The funniest part is that neither kingfang nor james actually have a clue what they're talking about. Some gems in those posts. If I had a 'trendy' signature quote I'd have loads to choose from... ha ha ha
Both of you - go and do some research on engines and on cars in general. And I don't mean GoogleResearch.
thats cold hard statistical facts not stereotypes
however there is a stereotype about short guys owning huge cars that im sure youve heard before
on a more serious note low end torque is largely irrelevant for anything other than drag racing and city driving both of which arent what you buy a sports car for anyway
Obviously if that was the case, nobody would have brought it up. It's quite known that they burn MORE OIL THAN NORMAL. Not the typical small amount.
Oh ok, ONLY Honda then :rolleyes:
Ok, Mr "OMG look at how much power an S2000 makes" :rolleyes:
Please find where I referenced my car in road course racing and get back to me. Lets not forget the huge price gap between my car and an S2000. Give me the same money and I'll run circles around it on any track.
So why in the world are you trying to compare a car with 240bhp/160ftlbs to a car with 240RWhp/300rwtq? You are an expert at contradiction.
Learn to read:
I never mention BHP on car forums where people know what they're talking about. When I say 240rwhp/300rwtq, they know what it means and don't try to compare cars like stock S2000s to it.
I can afford that luxury since my car doesnt need a close ratio gearbox to stay in a miniscule power band.
More ignorant low blows, very nice. Real men must build engines 100% by themselves, and including a close father must mean they're stupid (/sarcasm). Great proof that your argument is failing so you must look somewhere else. If you really want to know what I did, I'll just name a few things off the top of my head: Completely disassembled the original engine, brought the block to the machine shop for complete refresh, installed the crank, piston rings/pistons (and checked all clearances during that process), installed and degreed the camshaft, assembled and torqued down the heads, adjusted the rockers, installed the lower intake/fuel injectors/fuel rail....I can go on, but I hope you get the point.
Have you ever gone from 14x7 rims with crap tires to 17x8s with very nice tires? The difference is huge. It may not change the car's overall characteristics, but it hangs corners surprisingly well; way better than it did before.
Surely your sarcas-o-meter isn't THAT far gone
Thats fine, some people do.
obvious troll
Really? Your great argument has to resort to this? How pathetic. At least I clearly explain my points and give examples. You just use cheap personal insults and stereotypical claims.
Thats the thing...you obviously DONT know the difference since you're the one trying to compare cars that have a 50whp and 150wtq difference. Funny thing, you still haven't actually responded to my S2000 dyno argument. And hey look, another low-blow attack using a cheap stereotype...I didn't see that coming!
Did you read what I said? This is the engine in my dad's Chevelle, which has seen over 6k many times. And obviously we're never gonna upgrade any part of the engine from now on, so that whole "room to grow" thing is...wait...nevermind, you conveniently didn't read that part so I won't even bring it up.
I would insert a cheap personal insult...but nah...I'll just stick to my real argument, since it actually has substance.
I said that the speed is made in a completely different fashion between bikes and cars. Bikes easily have crazy power/weight ratios right off the bat...it's a lot tougher to do with full bodied cars, and requires the use of more cylinders, cubic inches, and much more overall power. Trying to compare cars and bikes in acceleration is horrible; even a relatively slow bike is going to lay waste to some pretty fast cars...but yet again, you're the king at horrible comparisons so I wouldn't put it past you.
Making excuses as to how my car still put down more power than a "high tech" stock S2000 can dream of for a fraction of the price? Guess that speaks volumes for the S2000. Either way, your argument fails. Hilarious.
Low end torque is good for getting out of low speed corners in road racing, among other things (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, my car is a daily driver. I built my engine accordingly; great for stop light to stop light power and good drag strip times. Though I plan to completely revamp the suspension in the near future and hit the road course. Unfortunately, the nearest one is a few hours away (VIR). And you may not buy a sports car for around town driving, but in most cases that's what it will be doing the majority of the time.
How about you enlighten us, Oh Master of Car Knowledge :rolleyes:
Part of the combustion process. IIRC it even tells you to check the oil level every 300miles or something, so anyone who has a Rotary engine killed due to oil starvation is nothing less than a fool that can't read.
Simply used Honda as an example. Not only are European/Japanese engines more technologically advanced and are obviously no less (arguably more?) reliable than many equivalent American engines. Thus disproving you when it comes to saying that "more technology is more to go wrong", since it obviously doesn't.
Simply used it to point out how pitiful American engines are for specific output.
Indeed if you're drag racing. Round a track (you know, with corners??) you'd be hard pressed. Besides, what good is a car in which the dashboard is made from pieces of wheeliebins stuck together.. after all, you can't really manipulate the pedals with a piece of plastic flapping about.
Because 240Rwhp is shit for an engine with a 5.4l capacity and says alot about America as a nation!
couldn't get more obvious(:
You don't exactly "know what you're talking about" either, more like you meet a bunch of conformists and fellow Americans that would screw their air intake on their V8 because it makes them feel patriotic!
It's not a luxury, it's a relic from the 1950's! Unless, shifting through a 6 speed close ratio box is too much effort...any form of exercise! :rolleyes:
I wasn't really arguing to begin with. I just like humouring you.
Just HOW close are you with your Father again?
As I said before, impact will be nothing when compared to a properly sorted chassis..
]
Shows just how serious you are exactly!
You forgot the 400kg weight difference!
6001
I'm all ears, I'd love to hear what you could come up with!
The fact of the matter is it's acceleration. A car that does 0-60 in 3.5 seconds is the same amount of acceleration that a bike produces to do 0-60 in the same time. I wasn't comparing acceleration, per se, simply that I have experienced very fast straight line acceleration, something which you implied I couldn't/haven't done.
I am??
First it's the carbs
Then the throttle cable
Then the bearings
What's next? Left a handbag in the front seat? Ya' miss de point.
only if its a rididuclously slow corner in a car that has its gearing completely off for that track
ie if its slow enough to drop out of the powerband in first which almost never happens on any track that matters
I'll stick with my 306 which doesn't burn any oil (not nearly enough to where the levels drop off, at least)
I know a few people that would say otherwise. But yet again, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the opposite spectrum as well. Like I said, it's more stuff that CAN go wrong, not that it actually WILL go wrong.
And I showed you how pathetic the S2000's power was compared to a cheap, bottom-of-the-totem pole American V8 build...
Blah blah blah, more stereotyping.
couldn't get more obvious(:
Hmmm, last I checked, my engine was 5.0L. Nah, you must know more about it than I do!
Yet another stereotype aside (wow I would love to keep count of all of them...), I will agree that I don't know everything about cars, hence why I keep my arguments within the realms of stuff I do know about.
I would actually love a 6 speed; just don't have loads of money to blow on one. And once again, a stereotype.
I'm very family oriented.
True, but the fact remains that the tires made a huge difference for me.
They run, what...low/mid 14s stock in the 1/4 mile last I checked? Stock 225hp/285ftlb 1988 5.0 Mustangs run that.
rofl
Nah, I'd prefer to stick to the discussion at hand.
How about in a car?
I see what you're getting at, but it's not considered an excuse when I'm proving a better point with what I'm making the "excuse" about (ie how my Tbird put down much better power than an S2000, even with its problems at the time). All of those things are 100% true, whether you believe them or not. And actually, there was no "excuse" about the carb, only the throttle cable in relation to the carb.
Weirdly, you've never replied to my post kingcars (http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1191529#post1191529) but I won't really bother anymore since I'm not gonna achieve anything. This discussion of yours and S14 is steadily falling into a argument more then a debate.
I'm just gonna say that you keep comparing your big american car to a mere S2000 which is just a combination of sport car performance and a daily driver commodities. Well what do you reckon about the Caterham Superlight R500? Truly a sport car that has been based on the "simply and add lightness" motto. It uses just a 2L engine yet I bet it can beat any of your american V8 in a straight line and without a doubt in the corners.
I think your car couldn't even outdrag a normal Superlight.
Sorry, didn't get around to replying to it. Since you mentioned it, I'll do it just for you!
Yes, I misinterpreted your post. Your point was not made clearly, IMO:
Please clarify more next time.
Maybe if they actually existed.
See above. Misinterpretation, I apologize. Also, the argument is mainly about American V8s, which I suppose have the specific characteristics for torque that you refer to.
You have no idea how badly I would love to have a Caterham. I think those cars are awesome and I definitely respect their straight line speed and agility. I doubt it could beat ANY American V8 in a straight line, but probably a good number of them...it's a very light mofo.
Also, I wasn't the one that started the S2000 comparison.
But it doesn't go wrong. FI (just one example of "modern" technology) is much easier and more reliable than carbs. You don't cold start issues and you don't get carb icing. Plus all the fuel injected bikes make a cool noise when you turn the key!
Oh so this is about pure power?
Truth hurts?
My mistake? 250bhp from 5L is 50bhp per liter, that's still dreadful. You get more from a lawnmower engine
It's true though. American cars interiors suck.
That's why nearly every American car is spec'd (or comes with) an Auto. Because "it's too much effort"
From last year when I ran my car...100% stock Mustang 5.0L engine, 100% stock AOD tranny, AND my Tbird is heavier than a Mustang. No wonder you're so ignorant if you believe that junk. Do some real research and you'll find stock 5.0 Mustangs running as low as 14.2.
That musta been cool. Not quite what I'm talkin about though.
Good job, you based an opinion on millions of cars based on personal experience with just 2. Perfect example of ignorance.
If you think I'm the only person to do such a swap, you're badly mistaken.
Strangely enough, that was my timeslip with the STOCK 5.0 engine, NOT my recently built 306 (didn't even have the 5 speed then either). Big difference. Learn to READ. http://jansontech.com/motivationals/objection.jpg
Here's my 1994 Ford Ranger XLT has around 380k miles on it... Still runs perfectly fine. The only thing(major) that we had to change so far was the front differential for the 4x4, and that's basically it...
I had the choice between this truck or my sister's old ford probe, that probe was a blast to drive, but it was automatic and I wanted a manual, which this truck is. And it has pretty good HP/TQ ratio also.
No, it's a well journalised fact. Check out ANY European car magazine you'll always find them judging the quality of the interiors as poor. Infact just watch a Top Gear episode without them taking the piss out of the interiors.
You keep brining up 4cyls. When this dicussion wasn't about V8's Vs 4cyl. It was about AMERICAN V8's vs everything that's actually decent.
Considering most American cars use the same, oh, 10 or 15 chassis with slightly different bodies bolted on top of them, I'd say it's pretty valid!
If you think I'd make such a silly assumption, YOU'RE badly mistaken. Maybe 5% of car owners swap for manuals, so that's a MAJORITY that don't.
Sorry what's that to do with anything?
So obviously disproven, since official testing shows 15.something I can't remember. You claim you ran a something 14. But wait, you claimed the Mustang can run with the S2000, which it can't! So
Take your(my) demotivational poster and shove it.
SidiousX : As I should have (perhaps?) clarified, the majority of people have Auto cars and/or would buy a car with an Autobox. nice truck
This discussion has been about small engines vs American V8s for quite a while now. Try to keep up!
Fail.
HAHAHAHA are you really this stupid? We were JUST comparing my 306 to an S2000 engine. So what does it have to do with anything? Oh, idk...maybe the fact that the stock 5.0HO has 70rwhp/30-40rwtq less than my 306 might make some difference; the difference between my car running a 14.6 and a 13.5. Seriously dude, get a grip on reality here. :rolleyes:
Official testing my @$$. 15.6 is absolutely absurd, especially since you wholeheartedly believe it. My HEAVIER TBIRD with the SAME ENGINE running a FREAKIN AUTOMATIC ran a 14.6. I did it MYSELF. And I'm not CLAIMING it, I've got the timeslip right there for you to look at (take a long good look at it http://img.photobucket.com/alb ... gcars/QuarterMileTime.jpg ). Proof is an area that your argument lacks severely in. What part of this are you failing to grasp?
And before you even try to do the "but that's a 93, not an 88!" argument, let me assure you that the Mustang did not change hardly at all from 1987-1993. The only difference is that it lost ~20hp when Ford went to Mass Air Flow in '89.
Don't be like "well i can go faster for cheaper" or your car goes faster. Your car is modified. Simple fact of the matter is, with "197rwhp" or whatever it is, the S2000 will go quicker..
I'm not the one losing track of the argument at hand.
I wonder what the chassis has to do with interior quality.
You're the one asking what the "deal" is over a 70rwhp difference...
But you're impressed by a 14.20 run by an S2000? A car with the advantage of 20 years of technology advancement and all it can muster is 4 tenths more than my car with 155,000 miles that I had less than $2000 in total, including purchase price? What a joke.
Like I said, there are stock Mustangs that have run 14.1s and 14.2s stock, so not really. Also refer to my above comment.
On another note, take a look at that S2000's trap speed in relation to the ET. 14.2 @ 96. Now, take a look at yet another stock Mustang making a pass:
14.4 @ 98. The S2000 is losing steam on the top end oddly enough (or it could be the other way around...you'd have to look at the timeslip), and 98mph is way high for 14.4, meaning there are a few tenths left to be had in the ET. Whether you like it or not, a 1/4 pass with a stock 1988 Mustang and a stock S2000 is a driver's race...and the Mustang is 20 years old.
Oh yes, let me just drop the entire argument that I've built and provided proof for. Great idea :rolleyes: . That's like if I were to say "Don't mention how the S2000 is lighter! Thats not fair!" You can't just revoke advantages. This whole argument started with someone talking crap about my 306, so that's what will be the center of the argument, plain and simple. Next time, try to have a real argument in your arsenal instead of constantly having to change the focus of the discussion to suit your needs.
If you think I'm arguing because I actually give much of a damn, you're wrong! I'm arguing because it's fun to be like this with you because you are obviously getting annoyed by it! Muaha
Well, in America, both are generally terrible. So I guess nothing.
Obviously nothing in acceleration as I've already shown, and around a track the S2000 would be miles quicker. So infact there is no deal what so ever.
ZR1 rated at 638bhp/604lbft
Deliverd 505/494 at the wheels.
That's a HUGE loss, that's what? 130 bhp? You've lost a Ford Mondeo engine worth of power.. crazy
Who knows the mileage of that S2000. I saw Top Gear recently with Hammonds own "classic" (decent ones!) Mustang, supposedly producing something like 230 when new, and when dyno'd it was producing like 175 or something. Now I very much doubt that when new the car had much more than 175bhp. Only an unhealthy engine with clogged injectors/carbs, poor spark plugs, knackered piston rings, etc, will produce less power. And trust me less power would be the least of your issues if you had an engine in a state to have it affect output.
It's 5am so I understand what I've just written may be a little hard to follow. Basically, your engine isn't going to be significantly less powerful just because it's done XXXXXX miles.
It also points out that your engine probably has "lost" very little power just by doing distance. Engine's don't just magically "lose" vast chunks of BHP just because they have been round a few times. In actual fact a used motor produces more HP than a new one.
Back to the S2000, the fact is it's a 2L 4cyl, it's smaller than half the size and has half the cylinders. Who says there's no replacement for displacement? I call it vtec. And it just kicked in yo!
13.9
Shorthand for the S2000 is quicker
Did it hurt your ickle 306's feelings? Are you huggling it in a blanky and kissing it better?
All throughout you've been going on about "blah blah you can't go faster for cheaper". Your car standard would be dreadful. Even after you've put bolt on parts from magazines that say it will make it go faster, it can still only JUST about keep up with a 2 litre convertible. It's pathetic.
You're trying to tell me that going from ~185whp (the stock 5.0 that was in my car) to ~255whp (306) doesn't yield any acceleration difference? rofl
That's a 21% drivetrain loss, definitely not unheard of (505/638 = 0.79). The S2000 dyno chart that I previously posted shows 193rwhp at peak. Divide that by 240 and you get 0.8. That's a 20% drivetrain loss. Also, just for fun, lets account for a 20% drivetrain loss on my 240rwhp dyno sheet. The answer is 288bhp. So what was that about me trying to make my engine seem more powerful, when in fact, the numbers are one in the same?
Some mileage is good for hp, but you don't seriously think that an engine is running at optimum power after 155,000 miles, do you? It really differs from case to case, honestly. Some cars will lose compression, others wont...stuff like that. Just depends.
Too bad VTEC doesn't provide any torque.
2-3 tenths of a second is a door to door race and can be easily be affected by a slightly bad shift, altitude difference, weather conditions, etc. Lots of variables; so like I said, the winner of such a race will vary.
Nope, don't have to. It feels better every time it annihilates a snobby hotshot driving a 4cyl.
The 14.6 was with the stock 5.0. After the so called "boltons" (since when are things such as forged pistons considered boltons, anyway?), my car is set up to lay waste to the aforementioned 2 litre convertable for FAR less money and without that extra 20 years of technology advancement. How pathetic.
And btw, I didn't get my setup from a magazine, I got it from the experience of tried and true combinations - combos used very often in the real world, not in magazine tests.
The bits where you tried to discuss the merits of engine layouts, but completely misunderstood stroke lengths. The bits where James shows how little he understands about gearing (re: overdrives, close ratios etc). The bit where you both show how little you know about power and torque, how it's measured and what they do. How both of you are comparing cars, yet don't understand what you are trying to compare (re: torque/power curves). Where James thinks that all markets what specific output, and when both use approximations and then say approximations are bad (it's not a 5.4, it's a 5.0; it does rev over 5.5k, I took it to 6 once; etc). When either of you use phrases like "Properly Sorted Chassis" without having the first idea what it means. When James says tyres only improve grip, not handling (despite claiming the exact opposite in the motorbikes thread, where he also demonstrated his extreme ignorance of all things technical). James' lack of comprehension of carburettors, mechanisms and electrics/electronics). Phrases like "Pure Power". Trying to brag over who's been in the quickest car. James demonstrating he's never been in an American car by commenting on the interior build quality of 'most of them'. Relying on silly image links or schoolgirl stuff like "GTFO" as a retort (James did that in the other thread too). Fast acceleration, eh? I never knew speed could be used to quantify the rate of change of speed. Using Chassis Sharing as an example of crapness, whilst forgetting that the Europeans do it even more... Claiming that American engines are rubbish because of a rolling road readout, yet totally failing to understand what he's trying to compare...
I could go on...
You're both way out of your depth. James more so. And I know you think your real name is Jamie, but as Jamie is short for James I'll stick with James.
(not nearly enough to where the levels drop off, at least)
