Daily reminder if this was in the form of a 4 cylinder, and everything scaled perfectly, it would make 175hp from 2...

they're "nice" torque curves, but make peak torque at something like 3k rpm, and then max out at 5 or 6 or something. Either way, you don't have any range for the RPMs which means you have to pair it with tall ass gears, otherwise you blow the tires off, or you have to have 8 gears and shift every 2 seconds which hurts the time.

This also means on a tighter track, or a tight part of a track, you are stuck using an inappropriate gear.

Efficiency of what? That's not some universally applicable concept, valve area being a prime example- If you're looking to something like a giant ship engine or something as modal upscaling for this case that's an apples to oranges comparison and something like a ship engine doesn't experience as dynamic a life cycle as a passenger car engine, same reason why the gobs of engineering thrown at an auto ICE produce something on the shy side of 20% efficient while your el cheapo special forced air furnace can be some 70% energy efficient. But hey clue me in, I'd love to find out how you mean.

Peak torque isn't *super* relevant if the torque curve is fairly flat, and there's nothing wrong with tall gears since you're making assloads of power. It's just how engines work. If you rev high, you have a smaller engine and gear lower. If you rev low, chances are you have a larger engine and don't need to gear as low to achieve similar acceleration characteristics. And final drive ratio doesn't determine gear spacing, which is what would affect your gear choice on a tight track.

no, look at all the highest hp/L engines ever made. theyre all 50cc, 125cc, etc. motorcycle engines.

>there's nothing wrong with tall gears since you're making assloads of power.

yes there is. It is by far not the most efficient way of getting a car around a track.

>Increased gear size means added weight
>increased torque means stronger/heavier components
>increased transmission tunnel size, rear diff size etc.

clearly you've never driven a car with tall gearing around a tight track. You're always in the wrong gear.

onpointdyno.com/2015/12/understanding-torque-and-horsepower-lets-try-this-again-with-tractive-force/

>more torque than HP not being a blast
A fox body makes almost 100 poon more of torque than horsepower. I guarantee you'll have a blast driving like a faggot in one alot more than a gutless i4 that makes it's power on the top only.

Rotating mass doesn't affect power output as measured on a steady state (read: normal) dyno.

If you want a car that isn't shit, why are you apparently shilling for GM?

Torque doesn't actually matter, regardless of what you're doing with it. Horsepower is what's important. Not just the peak number, but the average horsepower between shift points.

That's because all those tiny engines are made to go in motorcycles, which have different engineering constraints than cars. They're designed to go 20,000 miles between rebuilds instead of 200,000 miles, and if you were to put the weight of a car behind a maxed out 50cc 2 stroke making 350 HP/L you'd probably shear the crank in half.

A foxbody is a slow shitbox with an awful chassis

I had more fun in a 100hp Honda than I did a 4.9

News flash, every car made in the past 15 years has been a STEM "science experiment".

Horseshit, rotating mass affects the maximum RPM capability of an engine which is DIRECTLY proportional to an increase in power.

Sure, but there's plenty of other limiting factors that need to addressed before weight starts to become an issue. For example, the limiting factor in an LS engine is valvetrain inertia. If weight was an issue, you'd be able to safely increase your redline quite a bit just by using a 30 pound lighter flywheel. Basically, the only way to make rotating mass the sole limiting factor is to cast your crank and flywheel out of tungsten.

>hurr shilling GM
Show where I mentioned GM, negatively or positively. Otherwise KYS.

>tfw the modular and the windsor are superior to the LS in every single way

And dont get me started on EcoBoost

inertia can be mitigated by using stronger pushrods but that adds to the rotating mass, so in this context you guys are both right and wrong. increasing inertia decreases rotating mass and vice versa. tungsten is pretty brittle and wouldn't handle the fictitious forces between the pivot joints.

>modular
>Superior
TOP KEK

What isnt superior about the modular?

>GM has never made a mor powerful production engine than the 5.8 trinity
>GM has never made a more powerl N/A engine than the 5.2 Voodoo
>GM powered street cars have never gone as fast as pic related
>GM LS engines have never ever run the quarter mile in 5 seconds forums.corral.net/forums/svt-dohc/1880250-mihovetz-gets-into-5s-first-modular-powered-5-second-1-4-a.html

stay mad an triggered kek!!!!

>Weight
>Dimensions
>power/torque numbers (needing a supercharger to get to 400hp LOL)
>Durability for all N/A motors (can't handle more than 8psi of boost while a stock LS3 lower end can handle 12, IIRC)

>Weight
Modular powered cars are still faster
>Dimensions
Modular powered cars are still faster
>power/torque numbers (needing a supercharger to get to 400hp LOL)
Modular powered cars are still faster
>Durability for all N/A motors (can't handle more than 8psi of boost while a stock LS3 lower end can handle 12, IIRC)
>12
>iirc
top kek, post an LS engine capable of taking over 65 psi of boost on stock block and crank
accufabracing.com/accufab-mustang

>what is the 5.8l supercharged
>what is the voodoo

You know nothing about the modular, do you?

Its called the law of diminishing returns, you have it backwards

>increasing inertia decreases rotating mass
What the fuck am I reading?

Fuck off Alex

Don't you have a Turbo Veloster to fit a baby seat into?

And 60mpg (but engines don't scale the way you think they do)

>he thinks the engine is the sole reason for the mpg

lmao

Except that's a shitty strawman and not at all how it works. You would indeed cut the fuel usage in half (theoretically), but also the power output. So BSCF (which is fuel/[power*time]) would stay the same. So when you need, say, 12 horsepower to overcome friction, rolling resistance, etc, power would stay the same, time would stay the same, and BSFC would stay the same. Therefore, both engines would theoretically get the same fuel economy.

You made my point for me.

I used the same logic the op used. Doesn't work that way does it? Now you can see why the original post is so stupid.

the problem is the engine is the sole hp maker

mpg has outside influences

No shit.

Again, final drive doesn't affect the gear spacing of the transmission. Unless you have stupidly tall fuel economy gearing where you never get out of second or whatever, your gear spacing will give you a gear that works for a given speed.

121hp from 6 cylinders and 2.6 liters.

You literally can't make this shit up.

62.5hp from 4 cylinders and 2.5 liters.

Torque totally matters. Hp is simply
(TorqueXRPM)/5250 An ICE takes gasoline and burns it, creating pressure inside a cylinder, this pressure acts on a piston and creates a force equal to cylinder pressure X piston surface area. This force acts on the crankshaft and becomes a moment(torque). power is (force x displacement)/time. So the torque of the motor is what determines the power. If a motor makes no torque, the motor is spun to high rpms to produce power, which is then converted back into torque trough lower gearing.

Conversely, torque at the motor can be transformed into power at the wheels trough higher gears.

With proper gearing,two identical cars, one with a high torque lower revving motor, the other with a lower torque higher revving motor can be made to behave very similarly.

Sure. But when comparing the attributes of two vehicles, peak torque is about as relevant as the lug nut to cupholder ratio. It doesn't matter what RPM range you expect to use a vehicle at; the average horsepower over that range is the determining factor of how it will perform. The only reason torque is graphed on a dyno sheet at all is as a tuning aid.

Reminder that you thought your car was broken because you did a burnout wrong

True. peak numbers don't mean much.
For the comparison to be fair they would need to have similar power bands in their respective rpm ranges.

>torque curve for tuning
Yeah, that's actually true, you seem to know a bit more than the average Veeky Forumstist.

>fuck that slow shit box with an awful chassis
>my even slower fwd shitbox is totally better
Aftermarket fixes most of the fox body issues very easily, but don't let that stop you from shitposting

There was the Hot Rod Magazine 500 buck junkyard special that accepted some 30 on stock block, crank, rods, pistons and rings.

still les than 65 psi
Modular > ls, stay BTFO

Daily reminder that all these threads are fucking retarded considering that motorcycle engines have so far eclipsed anything done in the world of cars that it's like watching a retard call another retard a retard

And aftermarket fixes most of the problems on the Honda, what's your point?

Pressure is just a measure of restriction- I could plumb a fat GT45 turbo to a Honda or some shit with intake ports the size of dimes, wing the cocksucker and it'll make 65 pounds of boost, probably more- Hell, when you get into real wild tuning on forced induction setups you can run into situations where reducing the boost pressure off an arbitrary indexed value can increase power due to lower intake air temps. I do agree though, numbers for numbers shootout in a dyno cell the Mod motor is better.

>implying you cant go 270mph with half a v8

try again

As soon as you start getting into serious performance territory, FWD will be a much more limiting factor than RWD.

That wasn't the basis of the post dipshit. Personal enjoyment was. If your only personal enjoyment comes out of being a dyno queen that's cool but don't assume the rest of us feel the same.

lol so what my ls1 only makes 150hp at the wheels according to your dumb logic.

Typical Veeky Forums benchracing retardation.

Torque wins races, not peak horsepower

so you admit gm can't compete?

Compete in what?

horsepower wins races

Torque is a meaningless number unless its given as torque over time(aka horsepower)

with Ford
in everything

lol Veeky Forums loves to oversimplify things

Besides if you have a stock LS1 your doing it wrong im gonna cam mine and get well over 200hp per 2.85l or whatever the fuck op is on about

If they couldn't, wouldn't that mean GM would no longer be in business?

I dont have a stock LS1
I have a heavy modified one
>sure see a ton of ford mod motor swaps running around

oh wait everything is turbo LS these days not turbo ferd
Nearly all fast fords today are running LS swaps or are R302 based

>wouldn't that mean GM would no longer be in business?
they wouldn't be without government intervention
therefore we can conclude gm can indeed not compete

...

Ford took bailout money too.

Horsepower is a measurement of the amount of work that an engine can do

Torque is just the amount of rotation force at that instance. My impact gun has 700lbs of torque maybe I should swap it into you civic.

Torque numbers are useless when it comes to racing.
High horsepower tells you the engine either has high rpm or high torque or better yet high torque at high rpm.
Horsepower is simply torque times RPM divided by 5252.
Torque does not win races or towing contests or anything. Generally high torque low horsepower engines will last much longer than high horsepower low torque engines because their powerbands are usable at a much lower RPM.
More RPM is better for racing because you can use more gearing to get more wheel torque overtime.
Horsepower always has and always will be what wins races

Get too high strung though and things get kinda janky in my experience- Stepping and fetching for gear just to keep the damn thing making power in like a pack or something can be more consuming than some people would think.

They didn't get bailed out tho. stay mad, gm fangirl

I didn't say they got bailed out I said they took bailout money- I mean hell, Ford was the chief lobbyist pushing the bill to begin with.

>damage control
gm can't compete, stay BTFO

this

Will a motorcycle engine bolted up to a car make the same exact power and be as reliable as a car engine?

tfw live in europe and I cant find an LS engine for cheap, FUARK

It fixes FWD and no tork? Yeah no dawg sikkkk Honda 100hp is way more fun than a V8 shitbox. It's totally light and ready for the toe-gay, right bro?

You can personally enjoy a dick up your ass, but that doesn't mean your not a retarded faggot that's wrong.

Daily reminder when you start stuffing air down its throat like all you Jap car faggots love to do with your little lawnmower cars they make over 9000 whp on a 200k-mile junkyard truck engine bottom end and that's from the 4.8 and 5.3L motors.

>I had more fun in a 100hp Honda than I did a 4.9
This you?

>LT4
>Look at GM's performance division. Crate motors literally btfo everything ford has and they're all stock kek
>hotrod.com/articles/worlds-quickest-street-car-blows-past-record-at-drag-week-2015-test-and-tune/
>mod motor. Ford only allowed. Muh kiddie section

kek.

Because rb engines were too based

>65 psi
>Still only 2000hp
Pitiful

Thats on a stock shitty ls1, a 5.3 lm7 can do 360+hp with just a tune. That means 180hp from a 2.6. which in the grand scheme of things is amazing for a truck motor. Ported heads, new cam, and not truck intake gets you 445/434 NA hp/tq on a 5.3, or 220/215 on a 2.6 compare that to an f22c's 240/160 hp and its no contest when you also consider the ls only revs to 6300 rpm, and has 9.5:1 compression compared to 11.1:1 compression.

LS is the best, torque for life.

Beating on a stock 2.0L turbo is still incredibly fun. Weak cars are the best to hoon,as they are not insane to repair or maintain or feed. That and you can max them out without worrying too much about laws.

>LT4
lol overheats after a lap

>Look at GM's performance division. Crate motors literally btfo everything ford has and they're all stock kek
lol not production
lol still make less than a nascar Cammer from the 60's

>hotrod.com/articles/worlds-quickest-street-car-blows-past-record-at-drag-week-2015-test-and-tune/
Jeff Lutz doesn't run an LS engine, you dumb dumb

>mod motor.
meaning modular

dumb faggot

>Weak block unless you trade an organ for a N1 block
>Any tuning error or over-rev (or even staying in the 7000-8000 zone) will shatter oil pump gears (even aftermarket ones)
>heavy and long (iron block I6)

RB engine a shit

Well using a shitty internet ET-MPH-HP calc:

Record run (5.88@250mph) @ 2500lbs

Gives a power figure of approx. 3200hp which is at the level of Pro-mods & TAFC.

All this was done using a OEM block teksid block and Ford GT heads.

Even more amazingly, boost pressure compared to power can be used to evaluate the breathing capability of an engine.

This means that a stock 4.6 head casting is competing on the level of 526ci BAE/TFX Hemis (which run around 55-65 psi) from TAFC that feature bore sizes of 4.500"-4.600" compared to the 4.6 modular bore of 3.552".

...

muh dik

>Tsukuba
lmao nice try, and Civic SiRII != basemodel shitbox Honda some retard is driving.

And it does that with an 8 valve head too.

Feels good with 77.5HP/cylinder and 127.5Nm/cylinder (94lb-ft/cylinder for your retards that still somehow use imperial trash)

Has HP/L ever been relevant?

V8fags constantly get btfo and whine like bitches

its hilarious

>tfw fluid mechanics and engineering like that don't scale
Silly canucks

It's relevant every time, everywhere.
If you can't make your engine efficient it's gonna cost more to both make and to run.

inb4 "buh muh power"
Power at the smallest possible size is what pushes engine tech forward.
Otherwise we'd still be at 2-valve 30 liter engines producing 20HP.

They did for the landcruiser

>confirmed for liberal arts major pretending to be in stem
This shit applies to packaging and hull material ratio, but is inverse for EVERY TYPE of motor: regular pistons, rotaries, even for fucking rocket motors, more doesn't mean better.