What is the best engine
11-19-2004, 05:33 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by m477
Depends on the application. For example, I would take a Renesis-equipped Elise over a V-anything.
Last edited by Rxdriftingaction; 11-19-2004 at 05:35 PM.
11-19-2004, 05:41 PM
#27
triangle in an oval hole
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pedro
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE CHEVY 350 V8 deserves a mention just because it is or used to be one the best most reliable and widely used motors around for a long long time. It definitely had a good horsepower/ torque to displacement ratio. There is a lot you can do to that engine for a fairly cheap price.
Its no rotorary but it is a good motor none the less
Its no rotorary but it is a good motor none the less
11-20-2004, 04:18 AM
#28
'RX-EIGHT'
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by abbid
Sr20dett
Also, Honda build the best piston motors, pound for pound. 'Nuff said.
Last edited by nojooc; 11-20-2004 at 04:22 AM.
11-21-2004, 02:11 AM
#31
Kaiten Kenbu Rokuren
Originally Posted by MrH
HP/liter doesn't mean anything. I'm going to have to go with the LS7, Renesis, the new V-10 from BMW, or the new 4.3 liter from Ferrari.
11-21-2004, 02:25 AM
#32
'RX-EIGHT'
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aoshi Shinomori
What do you mean it doesn't mean anything? Of course it does, the one with greater hp/liter was designed better as far as performance is concerned.
11-21-2004, 04:29 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aoshi Shinomori
What do you mean it doesn't mean anything? Of course it does, the one with greater hp/liter was designed better as far as performance is concerned. I don't know exactly what you meant by this, but hopefully I'll see tomorrow. Thanks.
I seriously hope you're kidding. There is NOT a direct correlation between engine size and/or weight, and the displacement of it. Larger displacement does not mean a larger engine. Sure, there tends to be a positive association between the two given the same cam setup, but we aren't talking about similar cam setups.
If you have two engines, one making 400 hp, one making 300 hp, and happen to be the exact same dimensions and weight, yet the former of the two displaces over 5 liters, and the latter displaces just 2 liters, who cares about displacement? Unless you are racing in some sort of series, where the displacement of an engine is limited, or you live in the UK, where there is taxes based on displacement (stupid rule, as many higher displacement engines get better gas mileage than those making similar power with less displacement), hp/l means absolutely nothing.
I wouldn't call a heavier and larger engine that makes similar horsepower to a smaller and lighter engine "better engineered", based meerely on the fact it displaces less. If anything, it's engineered worse, as it takes up more space, and ways more, but puts out less power.
11-21-2004, 07:23 PM
#34
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Kingstown, RI
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrH
I seriously hope you're kidding. There is NOT a direct correlation between engine size and/or weight, and the displacement of it. Larger displacement does not mean a larger engine. Sure, there tends to be a positive association between the two given the same cam setup, but we aren't talking about similar cam setups.
If you have two engines, one making 400 hp, one making 300 hp, and happen to be the exact same dimensions and weight, yet the former of the two displaces over 5 liters, and the latter displaces just 2 liters, who cares about displacement? Unless you are racing in some sort of series, where the displacement of an engine is limited, or you live in the UK, where there is taxes based on displacement (stupid rule, as many higher displacement engines get better gas mileage than those making similar power with less displacement), hp/l means absolutely nothing.
I wouldn't call a heavier and larger engine that makes similar horsepower to a smaller and lighter engine "better engineered", based meerely on the fact it displaces less. If anything, it's engineered worse, as it takes up more space, and ways more, but puts out less power.
If you have two engines, one making 400 hp, one making 300 hp, and happen to be the exact same dimensions and weight, yet the former of the two displaces over 5 liters, and the latter displaces just 2 liters, who cares about displacement? Unless you are racing in some sort of series, where the displacement of an engine is limited, or you live in the UK, where there is taxes based on displacement (stupid rule, as many higher displacement engines get better gas mileage than those making similar power with less displacement), hp/l means absolutely nothing.
I wouldn't call a heavier and larger engine that makes similar horsepower to a smaller and lighter engine "better engineered", based meerely on the fact it displaces less. If anything, it's engineered worse, as it takes up more space, and ways more, but puts out less power.
Over a bimmer website that will remain nameless, they were trying to argue that by swapping a LS1 into a 3 series, you were ruining the car.
What they didn't understand that the LS1 weighed less and took up no more space then a regular inline 6 or even an S52 (E36 M3 engine) and offered much better performance and ease of modibility
(I think I made up that word).
Last edited by cueball; 11-21-2004 at 07:26 PM.
11-21-2004, 07:34 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cueball
Very well put.
Over a bimmer website that will remain nameless, they were trying to argue that by swapping a LS1 into a 3 series, you were ruining the car.
What they didn't understand that the LS1 weighed less and took up no more space then a regular inline 6 or even an S52 (E36 M3 engine) and offered much better performance and ease of modibility (I think I made up that word).
Over a bimmer website that will remain nameless, they were trying to argue that by swapping a LS1 into a 3 series, you were ruining the car.
What they didn't understand that the LS1 weighed less and took up no more space then a regular inline 6 or even an S52 (E36 M3 engine) and offered much better performance and ease of modibility
(I think I made up that word).Thanks.
Some people tend to think that the more it displaces, the larger the engine, which isn't true at all. The VQ35 Nissan makes is about the same size as an LS1 if I remember correctly.
11-21-2004, 09:50 PM
#36
Not anymore
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sticking with Honda's F20C. I wanted to go with the rotary, but the thermal efficiency is depressing. As for blown engines, I'm with the VQ30DETT, Nissan's newest monster.
11-22-2004, 02:48 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nojooc
For sheer engineering, I would pick ........... the S2K 2.0L motor.
What other production NA piston engine gives you that much hp from such a small displacement?
What other production NA piston engine gives you that much hp from such a small displacement?
-The formula one atlantic series 4age, 1.6L at 240 :D But that engine is not streetable, so yeah the s2k engine all the way.
11-22-2004, 03:30 AM
#38
'RX-EIGHT'
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shelleys_man_06
As for blown engines, I'm with the VQ30DETT, Nissan's newest monster.
What do you mean Nissan's newest monster?The VQ30DETT is the old 300ZX/Fairlady 3.0L V6 Twinturbo.
As for the post originally made by Aoshi Shinomori regarding displacement, I think what he was trying to convey was that there is a greater appreciation of a low displacement/high hp engine.
The reference to performance is to do with the overall efficiency of the motor's design and has nothing to do with a correlation between a vehicle's performance and engine size.
11-22-2004, 04:24 AM
#39
Forbidden Donut
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I almost posted the same thing about the VQ30DETT..
but then I realized the fairlady 300zx had a VG30DETT.
not the same critter
but I thought the VQ twin turbo was going to be a 3.2 litre, making it a VQ32DETT?
you are speaking of the engine which will go into the new GT-R, right?
I may be mistaken. As everything about said engine is still speculation as far as I know.
but then I realized the fairlady 300zx had a VG30DETT.
not the same critter
but I thought the VQ twin turbo was going to be a 3.2 litre, making it a VQ32DETT?
you are speaking of the engine which will go into the new GT-R, right?
I may be mistaken. As everything about said engine is still speculation as far as I know.
Last edited by dragula53; 11-22-2004 at 04:28 AM.
11-22-2004, 08:01 AM
#42
Not anymore
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would never refer to the VG-series block as the greatest engine. From what I know, I believe cylinders 5 and 6 have had trouble getting cooled, which led to problems on the track. Of course, this can be solved with the die grinder.
Anyway, the VQ30DETT is an all-dominant engine in the JGTC. Here's an example:
http://www.jgtc.net/race/2004/04team/04tm001en.htm
I must digress however. I think the best engine has to go to Toyota and its 1.5 liter hybrid engine in the 2004+ Prius. It's amazing in its own right, and it sets the bar higher for more fuel-efficient engines.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1450/article.html
Anyway, the VQ30DETT is an all-dominant engine in the JGTC. Here's an example:
http://www.jgtc.net/race/2004/04team/04tm001en.htm
I must digress however. I think the best engine has to go to Toyota and its 1.5 liter hybrid engine in the 2004+ Prius. It's amazing in its own right, and it sets the bar higher for more fuel-efficient engines.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1450/article.html
11-22-2004, 08:24 AM
#43
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got this from http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50638/index2.html:
1997 LS1 Weight (lb)* 459 (automatic) 503 (manual)
*These weights represent fully dressed engines and may change slightly depending upon final production configurations.
Someone said in the GM Inside News forum that he read somewhere that the LS2 is 15 lbs lighter than the LS1. Here is the URL: http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showt...0&page=2&pp=20.
Total engine weight for the 2.0 liter S2000 engine is 326 lbs according to http://www.hondabeat.com/article_details.php?ID=45.
The 2.0 liter S2000 engine makes 60% of the LS2's HP (240/400 = .6). However, the 2.0 liter S2000 engine is 67% of the LS2's weight (326/488 = .668; assuming the LS2's weight is 503 lbs minus 15 lbs = 488 lbs). In order to match the LS2, the 2.0 liter S2000 engine would have to lose about 33 lbs OR gain about 27 HP.
I wonder if the 2.2 liter S2000 engine weighs the same as or more than the 2.0 liter. The 2.2 is still rated at 240 HP but dynos side-by-side indicate it makes more than the 2.0. Still, even if the 2.2 weighs the same as the 2.0, it doesn't make up 27 HP.
1997 LS1 Weight (lb)* 459 (automatic) 503 (manual)
*These weights represent fully dressed engines and may change slightly depending upon final production configurations.
Someone said in the GM Inside News forum that he read somewhere that the LS2 is 15 lbs lighter than the LS1. Here is the URL: http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showt...0&page=2&pp=20.
Total engine weight for the 2.0 liter S2000 engine is 326 lbs according to http://www.hondabeat.com/article_details.php?ID=45.
The 2.0 liter S2000 engine makes 60% of the LS2's HP (240/400 = .6). However, the 2.0 liter S2000 engine is 67% of the LS2's weight (326/488 = .668; assuming the LS2's weight is 503 lbs minus 15 lbs = 488 lbs). In order to match the LS2, the 2.0 liter S2000 engine would have to lose about 33 lbs OR gain about 27 HP.
I wonder if the 2.2 liter S2000 engine weighs the same as or more than the 2.0 liter. The 2.2 is still rated at 240 HP but dynos side-by-side indicate it makes more than the 2.0. Still, even if the 2.2 weighs the same as the 2.0, it doesn't make up 27 HP.
Last edited by TyrellCorpNexus8; 11-22-2004 at 08:23 PM.
11-22-2004, 04:12 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TyrellCorpNexus8
So how much do the S2000 and LS2 (in the 2005 Corvette) engines weigh? That's the question.
The big badass will be the new 500 hp LS7 at ~482 lbs +/- 10 lbs which represents a 41% better power/weight than the Honda S2000 engine.
Last edited by babylou; 11-22-2004 at 04:21 PM.
11-22-2004, 04:13 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nojooc
What do you mean Nissan's newest monster?The VQ30DETT is the old 300ZX/Fairlady 3.0L V6 Twinturbo.
As for the post originally made by Aoshi Shinomori regarding displacement, I think what he was trying to convey was that there is a greater appreciation of a low displacement/high hp engine.
The reference to performance is to do with the overall efficiency of the motor's design and has nothing to do with a correlation between a vehicle's performance and engine size.
I wouldn't consider it too efficient if an engine with a similar size and weight could make more power.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
badinfluence
Series II Aftermarket Performance Modifications
6
08-31-2015 11:51 AM
cschoeps
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
0
08-06-2015 12:44 PM