Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 15:01:49 08/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2003 at 16:22:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>Honda and Toyota both make engines like that. S2000, RSX, Celica, probably some >>others. If the S2000 puts down as much torque at 9000 as some other car at 7000, >>does it matter if it lugs at 1000? > >Yep. When starting from 0.0 mph, one has to go through 1000 RPM to get >to 7000. :) Sure, if you're driving to the grocery store. >>I don't have the time to go looking for any specific datapoints, but if your >>stroke is much longer you're going to get more torque per cylinder, right? So >>why do you think it's impossible for a V6 with a really long stroke to make more >>torque than a V8 with a really short stroke? Surely there's some crossover >>point. > >Simple. We were talking about "equivalent". IE yes, a 6 liter v6 should >make more torque than a 3.4 liter V8. But nobody does that. IE if you use >a v6 bore/stroke of 4.0/3.0, I'm going to use the same in my V8, and have >33% more displacement. And 33% more power strokes. And more torque. But I'm talking about using different bore/stroke #s across engines. You said it's impossible for a V6 to make more torque than a V8 with the same displacement, or something like that, right? You didn't add the clause that they have to have the same cylinder shape (sorry, does "geometry" work better for you?). >>No exhaust (not "less exhaust") means the turbo doesn't spool. I know from >>experience that you get at least some boost from an Eclipse when you launch at >>5000 RPM. And plus, what car takes any significant amount of time to get to ~10 >>MPH, where a typical turbo will be hitting max boost in 1st gear? (Which is the >>only time you should even possibly be seeing turbo lag in a drag race.) > >Yes, but do the math. If at the end of 1 second, I am doing 25 mph, and you are >doing 15, you are _never_ going to catch me. I will be pulling away for the >rest of the race, even if our acceleration is identical after 1 second passes. Sure, but it's not like turbo cars stand still for the first 10 MPH. They still accelerate, and if you launch them then you start out with at least some boost. You're not convincing me that turbo lag will guarantee a loss at the track. >>Fine, there are still other variables. It's easy to find circumstantial evidence >>to prove my point: check out the Evo 8. 2L turbo I4 making 271 HP and it's >>pretty much exactly as fast as a Corvette with a 5.7L V8 making more (345?) HP. >> >>-Tom > >I don't believe it for a minute. IE the Ford cobra (2003) makes almost 400 >horsepower blown. It can't take a C5 corvet (non-Z06). See this month's >Motor Trend magazine. 271 horses won't touch a corvette. The Cobra is .1 >second slower in the 1/4 mile. Okay, don't believe it, but these are easily verifiable facts and you're just going to look like an idiot if you don't "believe" it and you end up wrong. I may look this up in my magazines when I get home, but I did find on Motor Trend's website this morning that the Evo 8 does 0-60 in 4.6 and 1/4 in 13.3. I remember that the C5 usually does 0-60 around 4.8 and 1/4 in the low 13s. -Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.