ITT: Race cars that were so close to being perfect, but a small oversight left them to be forgotten.
Pic related: The Fujita Engineering FD. Better tires/ wider wheels in the rear and this thing would've gone down in history. It had a lot of power for the tight course and constantly lost grip if it was using the same tires as its impression runs, or the course wasn't dry. I honestly think it looks and sounds way cooler than the Amemiya car.
See what I mean: youtube.com
Other urls found in this thread:
Corvette c7 z06, could be a fantastic car but it overheats after a lap
Aren't those the cars that sound like tractors and look like Ferraris but perform like, well, nothing because they have so many problems when pushed to 80% of their supposed limit?
If tractors sounded like crossplane gas v8s they would be a lot more interesting. Somewhere along the line nobody noticed the oil cooler and catalytic converter were right next to each other and/or bean counters removed a heatshield since it didn't matter for normal driving. They get really hot really fast stock. Supercharged doesnt help with heat soak either. Killed the car's reputation amongst benchracers but if you have the shekels in a few years they're going to be fantastic performance bargains with catback exhausts and a heatshield for the oil cooler installed.
No thanks. Boring and ugly cars with clunky handling that suits literally only the wide open track
Apparently they actually nailed the steering and road feel of the c7, and while I hate benchracing, the car's lap times when running cool are nothing to scoff at. Corvettes have always handled well and the c7 is no exception, it just finally feels right to boot. Unless you're talking autocross or another type of very short, tight circuit where downforce can't be put into play. I wonder if the mag suspension has an autocross mode?
Nah I've done a C7, the steering is vague as fuck even in sport mode.
>corvettes have always handled well
Haha, not really. Outside of a track (where they can understeer and snap their pendulum tail freely), they handle dangerously. Not what I'd call precise handling by a long shot. Think E46 M3, RX7 FD, S2000. (the M3 is really pushing it with the weight) Basically anything that would do a tight course well.
The C7 technically has 50/50 weight distribution, but it also has a fucked up polar movement of inertia from a big engine leading to wide turn in, and a tendency to snap from understeer to oversteer because its gearbox is in the back, like the 924/944. Note: I realize that the LS is small and light for its displacement, but it still fills the engine bay and fenders too much. Its transverse leaf spring suspension is an interesting and weird choice that again is only suited to track (or of course, highway pulls--what people are actually buying them for).
I'd like to see one do autocross or touge. I really don't like Corvettes because they're the most boring and unrefined answer to a sportscar. Super outdated engine and suspension tuned to set lap times only.
I won't argue with you on the chassis but what the fuck makes the LT dated? If you say the valve train you are an idiot.
>ohv
>20 fucking 17
lol. how is this still okay to amerifatasses?
Valve train. It provides chunky power. The Corvette gets away with it because its demographic is hicks and boomers who hate DOHC. Like, if the new GTR had an L28 that was boosted to shit, people would hate on it even though it could put out the power, because it would be clunky and boring in a new car. Or if BMW made the M2 with a supercharged 4 liter flat top.
OHV = smaller engine for X displacement
Therefore, more displacement can be used for the same space as a smaller displacement DOHC or SOHC. The car isn't going to rev as high, sure, but the larger displacement will give it a higher torque figure, letting you gear a bit higher for about the same speed while still having about the same acceleration (again this is all super generalized). And then they can detune the basic engine design and cram it into workhorse vehicles. It's just a different way of doing things for the same result. They do it because they can.
>chunky power
What did he mean by this? An aggressive cam?
Dumbass here. What is the functional difference between OHV and DOHC when it comes to driving feel?
DOHC = revs higher, more valves/cylinder
OHV = large displacement, torque engine, large displacement allows for large valves but almost always 2v/cylinder
However it leads to a larger head, increasing the height and width of a V engine.
I goofed up formatting, S/DOHC has the larger cylinder head.
>OHV = smaller engine for X displacement
not true
>but the larger displacement will give it a higher torque figure
not at all important in racing applications. for a truck engine that's great
>letting you gear a bit higher for about the same speed while still having about the same acceleration
not true
>And then they can detune the basic engine design and cram it into workhorse vehicles
KEK yeah what a great engine
>What did he mean by this? An aggressive cam?
fucking retard
GM fangirls can't get along how will they ever surpass ford?
oh wait they can't
If I ever blow up my fox's motor I'm putting a Chevy 302 in it and you can't stop me.
What did you mean by "chunky power"?
absolutely disgusting
327 block + 283 crank makes a high revving screamer. What's not to like?
>smaller heads do not make an engine smaller
>the basic principles of torque multiplication through gearing no longer apply because I say so
What did he mean by this?
DOHC has much smoother power delivery and revs higher, sounds better, and puts out more power for a given displacement. Driving feels galore. Pushrods make you feel like you're breaking the fucking thing when revving it over 3000, and the power comes very roughly. It's hard to explain. Even a pushrod inline 6 is pretty lumpy, and they're the most balanced engine configuration. Basically, the worst way to go fast. It just doesn't feel right at all, like a live real axle.
Another thing to add: the displacement and low rev limit mean the engine is making lots of power down low. This means you have to use a lot of care with the throttle and can't accelerate through corners. Make no mistake, the Corvette sets lap times on the straights.
Yeah, I won't deny that it can do all those things, but it's the most boring and outdated way of doing it. Who wants a sportscar that sounds like shit and has all its power down low? May as well buy a truck.
The cams aren't very aggressive on the LT1, but the power just feels wrong and lumpy, seriously. If you don't notice this in a pushrod engine then you're probably not driving on any courses where you need smooth power or you need to stay in a specific rev range.
You do understand that cams and F/I type largely determine the power curve and not valve train right?
Also where did you get the idea that valvetrain type determines exhaust note? Firing order (cylinder count as well) and exhaust design do.
Hol up, that's straight up misinterpretation.
An OHV engine simply cannot rev as high and MUST be made to make lots of torque. A DOHC engine can be made either way (think VR6 as making peppy low end torque and the RB26 as being peakier).
What do you mean where did I get the idea? You don't think you can ignore the size and shape of the exhaust valves when talking about engine notes, do you? What about revs?
Also inherent timing differences within valve train constraints. OHV is imprecise as fuck
You're acting like it's a 10000 rpm difference on a streetcar and not like 2 or 3 grand at most. You get the extra torque across the power band from using larger displacement. RB26s are generally peaky because people use single turbos that make power up high on them. You can easily make a pushrod engine make power up high, it's just that if you go crazy with it it becomes really crap at anything less than 10/10ths.
>chevy
A DOHC cross plane V8 at 4000 RPM will sound pretty much the same as an OHV cross plane V8 at 4000 RPM with similar exhaust setups (header design, x/h pipe, mufflers, cats, diameter)
Blatant brand fanboyism is pretty stupid desu.
>open thread
>nearly every post is a projection of asshurt over the Corvette due to its RAPING of the gtr
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
only problem with the FD is a poor power to weight ratio compared to today's standards. I wonder if mazda will have another go at the rotary someday.
Show me any 2 similar such setups and maybe I'll change my mind. Also, you can't ignore the difference that for the OHV engine, 4000 RPM is almost redline lol
3000 rpm difference is a lot. Remember the formula for horsepower?
You get the extra torque from more displacement. You then have unusable power that is all torque, meaning it's completely useless on corner exit after a lap, or completely useless all the time in a tight course.
>you can easily make a pushrod engine make power up high
So you're gonna take a 3 liter pushrod and have it make 250 horsepower at its 5000 rpm limit? useless
>poor power to weight ratio by today's standards
Lol then why is it still fast by today's standards? And can be tuned to 500 horsepower easily?
>implying i dont slobber europe cock
Let's go LS3 compared to Coyote. Both are approximately the same physical dimensons, LS3 is slightly smaller. Both make ~430hp stock. Coyote is 5.0, LS3 is 6.2. LS3 redlines at 6600 rpm. Coyote redlines at 7500 rpm. Both weigh approximately the same. Its two approaches to the same result. 2000-3000 figure was me being dumb and throwing different cylinder layouts and wildly different displacements into the mix. Also you seem to be under the impression that low end hp makes a car unuseable, have you forgotten how gearing works?
>3 liter pushrod
At that size DOHC makes more since since the engine's going to either be single bank and the size savings of pushrod mean nothing, or its a V and the heads are so small anyway it doesn't matter. Does a 3l pushrod even exist? Stroked/bored beetle engine?
I'm a fucking retard and was only thinking of jap/euro engines. I know Ford made a 3.0 v6 pushrod, but it was not at all designed with performance in mind, it was just designed to last as long as possible and there's no real performance scene for it since better options exist in the 2.3 turbo four and the 4.0 v6 from them.
>does a 3 liter pushrod even exist?
Rest of your post discarded. Holy shit I hope you're kidding.
But seriously, I haven't forgotten how gearing works, but gearing only goes so far. At that point, you're fighting losing traction versus being at a disadvantageous gear, when you could have stayed in one gear and gotten on the gas sooner in a car with a broader torque curve
>only thinking euro engines
Triumph spitfire my dude. 1.1 liter pushrod 4 banger. Making its power up high, all 63 horses of it. Crazy how a DOHC engine with 500 cc more can double the power easily, or a 20 valve could nearly triple it
As stated, pushrod doesn't have a ton of advantages for inline. It's most useful for V engines. I don't know where you get this idea that pushrod torque curves are so wildly different from DOHC. Here's an LS3 and a Coyote on the same scale. Slightly older model of coyote, perhaps a more fair comparison since the 7.5k rpm version is newer and competes with the new camaro's new engine, but the two engines are not that far off. Coyote starts off at the lower torque figure, sorry for lack of labels.
>Lol then why is it still fast by today's standards?
>fd
>today's standards
>fast
lmao wut
I think he is including price point. The ACR is a monster, sure, but it's also much more expensive even after inflation adjustment of the rx's price, and it is made to break records, with tires that wear down in 5000 miles of road driving and bonkers aero, as well as the most power ever put into a Viper.
It's still fast and can be made so much faster easily
That would be today's standards.
normally i hate to jump into these kiddie bench racing shitfests, but you're a fucking retard for comparing an RX7 to a viper ACR
Today's standards could also mean a Camry, we could also compare a McLaren F1 and a GT86 if you want.
Power: 143.9kW (210bhp) @ 6000 rpm, torque 184.4 Nm (136.0lb·ft) @ 4500 rpm
Redline: 6800 rpm
Weight: 854kg (1,883lb)
Front brakes: 300mm (11.8in), front wheels 40.6 × 20.3cm (16.0 × 8.0 in), tire size 205/50VR-16
Rear brakes: 310mm (12.2in), rear wheels 40.6 × 22.9cm (16.0 × 9.0 in), tire size 225/50VR-16
Transmission: 6-speed Sadev sequential
Top speed: ~251km/h (156mph), 0–100km/h (62mph) ~5.8 seconds, 1⁄4 mile ~14.1 seconds
yea they should really supercharge one
not really
camry isn't toyotas top of the line perfrormance car, so no.
>Easily drives alongside if not surpasses a GT-R
>Not fast
Who gives a shit about supercars. Road cars are where it is at
>LT
>big and heavy engine
This is how we know you're a retard
>it also has a fucked up polar movement of inertia from a big engine leading to wide turn in
You are now aware that the corvette's LS is lighter than the engine in many cars you would not have made that comment about.
rekt
lol i hurt so many feefees with this post :3
>people unironically defend pushrods
>2017
LOL
>slower than a ford fusion powered gokart
lol Ford lead the way again
I should have said wide. Its weight is wide and high.
It's light for what it is, but only for what it is. And its weight spills into the fenders of the car, ruining handling. Not to mention it can't be mounted mid-engine like an inline 4 or rotary.
Lol, I'll bet the Snek can't even beat an F150 with a bodykit at LeMans.
probably slower than a chainsaw powered radio flyer too
The C7 is a shitbox that cannot finish a lap.
End of story.
Heyy Demuroooo
>can't be mounted mid engine
youtu.be
You idiot