or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › I want a high bhp/litre ratio engine damn it!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I want a high bhp/litre ratio engine damn it! - Page 2

post #16 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS
Which car?

Jon.

Volvo S60R.
post #17 of 46
No fair comparing forced-induction engines with NA engines! Nissan twin-turbos have been chipped to go over 1000 HP. I met someone with one at a driving school, and he said he detuned it to "only" 700 HP for the school. BMW's turbo F1 engine in the 80s used a 1.5 L 4-cylinder road-going motor block, and was estimated to produce in excess of 1500 HP, but no one knows for sure because no dyno could measure that high.

Motorbikes probably have the highest specific output for any road-going NA engine: 150 to 200 HP/L stock is common.

But again, I have to ask, why the obsession with specific output? Are you racing in a limited engine capacity class?

--Andre
post #18 of 46
All I do with my car is go up and down hills.
post #19 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt
Volvo S60R.

Andre took the words right out of my mouth. You can't compare turbo / supercharged engines with naturally aspirated. That's why I asked, because it was odd that you had a NA engine with 120 bhp / liter...and alas, you don't.

It is a nice car though, either way.

Jon.
post #20 of 46
That EVO is really snazzy looking. It's quite a bit sleeker than the boxier IV-VIII. Looks almost GT-Rish to me. But damn.. 4 mpg?
post #21 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkNWorn
I think Clarkston in Top Gear said it needs service every 4,000 miles, particularly the turbo. It is indeed not a very practical car, but it is a perfectly street legal production vehicle, STOCK! I can't think of any other street legal, stock, straight from the factory, kind of cars that will give you this kind of bhp/litre bang for the buck.

Ya, it needs an oil change every 4,000 miles. That engine is really not that over the top. The 4G63 block is a workhorse and has been for the 15 years it's been used by mistu. In the aftermarket, that 2.0 liter can easily make upwards of 500 hp with some somewhat basic boltons. After that, you can get creative and power and torque is limitless. Cast iron blocks with 15+ years of tuner experience yeild great results.

I think the next gen evo, which will share one of the world platforms (probably the same 2.4 liter in the caliber) is a step backwards for the evo.

Also, the S2000 increased displacement a couple years ago.. its now a 2.2 liter. The HP stayed the same, but torque increased. Honda was catching flack over the lack of low end grunt... a shame, really, as the car was perfectly balanced and tuned.

I'm making about 140hp/liter on pump gas, but I've got forced induction on my side..
post #22 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD
That EVO is really snazzy looking. It's quite a bit sleeker than the boxier IV-VIII. Looks almost GT-Rish to me. But damn.. 4 mpg?
Yeah, 4 mpg is pretty shitty for a 400 bhp engine. After all, the Veyron gets 4 mpg, but it has 1000 bhp… Jon.
post #23 of 46
high output/litre engines are appealing because they need incredibly fine engineering to produce them. while i like fat cubic inch american v8s, they are, for better or worse, truck engines.

i think the honda s2000 has the best, but it is supposed to be a bit low in torque. honda have been doing this for years, their s800 back in the 60s revved to about 8.5k rpm, amazing for a production car back then. i see soichiro honda as being the japanese colin chapman.

from my limited knowledge i think the prev. gen. m3 has one of the most effective n/a high output engines with 333 bhp (i think) out of 3.2l and enough torque to haul a saloon bodied car laden with gizmos with no problems at all. in fact the m3 csl gets more bhp out of the same engine i think.

the lotus exige pushes 190bhp out of 1800cc, but it's fly weight.

about beemer going to turbo, they were one of the first manufacturers to release a turbo'd prod. car - 2002 ti i think - along with saab and chevrolet, with chevrolet just being the first (if i remember correctly)
post #24 of 46
Thread Starter 
BMW is going turbo because they can get a lower liter engine to produce just as much or more horsepower than a NA engine, while at the same time, getting better MPG than a NA. Plus, with the correct amount of piping and design, you can get rid of turbo lag. Especially if you use two small turbos like BMW is using in the 335i engine.

Jon.
post #25 of 46
I am curious to see if the VW supercharger/turbocharger experiment will net anything interesting. But my choice on that would be this old fogey, the Lancia Delta S4. Talk of a monster... 1.8 litres, 460 bhp, http://www.walkers-garage.co.uk/s4_new.htm
post #26 of 46
Sort of related; caught this on Autoblog today. This would probably be a blast to drive! http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/28/f...es-a-comeback/
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by briancl
Also, the S2000 increased displacement a couple years ago.. its now a 2.2 liter. The HP stayed the same, but torque increased. Honda was catching flack over the lack of low end grunt... a shame, really, as the car was perfectly balanced and tuned.
Huh? A car designed to burn off huge chunks of clutch just because someone dares to try to pull away from a stoplight on a hill is hardly "perfectly balanced". Because it's such a damn pig - 2800lbs, almost as much as GM's Solstice! - the S2000 just plain needed more low-end torque then its original engine was tuned to give. Beyond that, I don't like the hp/L metric. What would be far more interesting a set of metrics to me are hp/lb (including ancillaries) and lb-ft/lb. Or, if you prefer, kW/kg and Nm/kg. That's still on paper - an an engine that looks great on paper but is a lumpy, bad-sounding wretch to drive still sucks - but at least it measures something of direct and obvious relevance in tying power to mass. My current car, with 160hp or so from a blown 1.6 I4, does well on that metric, but more poorly on my favored metric because of its iron block and iron blower casing. Ironically, some of the GM pushrod designs would look better than they do under hp/L measurements. Hopefully the engine in that drop dead sexy Fiat Abarth concept above would do better than the Chrysler lump in my BMW-made British-branded car...
post #28 of 46
Quote:
Motorbikes probably have the highest specific output for any road-going NA engine: 150 to 200 HP/L stock is common.

Motocross bikes can be up there too. The 193 ccm motor in my KTM 200sx, with motor work, puts out appx. 44 horsepower, that's appx 228 HP/L !! And the bike weighs just under 210 lbs dry, 225lbs gassed up. I'd need to pump my WRX up to 460HP to hit that ratio.

Maybe you need a 2-stroke car engine
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGladwell
Huh? A car designed to burn off huge chunks of clutch just because someone dares to try to pull away from a stoplight on a hill is hardly "perfectly balanced". Because it's such a damn pig - 2800lbs, almost as much as GM's Solstice! - the S2000 just plain needed more low-end torque then its original engine was tuned to give.

The S2000 is the wrong car for stoplight drag-racing if that's your thing. I'm on my second one (2000 lease, then a 2004 I bought) and have tried both engines. I have enjoyed both. The original hit the 120hp/L with a redline just short of 9,000rpm. Power was there but you had to be in VTEC (6000rpm) to feel it, and the high engine revs at highway speeds in 6th made the car drone a bit. The '04 model's 2.2L engine has noticably more torque so that you feel "good" passing power around 4K rpm, however the redline is nearly 1,000rpm lower so the rush doesn't last *quite* as long. Mine's a daily driver (65K miles already on the '04) so the extra torque for day-to-day use is welcomed.

I agree that the S2000 is a somewhat heavy car. I think it's a stretch to compare it to the GM cars - those are a lot heavier with weaker bodies and a lot less power. And compared to most other contemporary roadsters (SLK, 350Z cabrio, crossfire cabrio, Z4, etc.) it's actually very light. The Boxster is much more competitive (similar weight, more stuff) but costs $20K more. It's the Miata that makes the S2000 look like a "pig" - the Miata really is something special, considering what you get (driving experience) for the price. However, having come from a Miata before the S2K, I can say that the S2000 feels like a much bigger car. I barely fit in the Miata, but I do have a little wiggle room in the S2000.

Sorry to chime in on a dead post but I do think the S2000 is a fantastic car and it's a real surprise to me that nobody's buying it anymore. It's the same thing that happened to its immediate predecessor in Honda's "sporty car" lineup, the Honda Prelude; the 5th gen Prelude was arguably the best-handling FWD vehicle ever made, the only one I could actually *throttle oversteer* around a bend. It was built as good as any Lexus, had plenty of power, and was filled with real sports car DNA, but nobody bought it. The S2000, amidst Xfires and Zs and Z4s alike, is suffering a similar fate. If you want the motorbike-on-4-wheels effect better act fast, '07 is slated to be the last year for the S2000. '06 models can be had for not much more than invoice.
post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiego
It was built as good as any Lexus, had plenty of power, and was filled with real sports car DNA, but nobody bought it.
Overstating things a bit, aren't we? The only thing that's built like a Lexus is, well, a Lexus. There isn't any other car manufacturer out there with the same level of quality control. I knew someone who had a Prelude SH, and while it was well built, it was hardly a...Toyota.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › I want a high bhp/litre ratio engine damn it!