Evan, it's actually NA... :rolleyes:
It's the current engine for the Indy Racing League (IRL)
I thik you're thinking of the 2002 Honda cart series engine. (It's turbocharged)
http://www.cartracingupdate.com/Cars...ndamotor25.jpg
Printable View
Evan, it's actually NA... :rolleyes:
It's the current engine for the Indy Racing League (IRL)
I thik you're thinking of the 2002 Honda cart series engine. (It's turbocharged)
http://www.cartracingupdate.com/Cars...ndamotor25.jpg
After reading the link to Road & Track and various others, I find that the American system of judging a sports car is very much focussed on the ability to post 1 good lap time and not many laps consistently, with little or no regard to brake fade, tyre wear or fuel consumption. Now this is what wins races, consistency. If endurance was tested i believe the results would differ greatly, oh and seeing as these are Americas best why not test against the worlds best? Work smart not hard!
I strongly suggest getting your hands on a few Best Motoring DVD's and witness relevant sports car tests in minute detail.
I have my own criteria for purchasing a car compiled from comprehensive info and I choose to drive a Honda for reasons many here already understand.
I'm not here to argue, but to help educate. :thumbsup:
IMO this thread was looking for trouble and the whole (x or y) engine is best discussions are a waste of time. Educate yourself and draw your own conclusions and choose what suits you best.
Cheers :)
hey all i can say is toyota 1us-fe plus blowere = shite loads of grunt plus the whole cheap as chips factor. i know wat i would choose
Yeah, my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by TODA AU
Would you have a picture of the CART turb manifold?
Im not sure if you've looked into exhaust manifold design theory at all, but the street honda manifolds available (from most of the "good" shops in the USA) have completely different designs to the formula racing designs.
I dont really want to go into to much depth about it here, but if you have a pic could you please email it to me?
Cheers
http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesea...p?key=AUDI04DJ
station wagon or no station wagon, same engine.
V8 Engine. 40Valves. 5 per cylinder.
Twin Turbo intercooled
DOHC with VVT
0-100 4.7Seconds
560Nm @ 1950rpm
331kW @ 5700rpm
engine configuration V90
4172cc (4.2)
Four Wheel Drive
19" Alloy Wheels, 9 Speaker Stereo
weighs 1.8tonnes
actually, you're right- small light and powerful does not make a good engine *unless you're into performanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Captiva_Blue
since you're labelling pushrod slappers as inefficient, i guess you are about to provide us with some figures to back that statement up. i've not yet seen anything which really shows that a modern pushrod motor creates more emissions and uses more fuel than an equally new ohc design.
the only valid argument that i can see against pushrod v8's is the issue they have with reciprocating mass, but they redeem themselves in terms of pakaging efficiency. imo.
i guess another key difference between us is that i'd much rather "brag" about how much power it makes and how fast it is, rather than how little fuel it uses and how sophisticated/complicated it is.
I am aware that the comparison I am about to make is not direct but I believe that it illustrates my point about how pushrod engines, though powerful are innefficient next to a modern, high tech engine. Both engines serve the same intended purpose (making a goer of a family car) and from a litre less capacity, one makes a hefty 70 more kilowatts more than the other. That seems to indicate a lower level of efficiency to begin with..
HSV Clubsport R8 V8 6L Fuel Consumption - 15.2L/100km CO2 output - 362gm/km
BMW M5 V10 5L Fuel Consumtion - 14.8L/100km CO2 output - 357gm/km
now the difference here may not sound like a lot but consider this, each of these cars will do approximately 20000 - 25000km each year. That means that the "pushrod slapper" will use between 80 and 100 litres more fuel (about $120 worth) than the new high tech motor and put out between 100 and 125 KILOGRAMS more carbon dioxide.. all while having 2 pots fewer and making 70kw less.
To not give a toss about how your engine makes the power it does robs you (IMO) of a lot of the joy of having a car and to not give a toss about the impact your engine has on the environment (and your hip pocket) is downright irresponsible.
I agree, commonsense prevails, although not so common these days. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Captiva_Blue
all that serves to illustrate is that the package in a $230k bmw is more efficient than that of a $70k r8. we are discussing engines here, over all consumption is a function of a multitude of variables, not just the motor. how about the fact that the ls2 in the commodore is bolted up to an unsophisticated transmission and is missing three whole ratios (4 speeds vs 7 speeds) yes, the m5 is a superior vehicle to an r8 in just about every concievable way, excluding performance for your money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captiva_Blue
i'm in a rush atm, i will add more to this discussion as it's very interesting- this is to be continued...
Well i thort i might get back 2 topic and post wot i think is the best 8 cyl engine in the world is....none of this bmw v10 crap:p
From on paper specs imo the ferrari f430 v8 would have to take out this
Cost is irrelevant here, this thread is about what 8 pot engine is the best, not what 8 pot engine is the best under 70k. You asked me for some figures backing up my contention that pushrod motors are less efficient than overhead cam designs.. I believe that I've done that. You asked for fuel consumption figures. I gave them to you. You asked for pollution figures. I gave them to you. And I found an engine, albeit one with 2 extra pots, that has a litre less capacity but makes 70kw more. If you are still not convinced that pushrod engines are less efficient than modern OHV designs, go and look anywhere in the motoring press and read what they say when comparing a pushrod donk to a newer OHV one.. they'll say the same thing. If thats still not enough, consider this, what engine design is most commonly used for high powered cars... the answer speaks for itself, pushrod just can't cut it for efficency, power or tunability next to a more modern design.Quote:
Originally Posted by ginganggooly
cost is always a relevent issue; it's the only way you can compare motors with different states of tune, aimed at different markets, against eachother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captiva_Blue
for this debate to be at all relevent, it needs to take more into account than just factory output and emissions levels. you've got things like production costs, output, potential output, output efficiency, packaging efficiency and mass. and thats assuming that we're talking in the context of performance motors.
well if you want to trivialise the discussion, i could very well write off the m5 as irrelevent seeing as it has a v10. you've gone and compared what represents the pinnacle of development of one motor and used it as a yardstick against what is essentially a run of the mill, mass produced motor. it takes a relatively small amount of work to hit very big numbers in an ls1, i'd imagine an ls2 to be much the same.
yes, i've read motoring press articles on the old pushrod vs ohc designs, and there is fierce debate there too, in fact if you haven't come across articles praising the packaging efficiency of pushrod v8's then you've been selectively reading press articles.
you've also missed the point of my last post, if we're talking motors, you can't compare the emissions of one vehicle against another the way you've done, and use that as proof of one motor being superior to another. those figures are for the cars, emissions can be immensly effected by the exhaust systems, intakes, mass, transmissions tuning and a horde of other little things. so your fuel/emissions figures are about as useful as a one legged man in an arse kicking contest- in the context of engine emissions alone anyway... the same argument can be levelled at power outputs aswell.
how much further can you push the older e39 v8 in the m5 for example?
how about the w210 e55 v8?
you'll find that the ls1 compares very favourably with those motors.
on a tangent, if it's ease of tuning and hitting big numbers you're after, i think you'll be hard pressed to find anything with more aftermarket support and development than the small block v8's from the states.
fwiw, if you want to preach about ignorance and a lack of responibility regarding emissions, you ought to be driving a prius, or other hybrid, or better yet, be using public transport. if you are into extracting performance out of motors, you're basically harming the environment for pleasure, whether you like it or not. that said, people should do what you can to minimise the impact e.g- run a catalytic convertor.