hey what up?? its been a lil while since iv posted but i just watched the best motoring amuse supra vs mine skyline vid again and the supra has 60kgm of tourqe at 3000rpm and they were making a big deal out of it cause it alot.
when i coverted it by just kgs it equals like 132 pounds but that aint right for sure, so i figured you have to covert it from 60kgm per meter into ft pounds and that equals 433ft lbs of tourqe. is that right??? if so thats bad *** considering no internal work was done to the engine to up displacement. ever more bad *** is that the gt-r performed even better than the supra with it 2.6l's.
i was just wondering if my numbers were right because if so thats more proof that technology is the replacement fo displacement and a lower displacment engine can respond better that a larger it its tuned right.
by the way if you havmt seen that vid(even though its old) its cool you should check it out its real funny when the guys hope in the gtr.
tourqe???
Re: tourqe??? (pushnlacs)
Your figure is correct. But why did you post this in the SR forum?
Of course a smaller displacement engine can perform better than a larger one. Check out the V8s from the 70's. Them made like 140 hp from 5.7 liters. But try making an n/a honda 1.8 liter as powerful and as driveable as a Carrera GT V10. Can't be done. Try making a Supra motor as powerful AND driveable as a twin turbo LS1. Can't be done. Bigger displacement is always better, as the same technologies can be applied to both.
Of course a smaller displacement engine can perform better than a larger one. Check out the V8s from the 70's. Them made like 140 hp from 5.7 liters. But try making an n/a honda 1.8 liter as powerful and as driveable as a Carrera GT V10. Can't be done. Try making a Supra motor as powerful AND driveable as a twin turbo LS1. Can't be done. Bigger displacement is always better, as the same technologies can be applied to both.
Re: tourqe??? (RMiller)
i posted in here because its the only section i post in and about performance that supra was making 433ft/lbs at by 3000rpm, that crazy that more than v8 or even v10, v12 supercars make at that low rpm.
and there are 2jz's puttuing out more than twin turbo ls1's and yea they are laggy but the ls1 turbo aint going to be to driveable either do to the exact opposite, every time u hit the gas with some force your going to spin the tires like crazy and the car will be real jumpy. and about the hondas theres 7 sec. hondas.
i much rather have a 240 w/sr20 pushing 400hp than a higher hp camero. theres a reason the japanese choose turboed 4 and 6 cylinder engines over big v8's(they have emm over there) and theres a reason imports got so big here. fact is u can build a 2.0l thats just as powerful and drivable as any v8 if you do it right(mabey excluding straight up dragsters,but when it comes to street cars yea) i dont wanna get into a debeate over this i just wanted to know if my figure was right because 433ft/lbs of tourqe at 3000rpm is bad ***. so thanks
and there are 2jz's puttuing out more than twin turbo ls1's and yea they are laggy but the ls1 turbo aint going to be to driveable either do to the exact opposite, every time u hit the gas with some force your going to spin the tires like crazy and the car will be real jumpy. and about the hondas theres 7 sec. hondas.
i much rather have a 240 w/sr20 pushing 400hp than a higher hp camero. theres a reason the japanese choose turboed 4 and 6 cylinder engines over big v8's(they have emm over there) and theres a reason imports got so big here. fact is u can build a 2.0l thats just as powerful and drivable as any v8 if you do it right(mabey excluding straight up dragsters,but when it comes to street cars yea) i dont wanna get into a debeate over this i just wanted to know if my figure was right because 433ft/lbs of tourqe at 3000rpm is bad ***. so thanks
Re: tourqe??? (pushnlacs)
But you're asking for one. If you took 2 sr20det's and made a v8 out of them, you would get twice the power. If you stuck a T88 on an LS1 and an SR20DET, the SR would make power from 6500 up and the LS1 would make power below 3000 and up. Not to mention the LS1 is already making plenty of power without the turbo assist. The SR isn't making any.pushnlacs wrote: fact is u can build a 2.0l thats just as powerful and drivable as any v8 if you do it right(mabey excluding straight up dragsters,but when it comes to street cars yea) i dont wanna get into a debeate over this
When I think of drivability, I think of not having to shift to merge on the freeway. I think of starting out in 2nd gear when you're too lazy to shift into first. I think of skipping gears when you don't feel like going through them all.
Your above statement is not right. You can make a driveable 1000 hp LS1. A 1000 hp 2.0 liter is only a drag car, and it's not driveable. There was a Motor Trend issue with a Lingenfelter twin turbo vette that had about 830 hp. It ran a 8.99 or something in the 1/4 (not sure). They said it got 17/24 city/highway mileage. You know off boost performance was great because it's an LS1. With small engines, getting ridiculous power means adding big cams, a high idle, and bad gas mileage among other sacrifices.
Don't think I don't love small engine imports, I drive one. I also drive a mustang. Between the 2 I like the Nissan better, but the Mustang does have its strong points. Response is way faster. I can drive at 40mph, then depress and dump the clutch at full throttle in 2nd gear and start doing a burnout all in less than a second. And it's more forgiving as far as clutch and throttle manipulation go because I probably have 80% of my peak torque under 2k rpm. The Nissan (it's a ca) is more finicky, but all the turbo noises win me over. And it's faster (barely). But if I depressed and dumped the clutch, since there's no real load I'd only get a max of about .4 bar before I start dumping the clutch, which woudn't be enough to do much of anything and I would probably just bog. Maybe not...maybe I'll try it sometime.
Edit: The Lingenfelter Vette ran a 9.24.
Modified by RMiller at 11:10 AM 11/26/2004