Internet is only entertainment to me!! But again you have a straight line car, if I wanted a straight line rush I'd build a bike...LOL Each to their own!!Originally Posted by boosted347
umadbromy 5.0 shitstang is special though, its not an na b series
Will I not like you when youre angry lol and yea its all entertainment...and naw my car turns just fine actuallyInternet is only entertainment to me!! But again you have a straight line car, if I wanted a straight line rush I'd build a bike...LOL Each to their own!!I have an na 4 cylinder also so I know how it feels to be slow
but you right to each there own
1990 Mustang Coupe...turbo lq4 through the glide
I don't see a 90/10 and a skinny turning very well...LOLWill I not like you when youre angry lol and yea its all entertainment...and naw my car turns just fine actually
Who said mine is 90/10 lol
1990 Mustang Coupe...turbo lq4 through the glide
common swap, i just assumed...lol
naw man mines not a common drag setup mustang...i know you dont know the car but its a convertible so no drag racer here lol
1990 Mustang Coupe...turbo lq4 through the glide
lol, it's boosted with 2 turbos.. It's no turd, low boost is sick i'm sure..
Fixed for ya lol but its about to get alot sicker within the next few weeks and even better by christmaslol, it's boosted with 1 turbo... It's no turd, the only boost setting it has is sick i'm sure..
1990 Mustang Coupe...turbo lq4 through the glide
Mmmm, mo boost plz!!! LOLFixed for ya lol but its about to get alot sicker within the next few weeks and even better by christmas
Only two? Shit its not sick unless it has atleast three everybody knows that .
252plus hp and 34.5 miles to the gallon all motor. 12.2 at 111
Bugatti Veyron has four bitch!!! MO POWAA!!!
http://youtu.be/LO0PgyPWE3o
lmao. That just means he is super sick . I know you have already dynoed that b series. I mean was it so nad you want post it up ?
252plus hp and 34.5 miles to the gallon all motor. 12.2 at 111
I haven't seen a dyno!! that is the truth..
May actually see double digits lol
1990 Mustang Coupe...turbo lq4 through the glide
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I have spent more time on the track than you have. And no, I'm not what you would consider a drag racer. It's too slow to beat a lot of cars, but its fast enough to beat any car that you own. It's not that I am fast, its that you are that slow. You're that dick in the parking lot that thinks he can beat the world with his NA 4 cyl ecomony car.
I have put on a few pounds lately, but most people wouldn't think I'm fat. Slow guys want to argue hp per lite - fast guys talk track times. Guess which one you are? I don't have Vic Jrs, blower came with the car when I bought it, my cam is just a little E, no 600 lifts here. It is not unique, but are you trying to say that NA 4cyls are unique? Seems that there are more of them in this thread than foxbodys. My car is not setup for drag - and it can go around RA just fine - and better than you can get your Civic around it. How's your FWD doing for drifting?
You fail again.
Even if you bought the baddest Mustang on the planet, you could never be as cool as me. You just never will be cool. What a person drives does not determine their "coolness" factor.
You talk about racing, but YOU have nothing to race. You are always trying to run someone else's car - and that makes you lame and a loser.
it's not my fault that you chose the wrong platform to spend your money on. You choose a car that is fine if you are going to do class racing, but you don't do that. You talk about running on the streets, where there are no classes - just who's fast, and who isn't. If you have to have someone else run for you because your car isn't fast enough to hang with my mostly stock foxbody, then you just have a stripped down economy car.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Agreed. Bikes are cheaper to build.Internet is only entertainment to me!! But again you have a straight line car, if I wanted a straight line rush I'd build a bike...LOL Each to their own!!
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
stock S2000 makes 100hp/liter, since i owned one does that make me cool now ?
HP/Liter is always in a hondas favor, thats easy to brag about.
i made over 135hp/liter several times on several cars, it was still a honda
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Endyn sucks, never send anything to Larry. He lies and talks more than bobby, which i didnt think was possible
if you want a ported Honda head the best people (IMO) are Brad@RLZ, Portflow is VERY consistent, DonF if you are serious about making power
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Thanks for bringin this up, i was gonna say its a lot easier, per say, to make 100hp/liter when the displacent is 1.8-2.0 etc...especially all motor on pump gas...its kinda hard to get a 5.0l to 500 whp NA on pump...thats alot of power
1990 Mustang Coupe...turbo lq4 through the glide
This, and also they are an easy way to own something fast lol
1990 Mustang Coupe...turbo lq4 through the glide
P-port 13B's can make 300rwhp - and are only 1.3L.
One of my old GSL-SE's was standard port, and with just exhaust it made 156rwhp at 1.3L - so its not just Hondas that make hp/liter.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Hmmmm just thinking... is it hard to make 100hp/liter because it is a larger engine... or is it because the engine says "made in the USA"?
TVR, BMW, Aston martin, and a couple others don't seem to have any problems building 100+ hp/liter V8s
I don't see any 100hp/liter domestic 4 bangers...
built Honda engines are making 140hp/liter...
built domestic engines are struggling to reach 100hp/liter...
of course 9 times out of 10 this leads into rambling about drag cars which makes me lol... because those engines are nothing at all like what comes in any domestic car.
so... this RSX makes about 140hp/liter on pump gas with oem castings and geometry, just different internals. I'll bet that never happens with a domestic engine, ever. By the time anyone gets close we'll have come up with something other than internal combustion engines.
And they also fire twice as often as a 4 stroke, so if you want to compare apples to apples they should be considered a 2.6L
edit... I'm wrong. on a 2 rotor it fires 3 times per revolution on each rotor... so you have 2 full cycles, 2 66% completed cycles, and 2 33% completed cycles in 1 revolution = 4 cycles...
now look at a 4 stroke 4 banger, in 1 revolution you have 4 50% completed cycles = 2 cycles.
hehe
Last edited by Moseley; 06-28-2011 at 09:57 AM.
Yea you also pay out the ass for those euro v8s that do it too right since we all know an m series bmw cost the same as a mustang right...wont take it from the euros they make solid v8s for sure
1990 Mustang Coupe...turbo lq4 through the glide
very true... I was just using them as an example to say it is possible. the new 5.0 is almost there... best bang for the buck for sure.
But the argument can also be made, as it has before that hp per liter is irrelevant, performance is all that matters whether it be 1/4 mile time or RA lap time, each car has its ups and downs as does each motor...argument will never cease or resolve itself so to each their own
1990 Mustang Coupe...turbo lq4 through the glide
i really need to stop making general statments in this forum cause then it gets picked apart to death LOL
You cannot count Rotaries for obvious reasons.
If we are talking ALL MOTOR i know of a few 100hp/liter 5.7L LSJuans, or close to it NA.
My point was Hondas are pretty easy to make 100hp/liter, its nothing special, like i said STOCK hondas come with that hp/liter off the showroom floor. hell the RSX and the old Civic SI were 100hp/liter off the showroom floor. Maybe not 100 WHP , but are we talking BHP or WHP?
But people find the bigger the motor the harder it is to reach 100% VE which is all hp/liter means. Honda CONSISTENTLY operate beyond 100% VE because of VTEC and other restrictions, but there comes a point where no matter how big the motor is, you cannot fill the cylinder or flow the air in is ingesting no matter what size cam, header, intake you have. You reach the threshold of how much air a motor can move pretty much and that grows with the size of the motor.
There comes a point where the displacement will give you TQ, not HP (think diesel engines). Is there a cam on the market or a head porting good enough to really produce 100+% VE out of a 2.6L K Series or more? the answer is no, you will always be limited.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
LOL take off that turbo and we'll runBut the argument can also be made, as it has before that hp per liter is irrelevant, performance is all that matters whether it be 1/4 mile time or RA lap time, each car has its ups and downs as does each motor...argument will never cease or resolve itself so to each their own
Awwwhow bout the hatch
Case in point i had a long talk with John at Hytech years ago over an IPS built 2.6L stroker motor (or maybe it was 2.7) and basically it was this $20,000-30,000 motor (if someone wanted to reproduce it at the time). It had custom crank , cams, header, pistons, rods, etc there was NOTHING off the shelf in the motor. IPS liked to use big fancy words and high definition pics.
well when it was done it made something like 300whp/250TQ . All the IPS people and customers were so impressed, but i was not. So like i normally do i asked questions and Ron got pissed off because i didnt agree with him.
My post simply said "so you have a $20,000+ motor that makes less power than Skunk2s OLD race car motor you can buy fully assembled off their website for $9500. What is the point?"
If someone wanted a 250TQ engine there is far easier ways to do it, Supercharge, buy a v8, etc. I just didnt see the point and i didnt understand why people were congratulating him on building a motor that for all intensive purposes because of money and output, was simple, unimppresive. That motor served ZERO purpose. But he acted like it was some great feat that deserved praise.
Well anyway i was doing some header testing back then and i was on the phone with John and since i knew he was doing K20 stuff, and i know he did alot of Grand Am stuff i asked him about it. And it made sense:
He said in his opinion (now remember this was YEARS ago before there was anything for the K24s) that the best engine size is 2.0l. It was the most efficient. The cams, valve sizes, head porting, etc all was geared toward that engine size and it was very easy to make that motor reach maximum VE. The problem with IPS 2.6 or 2.7L motor was as he put it "there isnt a valve big enough you could put in that head that would maximize the cam needed to match the intake plenum and fill the cylinder in time." Turns out as time when on he was right. You are so limited as you go up in engine size. Cam size means nothing without the right valve size which means nothing without the right porting, and so forth.
You WILL reach a limit at some point. That limit you WANT to be 100% or greater volumetric efficiency. But that is not always the case. I mean you cant port a B honda head big enough to flow 400CFM, its just NOT POSSIBLE because there isnt enough material. Period. You can only run so big a cam, etc.
Which leads me back to the point that the hp/liter argument is very easy to win with a honda, because they have proven over time their 2.0l are just so efficient and well built. its a smaller motor which is easier usually to work with. 2.0l 4 cylinder is prob one of the most efficient motors ever created, on any platform, from the Sr20DET to the K20, to the 2.0l Cobalt motor, etc.
Now as time has gone on, it seems the K24s are being developed and there IS stuff on the market now that can produce awesome results. There are cars making 120-140hp/liter out of the K24 motors, and thats really impressive. But the 2.0l B Series did that years ago. Erik Aguilar made 150 in 2002.
Again , bigger the motor, the harder to produce hp.liter
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
all true... I just wanted to make the point that with a lot of imports the OEM parts or the overall design of the engine is such that you can reach these power levels without serious modification. If you stray from "what can I do with OEM designs"... then we'll be sitting here comparing top fuel to F1 or some stupid shit like that.i really need to stop making general statments in this forum cause then it gets picked apart to death LOL
You cannot count Rotaries for obvious reasons.
If we are talking ALL MOTOR i know of a few 100hp/liter 5.7L LSJuans, or close to it NA.
My point was Hondas are pretty easy to make 100hp/liter, its nothing special, like i said STOCK hondas come with that hp/liter off the showroom floor. hell the RSX and the old Civic SI were 100hp/liter off the showroom floor. Maybe not 100 WHP , but are we talking BHP or WHP?
But people find the bigger the motor the harder it is to reach 100% VE which is all hp/liter means. Honda CONSISTENTLY operate beyond 100% VE because of VTEC and other restrictions, but there comes a point where no matter how big the motor is, you cannot fill the cylinder or flow the air in is ingesting no matter what size cam, header, intake you have. You reach the threshold of how much air a motor can move pretty much and that grows with the size of the motor.
There comes a point where the displacement will give you TQ, not HP (think diesel engines). Is there a cam on the market or a head porting good enough to really produce 100+% VE out of a 2.6L K Series or more? the answer is no, you will always be limited.
regarding the cam / head for a 2.6L K... I think they exist, but a 2.6L is a stroker setup. so in order to reach 100+% VE on the larger Ks you need to abandon the OEM spec... which is probably true for all engines. Anyone can take a platform and throw money at it to see results.
well obviously talking about your street builds, BAR HONDA had H22s making 350whp in england with the heads turned around backwards.
I dont think Bobby wants to tackle that one :P
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Maybe that is what Nemo's engine builder was trying to do when he installed the pistons backwards... except then he forgot to put the head on backwards?
el oh el
11.7@116- All motor H2B Integra
lol touche
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Incorrect. Mazda, and every racing organization classify them as 1.1 L for 12a's an 1.3L for 13b's. Don't you think that racing organizations would have declared them as 2.6L's if they were? It is 1.3L per revolution of the eccentric shaft (it's crank). That is why they are usually grouped in the 6 cyl class - 6 faces firing in one revolution. Displacement is 3√3radius·offset·depth, multiplied with the number of rotors (note that this only counts a single face of each rotor as the entire rotor's displacement).
Now, why would you compare them to a 4 stroke? 4 stroke motors need 2 revolutions of the crank to complete a cycle. Rotaries do not have to make multiple strokes for the 4 phases of a combustion engine - they do it in one efficient stroke.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Rotary and efficient should never be listed in the same sentence
Rotaries are never in the same category as a traditional 4 stroke engine whether its racing class or HP figures because they are the oddball, different then everything else. So its hard to group 4 stroke engines into THEIR categories and vice versa.
Let me clarify the statement, 4 STROKE motors, EXCLUDING rOTARIES
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Actually, 4 strokes are the oddball - 2 strokes and rotaries are more similar than 4 strokes and 2 strokes.Rotary and efficient should never be listed in the same sentence
Rotaries are never in the same category as a traditional 4 stroke engine whether its racing class or HP figures because they are the oddball, different then everything else. So its hard to group 4 stroke engines into THEIR categories and vice versa.
Let me clarify the statement, 4 STROKE motors, EXCLUDING rOTARIES
Rotarys are very efficient at producing power - but not very efficient when it comes to utilizing fuel. They make V8s look like gas sippers. 4 cyls don't need an overkill of fuel to cool like rotarys - and that's a good thing.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Well even if it only displaces 1.3L per revolution it is also igniting 1.3L, compared to a 1.3L 4 stroke which ignites 650cc per revolution.
So technically a rotary, if compared to a piston engine displacement wise, should be compared to a 2 stroke.
I guess that is what I was getting at...
Lol... on my phone and didn't see your last response... I was going to say the same thing about fuel efficiency
Reply With Quote
