Power:Weight or HP/L?

Which do you guys think is more important when it comes to engine performance?

Whichever Honda is best at is the only important measurement.

HP: Displacement when displacement is heavily taxed, or limited.
HP : weight all other times

Power to weight; HP/L is meaningless. Of course, there's other meaningful metrics that the GM small block falls flat on (because this is obviously a "LS vs X" thread).

>other meaningful metrics that the GM small block falls flat on
nope

Trick question

>which do you guys think is more important when it comes to engine performance?
>engine performance

HP/L.

Engines have weight too numbnuts

Reliability is what's most important

Why not have both?

>13B-REW
>255hp : ~180lbs
>255hp : 1.3L

Burning oil and not breaking 200hp?

Because a 'busa engine does it better while being more reliable.

Power:Weight

HP/L is a useless measurement if your engine weighs a ton

HP/L is a ratio weebs and poorfag Euros use to try and justify their engines.

On the left is 5.7 liters. On the right is 1.8 liters

Stop posting these stupid pictures with engines in different states of dress if you're going to make a size comparison.

Everybody says rotaries are """"150lbs""""" yet they need another 300lbs of shit to run.

Euro's brag about their Hp/liter but an Audi 4.8 for example is weaker, physically bigger, has 50 feet of timing chain, is heavier and less reliable than a LS engine.

LS3 is 6.2L

I'm not denying that but so many large vs X pictures have the LATEST fresh out of a crate and the other still has the serpentine belt system attached etc. I actually goofed up and didn't look hard at the other engine, that pic is nothe bad.

Wow add another 2 inches that the alternator and belts take up if it makes you happy. Even with them attached they don't stick out past the headers.

Even if you strip them both down to to the block the LS won't look that much bigger. Just because an engine has a big displacement doesn't mean the block has to be massive. Euro's can't seem to grasp this concept.

Power to vehicle weight ratio. Enginefaggots are the worst. All your precious fetishes do is turn driveshafts of one sort or another, or perhaps an electric generator.

Show me standing start quarter mile times, not pussy "spare my junk engine" 1/8 mile plebbery, and lap times.

HP/displacement is silly if your high output low displacement engine isn't in a vehicle light enough to take advantage of it.

>standing start quarter mile times
>not pussy

This isn't a fucking Tesla review. Real men do 1 mile races.

2 x 1.8, making it 3.6.

U wot m8

He thinks tarbos double displacement

>HP/L

This means nothing if you're not racing in a series that regulates displacement.

Whichever gives me the largest, widest, most usable power band.

The rotary equivalent of a long block is 212 pounds. How much does an LS long block with no manifolds or accessories weigh?

The only important metric is HP/MPG (horse power per miles per gallon). More than just a measure of how efficient or how powerful your motor is, it is a representation of how efficiently your car makes the power that it does.
For example, my car makes 168HP and gets 24mpg, meaning I get 7HP/MPG. Higher numbers are better.

1000 feet*

Nevermind, I fucked up. I remembered there were two rotors but as it turns out the 1.3 is already the doubled displacement, with each rotor being 0.65L.

Why not both

HP/L
amerilards need to lose some weight for better power to weight ratio
>Not stripping out the interior and other unnecessary shit and putting in a roll cage

Dohc v8 with itb's

because some people like torque and reliability

Wouldn't a better way to do it would be MPG over HP. HP over MPG results in larger numbers for worse MPG

There was a thread months ago about "Why aren't bike engines used in cars" or something (wish i had screen-capped it). those are two bike engines put together and i'm guessing that while they work well for cars like the Atom they would be horrible for most normal cars. i don't think Manufacturers (especially those who also make bikes like Honda and BMW) would intentionally make their car V8s heavier if it were not for a good reason they don't use engines like those.

Willingness to rev smoothly, and sound

You know that isn't a rotary engine, right?

but your car doesn't make that power at that mpg so it can be a little skewed are we only doing highway? city? combined?

it doesnt matter about the accessories
the one on the right is still clearly significantly smaller

Neither matters.
Horsepower sells cars, TORQUE WINS RACES

>Higher numbers are better.
Shouldn't it be the opposite?

>100hp with 10mpg -> 10hp/mpg
>100hp with 100mpg -> 1hp/mpg

I want one of those dirty nazi VAG cars so i can roll coal in a Audi.

HP per L/100km. If that parameter is really efficient, it only needs to be boosted to hell and back

HP/L because I am not an underage cucko jerking off at highway pulls, but a grown mature alpha bull that understands proper gentleman racing classes have a displacement limit

>300lbs to run

Ameridumb

Reliability and suitability to the application.

Which is why certain incredibly reliable diesel powerplants and low-powered truck motors have been used for 20, 30 years because they have objectively the best engineering for their purpose.

Overall output and how early the torque comes on. As a non-tracking spirited driver, I don't give two fucks about the top figure, just the difference between HP/TQ @30% RPM and HP/TQ @90% RPM.

check those digits

The weight of the engine only matters for the weight distribution of the entire car.
HP/L should always be as high as possible while still maintaining the required reliability.

crank geometry

Q7 V12 TDI
fucking do it

>one of the few engine comparisons when the are i pretty similar states
>bitches and complains
lel, displacelet btfo

An Audi 4.2 is the same width, almost the same height and about 2/3rds the length of an LS and weighs around the same.