 6500rpm, will be out of breath by 6200.
It would.
I've done both.......0-60 in 3.8 seconds, 0-100 in 8 seconds. (Oh and 60mpg)
And I like going round round corners. Plus my bike is a V-twin, which is basically a V8. Just with 2 cylinders. And I prefer the screaming sound of an inline 4. Having had both. In fact most cars get right up my rear end because I don't go flying down the straights, and come the next set of twisties I end up about 400yards ahead because they don't know how to take corners.
Wow, you totally missed the point. I said F1 cars USE V8 engines but because they are overstroke engines, they have a very linear ascending torque band thus proving my point that a wide torque band isn't something specific to V8s but to understroke engines.
And I'm the stupid one?
And wouldn't my statement be correct?
I don't recall saying that. But oh well, you made a fool out of yourself when you replied earlier.
Trust me on this one, mate, you won't see more "stupid crap" then yours.
Ahh yes, one of those threads where the people arguing kill eachother at the end.
Gonna stick around :munching_
Gonna stick around :munching_
4cly and rotarys built to be really light and small, mount the engine as far back and as low as you can to give better wieght balance = a better handling car
V8, good for making power but almost allways weighing more then most 4 and 6's, more wieght in the engine = worse waight balance (well at least when its a FR setup)
your big heavy car with its big V8 takes more power to go as fast as a small car with a 4cly + the small car will allways out handle the big car
to bad that was prob the biggest budget car that drifted that year but did heaps bad lol, V8's are good for easy power but would have been better with a SR20 imo, you never see the Japanese putting V8's in there drift cars, you almost never see them even putting 6's in it unless it was the stock engine
edit: also its from Australia not Austria
V8, good for making power but almost allways weighing more then most 4 and 6's, more wieght in the engine = worse waight balance (well at least when its a FR setup)
your big heavy car with its big V8 takes more power to go as fast as a small car with a 4cly + the small car will allways out handle the big car
to bad that was prob the biggest budget car that drifted that year but did heaps bad lol, V8's are good for easy power but would have been better with a SR20 imo, you never see the Japanese putting V8's in there drift cars, you almost never see them even putting 6's in it unless it was the stock engine
edit: also its from Australia not Austria
I'm sorry, but Your lack of knowledge has failed here. Americans use different type of measurment, if i'm correct You should add octanes to that.
"The octane rating shown in the United States is 4 to 5 points lower than the rating shown elsewhere in the world for the same fuel. For example, 87 AKI octane fuel, the "regular" gasoline in the US and Canada, is 91–92 RON in Europe. 93 AKI octane fuel, the "premium" gasoline, is 97-98 RON in Europe."
V8, I4... FFS...they both are great and have different character. The sound is personal taste(I LOVE OLD AMERICAN V8), and i have to say that kingcars is more convicting than S14 Drift. Kingcars You should add a poll to that thread!
Like "who wins? S14 or kingcars" . War is war 
.I know American fuel grades are different. Cmon, I'm not that stupid.
I also know that an American gallon is different to a British Gallon.
I also know that an American gallon is different to a British Gallon.
in case anyone was wondering why the americans need lorry levels of low end torque
http://www.allipills.com/alli- ... e-worldwide-epidemic.html
http://www.allipills.com/alli- ... e-worldwide-epidemic.html
Well if you think about it, that might be the only logical explanation since having low end torque just basically means the car will tend to brake traction more
if you ignore the important bitsCan we at least try to maintain a certain level of this thread? Jokes aside.
You start a new thread just to be able to continue arguements?
Wow, how 1337 you are. :rolleyes:
6/10/12 Ftw.
Tanner Foust's 2009 Scion TC drift car with a NASCAR CWTS V8 under the hood...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... jwebM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... jwebM&feature=related
You were just saying how it's easier for regular "enthusiasts" to drive AWD cars...
Then that's fine.
I've heard from many people that wankels (mostly the older ones) suck oil like nobodys business. Theyre fine if you keep up with them, but if you miss a step, you can kiss it goodbye.
Where did I say my car was special? All I was saying is that it has been greatly reliable for me and everyone that has used it, which you seem to think that every American car is gonna break down after 3000 miles.
Oh wow, I totally didnt see the hp/liter argument coming :rolleyes: . Once again, talking peak power instead of full power curves. Also, the price argument equals this out, so stop before you get to far into it.
Oh, so what youre saying is...when 4cyls get up to comparable power numbers, the fuel mileage starts to equal out!?!?! NO WAY DUDE!! Thank you for proving my point.
Sweet, I need to go there someday then
.Here we go again with peak power and saying 250Bhp instead of Whp. Oh, and I didn't buy it...I built it with my own hands. With my dad.
You're right. My car has all those except for the sunroof, and it's all fine so far. Has nothing to do with my argument.
Actually, my car only weighs ~3300lbs; no weight reduction. Comparable to a new Civic. New cars are way too loaded with crap, imo.
Yes, but that book doesnt tell you the WHOLE story. It's not always about peak power. You need to realize this.
Hahahah 160ftlbs...and you say my stuff is nothing special.
There are quite a few awesome European V8s...all of which have nothing to do with our argument. And yes, the whole GM ordeal was retarded. They couldn't have handled it worse.
Hahahahaha seriously? Really? I'm making excuses? It's not excuses...just explaining the situation around things. For a fraction of the price and non-optimal scenarios, my car and my dad's car lay waste to price comparable imports. That's not making excuses, just showing how stupid your argument really is. Just wait, it wont be long (maybe a month or 2) before my car is back together and I'll be posting dyno sheets of 255-260ish whp (which is very close to 300BHP).
Hence why my dad's engine was BUILT for 7k, and we run it to the low 6k.
Bikes are totally different from cars...dont even try to compare.
Get your stererotypes out of here. I'm a tiny guy; 5' 4" and 110lbs. No obesity here, nor anywhere in my family kthxbye. I'm ashamed of all the lazy obese people in this country.
If you dont like the thread, dont click on it. It's better than cluttering current threads.
I agree. It's the generalized statements about "archaic" and "unreliable" American cars (specifically V8s in most cases) that really irk me.
As an enthusiast driving an enthusiasts car you should check your oil weekly anyway.
[quote]Where did I say my car was special? All I was saying is that it has been greatly reliable for me and everyone that has used it, which you seem to think that every American car is gonna break down after 3000 miles.[/quote]
I said nothing of the sort.
[quote]Oh wow, I totally didnt see the hp/liter argument coming :rolleyes: . Once again, talking peak power instead of full power curves. Also, the price argument equals this out, so stop before you get to far into it.[/quote]
You keep bleating on about power, so I thought I'd show you some!
[quote]Oh, so what youre saying is...when 4cyls get up to comparable power numbers, the fuel mileage starts to equal out!?!?! NO WAY DUDE!! Thank you for proving my point.
[/quote]No I didn't? That's because it's turbocharged. S2k's lump will do 30mpg if you're pretty gentle which is pretty comparable in power to your V8.
[quote]Here we go again with peak power and saying 250Bhp instead of Whp. Oh, and I didn't buy it...I built it with my own hands. With my dad.[/quote]
And I'm pretty sure Daddy did all the work.
[quote]You're right. My car has all those except for the sunroof, and it's all fine so far. Has nothing to do with my argument.[/quote]
AYO TECHNOLOGYYYYY
[quote]Actually, my car only weighs ~3300lbs; no weight reduction. Comparable to a new Civic. New cars are way too loaded with crap, imo.[/quote]
Cept a new Civic actually can go round corners.
[quote]Yes, but that book doesnt tell you the WHOLE story. It's not always about peak power. You need to realize this.[/quote]
Neither is it about biig V8 Ci's and huuuuge torques. I know about power curves, just don't think they're the be all and end all.
[quote]Hahahah 160ftlbs...and you say my stuff is nothing special.[/quote]
"It's not always about" torque
[quote]There are quite a few awesome European V8s...all of which have nothing to do with our argument. And yes, the whole GM ordeal was retarded. They couldn't have handled it worse.[/quote]
Simply saying that American V8's are lacking behind!
And well at least we agree on something!
Hahahahaha seriously? Really? I'm making excuses? It's not excuses...just explaining the situation around things. For a fraction of the price and non-optimal scenarios, my car and my dad's car lay waste to price comparable imports. That's not making excuses, just showing how stupid your argument really is. Just wait, it wont be long (maybe a month or 2) before my car is back together and I'll be posting dyno sheets of 255-260ish whp (which is very close to 300BHP).
Hmm, no.. 255-260bhp is what's getting down. Anyone who has to refer to crank BHP to make their car sound more powerful needs a better engine/drivertrain!
[quote]Hence why my dad's engine was BUILT for 7k, and we run it to the low 6k.[/quote]
So why not build it for low 6, makes sense no?
[quote]Bikes are totally different from cars...dont even try to compare.[/quote]
Simply said I have experienced brutal straight line performance.
omfg please mod's, lock this thread. It pointless and all your doing is flaming eachother...
:moped:
You don't have to be to get good performance out of a RWD car...
And you shouldnt have to be constantly dumping more in...
You have repeatedly referred to the "better" reliability of 4cyls, which is a load of bull.
And failed at it.
Not very comparable, especially in torque, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it's very peaky...hey look what I found! A stock S2000 dyno graph:
http://hondaswap.com/~mike/s2k ... /s2k_dyno_graph_stock.jpg
Look at that! Even at 8500rpm it's only putting 193hp to the rear wheels. It's only putting 125hp or less to the rear wheels up until 6000rpm. I'd be freakin GONE by the time the car got there, and still be pulling away. And hows that torque lookin? Hmmm, 147rwtq max? Not even CLOSE to what my engine put out, my friend; that car is down 47rwhp and a whopping 153rwtq. And unlike the S2000, my engine is making that power throughout its powerband. Like I said, REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER AND BRAKE HORSEPOWER ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Stop trying to compare a car whose bhp is close to my rwhp and torque that isnt even in the same galaxy.
To further the argument, keep in mind that in order to keep that S2000 in its power band, you're going to need a close ratio gearbox and a short rear end gear, which is highly unpractical for the street. My car uses a 3.27 rear end gear with a stock tremec 5 speed transmission, which has a .067 overdrive; she cruises down the highway at 2000rpm and still climbs hills with ease. And I don't have to rev the snot out of it just to get to my power band.
Here you prove how pathetic and sleazy you really are. I put more hours into that build than you could imagine. Even though it's a somewhat heated debate, I've found it to be a rather solid debate, but come on dude...that's just a low blow and totally unnecessary. I thought you'd at least be better than that.
Actually, with the 245/45/ZR17 tires I put on the Tbird, she corners much better than you think. Another ignorant assumption.
Power curves are approximately 5,489,548,954 times more important than the peak power you blab on about all the time.
No, but it sure does help a whole lot!
It's not to make my car sound more powerful, it's to try to ensure that we make fair comparisons. I have to do this because the people here, like you, have no idea what 240rwhp actually means. See the S2000 comparison above, which you tried to make because its Bhp is close to my rwhp, when in reality, its power is nowhere NEAR where mine is.
No, it doesnt. That would mean that the engine has no room to grow...so when we go to do more to it, we'd have to tear the whole bottom end back apart. You've obviously never done an engine build, which you, funny enough, accuse me of not doing.
Yes, but it's done in a completely different fashion. Even you must recognize this.
EDIT: Oh, and referring back to my "wiped out bearings" excuse...here's how the bearings looked after driving the car home from the dyno:
http://img.photobucket.com/alb ... ct/wipedbearingssmall.jpg
Hint: they're supposed to be a flat grey/silver color.
I'm a forum whore so I had to click on it.
I just think that a thread only for the purpose of having an arguement is ridiculous. If I were a mod I would have closed it instantly.
The actual purpose is to allow for any type of car debate; guess I should clarify more in the OP (EDIT: I have clarified in the OP now). For example, there was one on another forum about automatics vs manuals.
We already had that and I don't think there's any need to do that again.
Nothing new is being said in those stupid arguements after the first 10 or 20 posts anyway. People are just going in circles and resorting to personal insults when they don't have any arguements left.
if you raced someone that couldnt drive yea maybe, dont forget a S2000 is alot lighter then your car so off the line it would kill your car, hp and torque arent the only things that make a car fast
my AE86 making like 70kw would beat alot of cars with more power off the line then get destroyed because it has no power lol but it turns corners good and thats all i care about for now, later when i have more money i'll put a turbo motor in it then it wont be so crap in a staight line
Doubt it would kill me off the line. While I'm putting over 250ftlbs of torque to the ground at 1650rpm he's...wait......his dyno graph doesnt even start until 3000rpm.
Even then, he doesnt get to 100ftlbs until 5000rpm. Yes, they are light cars, but even that can only do so much.a light car does alot more then you seem to think (not only for 1/4 mile but handling to)
Of course not, so why say AWD are they easy way out in the first place?!
Sorry is that something of a problem? Engines burn oil, even if it's a small amount. Just a fact.
I did? I think I said HONDA make very reliable engines.
Not as badly as you do!
Not very comparable, especially in torque, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it's very peaky...hey look what I found! A stock S2000 dyno graph:
http://hondaswap.com/~mike/s2k ... /s2k_dyno_graph_stock.jpg
Shame it'd almost undoubtably slower round any track (your one that is)
Brake horse power is a unit of power. RWHP is the power that goes through the big metal bits that turn and obviously there are going to be loses, what's sad is when people start trying to make their car sound more powerful by going on about crank bhp.
Lol an overdrive? Get with it grandpa!
And here you prove where you should watch what you say! "My Dad did this, my dad did that". Don't see you doing anything, I'd be surprised if you knew the difference between an adjustable spanner and a torque wrench.
Not as ignorant as thinking big tyres make a car corner well. Aid grip? Yes. Make it HANDLE better? No. And arguably suspension setup will aid grip more than a set of fancy tyres.
Please show a source for your approximation. Otherwise, GTFO.
Besides, maybe I like top end rush!
Well in your country of course you'd need to!
obvious troll
As explained I know the difference between RWHP and Crank HP, you'd be VERY ignorant to assume I don't know the difference, but being an American "ignorant" is inevitably your middle name.
Well you're obviously not going to use it if you don't go above 5500rpm anyway. Sods law init?
I have actually!
Acceleration is acceleration?
Is that my problem? Again you're just making excuses for it.. :doh:
The car wars thread!
(139 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG