Hey guys, I have a question. What is the most powerful engine?

An engine thats for the road ofcourse, no F1 engines etc. Naturally aspirated, no more than 6 cylinders, runs on pump fuel (unleaded)?

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_911_GT3 :

At 450 hp (336 kW), the 3.8 litre flat-six engine in the 997 GT3 RS is the most powerful six cylinder naturally aspirated engine in any production car with a 118 hp per liter output.

Beat that! (seriously because i have no idea if it is the most powerful can't trust wiki can we :razz

Haha! Ok, maybe I should be abit more specific. Im talking engines that would not cost an arm or leg. In the line of an RB, FJ, 4G, VTEC etc.

BMW has some pretty powerful engines. Take the S38B38 for example; 335HP 3.8L. The S50B32; 316HP 3.2L. Or the S54B32; 355HP 3.2L.

Honda S2000 engine. 4 cylinder, NA, 2L, 240hp. It has no torque tho...

The TVR Tuscans have powerful naturally aspirated straight sixes.

Peripheral port 20b.

0 Cylinders, and could easily make 350hp+ n\a

Quote from Klutch :

Peripheral port 20b.

0 Cylinders, and could easily make 350hp+ n\a

He asked for an engine, not explosives.

...you win this round >_>

I second BMW. Something like a E39 M5 with 400 hp in a 5.0L V8.
Or the E46 M3, which had the second most powerful (per litre) naturally aspirated engine besides McLaren F1 (AFAIK), at 340 hp in a 3.2L I6.

These cars are also sexy as ****.

Quote from RasmusL :

I second BMW. Something like a E39 M5 with 400 hp in a 5.0L V8.

Doesn't conform to the OP (V8).

Quote from RasmusL :

Or the E46 M3, which had the second most powerful (per litre) naturally aspirated engine besides McLaren F1 (AFAIK), at 340 hp in a 3.2L I6.

Honda S2000 (as already mentioned in this thread) in its original guise produced over 118bhp per litre (which is more than either the E46 M3 or McLaren F1) and it's the only one of those 3 to conform to the OP.

For applicable power I would vouch for BMW over Vtecs though, torque plays a huge part in actual real world usage, the M3 powerplant is more allrounded and has plenty of potential to be improved. While with the S2000 engine you will be hard pressed to gain anymore performance without losing even more low-end torque and spending some big big money for maybe 20-30ps more.

TVR's inline 6s are really potent as well, got low end, drivability, top end and everything, not gonna be cheap though I guess, seeing it is used exclusively within TVR, there isn't gonna be much extra units and parts support around.

RTA96-C

Maximum power 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

Technically it can be used on a road

Quote from JJ72 :

For applicable power I would vouch for BMW over Vtecs though, torque plays a huge part in actual real world usage, the M3 powerplant is more allrounded and has plenty of potential to be improved.

I agree, I was just correcting what RasmusL said.

Quote from JJ72 :

For applicable power I would vouch for BMW over Vtecs though, torque plays a huge part in actual real world usage, the M3 powerplant is more allrounded and has plenty of potential to be improved. While with the S2000 engine you will be hard pressed to gain anymore performance without losing even more low-end torque and spending some big big money for maybe 20-30ps more.

You can easily turbo charge an S2000 engine. They seem to be handling the added power quite well too. 350 rwhp with a "mild" setup, up to 700+hp is possible.

It ruins the car tho (in my opinion). In a straight line, the S2000 doesn't feel very fast... on a racetrack however (or a twisty mountain road), it feels very good (engine/powerband wise), the gearing on this car is made so you will always stay above 6k rpm (vtec kicks in yo!) when you shift at redline. The moments when i miss torque is in normal city driving, etc.

It is true that it's hard to get any performance gains out of this engine when keeping it NA. This is because the engine is pretty much optimized from the factory already... i mean, 120hp per liter, that sounds like a well tuned engine to me already (JDM models have 247hp by the way, that's even more hp/liter). Then again, no NA engine will show you serious power gains unless you spend a shitload of money.

Quote from amp88 :

Honda S2000 (as already mentioned in this thread) in its original guise produced over 118bhp per litre (which is more than either the E46 M3 or McLaren F1) and it's the only one of those 3 to conform to the OP.

My fault, it wasn't actually per litre. The M3 engine had the most powerful specific output besides the McLaren, of the engines made by BMW . Oh, and the S2000 didn't exist when the McLaren was made.

Quote from RasmusL :

My fault, it wasn't actually per litre. The M3 engine had the most powerful specific output besides the McLaren. Oh, and the S2000 didn't exist when the McLaren was made.

The S2000 did exist when the E46 M3 was introduced though.

Quote from jibber :

You can easily turbo charge an S2000 engine. They seem to be handling the added power quite well too. 350 rwhp with a "mild" setup, up to 700+hp is possible.

It ruins the car tho (in my opinion). In a straight line, the S2000 doesn't feel very fast... on a racetrack however (or a twisty mountain road), it feels very good (engine/powerband wise), the gearing on this car is made so you will always stay above 6k rpm (vtec kicks in yo!) when you shift at redline. The moments when i miss torque is in normal city driving, etc.

It is true that it's hard to get any performance gains out of this engine when keeping it NA. This is because the engine is pretty much optimized from the factory already... i mean, 120hp per liter, that sounds like a well tuned engine to me already (JDM models have 247hp by the way, that's even more hp/liter). Then again, no NA engine will show you serious power gains unless you spend a shitload of money.

Of course, but the point is if you are going to turbo charge a V-tec, why not just buy some Subaru or EVO 4 pot to start with, same effect, much cheaper.

It's like fitting a hammer head on a samurai sword, instead of just buying a hammer.

My impression with the S2000 (a stock one) is just the kick ass driving position...nigh on perfect for me, however performance-wise I wasn't really that impressed, the standard gearing ratio is too far apart for performance driving. all that waiting before it unwinds itself at the high-end - which is quickly followed by another gear change, meh, not worth it.

even for light cars I prefer those with some decent torque....although most of them sounds like washing machines but at least I am moving.

BTW I am on the look out for an Altezza....MT ones are real rare over here.

Quote from JJ72 :

My impression with the S2000 (a stock one) is just the kick ass driving position...nigh on perfect for me, however performance-wise I wasn't really that impressed, the standard gearing ratio is too far apart for performance driving. all that waiting before it unwinds itself at the high-end - which is quickly followed by another gear change, meh, not worth it.

You did something wrong then. As i've written above, if you shift at redline, you'll never fall out of the power range (6k - 9k rpm). In this range, the s2000 is certainly not slow (maybe not super quick either, but there's plenty of power for spirited driving). The only moment when it should feel slow is in first gear, until you reach 6k rpm.

You have to take it to redline tho, or it'll not work. Gear changes are great in this car by the way... you must not enjoy a good transmission if you don't like it, since the S2000 transmission is one of the best i've ever experienced in any sports car.

Here's me on a track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjVQKX4VFj8

Notice how i shift at redline, and therefor always stay in the usable rpm range. No waiting for power.

EDIT: This is a little off-topic of course, sorry for that.

Regardless of whether the S2000 existed at a certain point in time, it exists now. It was launched in 2002/2003 and had 125bhp/l way back then so perhaps 160bhp/l is possible from a naturally aspirated engine.

I want an S2000...in white...with the official Honda bodykit..mmm..

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

It was launched in 2002/2003

It was launched in 1999.

I'd rather an MX-5 than an S2000. It's nice to brag about HP/L, it's just not very relevant when you're driving it

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

It was launched in 2002/2003 and had 125bhp/l way back then

Neither of these are accurate.

Quote from jibber :

It was launched in 1999.

Bugger me, much more elderly than I thought!

Quote from amp88 :

Neither of these are accurate.

OK, Sorry for not being 100% accurate quoting from my aged brain rather than doing lots of research..

Launched in 1999 with 247bhp (Jap market) from a 1997cc engine which is 123.68552829243865798698047070606 bhp/l.

Is that accurate enough?

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

OK, Sorry for not being 100% accurate quoting from my aged brain rather than doing lots of research..

Launched in 1999 with 247bhp (Jap market) from a 1997cc engine which is 123.68552829243865798698047070606 bhp/l.

Is that accurate enough?

Well, you made authoritative statements about verifiable facts which were both incorrect. The problem with that is that if we hadn't known any better we'd have taken them as true and we could have passed them on as being correct. Everyone makes mistakes, yes, but even a minute of research on your part would have shown you were incorrect.