just starting out, what car to race?

[mytzlflick]

I have never been racing before so I'm a little lost, I would like to run an older model camaro, I understand how they work and the parts are cheap. will it fit into a class? will it be competitive in that class?
how much does it cost to run anyways? whats it like?

sorry if I'm a little lost but I have no idea what i am getting into, all I have is the desire to race.

[Shaman]

Welcome to Solo 1. :)

These are questions that we all ask: can my car be competitive?

Is the car modified? That would help us help you.

[ctenche]

Tell us some more about your car. What year and trim level is it? Have you done any mods to it?

[mytzlflick]

I don't have the car yet actually, I am going on tour to bosnia this year so I will be setting it up next winter for the 2002 season.
I will be looking for a second generation camaro or firebird, preferably a base model car with a 350 4-speed setup.
I will do whatever modifications I can get away with and still fit into the slowest catagory I can, I'd like to race it a season before I get carried away building it to go faster, no point in sinking a lot of money into something i might not like driving.

[Theo]

A second gen Camaro. That's cool, but it can be difficult finding anything race worthy that's more than 10 years old. It can be done but you'll pay a premium for a good clean car. It's a bit on the heavy side too, but I know they can be raced.

Here are some things to keep in mind with a older car. You'll find many of the suspension bits will be worn. If you replace them with mostly stock components, you can stay in a stock (slower) class.

Most people choose to replace worn parts with better aftermarket parts. Aftermarket stuff will put you into higher (faster) classes.

That said, you can buy a later model Camero with a 305, or Mustang 302 for relativly cheap and race that.
You'll still have to replace stuff, but it's a bit newer, and the suspension will be a bit more sorted out than an older car.

Some people may argue this, but a good car to learn is an Import. I have a bias towards Hondas, but there are many decent cheap, race worth imports out there.

An Integra, or a Civic are fun to drive, reliable, and handle well in stock form. But if you're a V8 guy, there's not a chance of you buying a 4-banger. Well I did, but that's just me.

The most important thing to remember is that the car isn't the focal point. It's the driving. You'll be so consumed with becoming a better driver, the car (as long as it's running relaiably) takes a back seat.

Damn I'm long winded. I'll shut up now.

It's great that you're interested. Hope to see you at the track.

BTW - Good luck in the Balkans!

[mytzlflick]

I don't mind old, I have already factored int he price of rebuilding suspension and all.
thing is I want a car I can move up in with minimal cash input.
I have a bmw 318i now, I thought about racing it but the cost of crashing is outrageous, the camaro has alot of parts cheap, heck i can buy three cars for what i in the bmw

[Shaman]

Go to http://www.globalwest.net/

Put the suspension pieces on, call GW and ask what else they recommend (I'm guessing subframe connectors, etc.) and go into the SS class.

Put on a less restrictive air breather, make sure the exhaust is as restriction free as you can make it without breaking class, and... drive well! :)

Make sure you read the Solo rules and figure out what you can do with points to stay in that class. #1 on my list would be a camshaft... the stock camshaft is pre-smoothed... ;) You can get a lot more out of that motor with that modification alone.

[Dave Barker]

2nd gen . heavy and bad . 3rd gen not bad but unless you have a 1LE car you would be better with a Mustang ( been there , owned one and raced one ). 4 th gen definitely better but runs in a higher class and costs more. I'm not sure with these good rear drive cars why you would want a front driver . The only way to make them interesting is to modify them enough to end up in a higher class although they are reliable .

[Shaman]

Anything with more power breaks more parts. That's just the way it seems to be.

[ADAM]

i would say that other than the power factor that the camaros or firebirds or mustangs bring, they are really not very good track vehicles...they are heavy, and the older models have outdated suspensions.... drive behind one in a nimble import and you will see how easy it is to eat them up in the corners....but when that v8 starts breathing on the straight...watch out.....

your bmw 3 series would be an excellent car to field...

[Shaman]

I dunno, Adam. When we see an small, nimble FWD import turn 56s on the DDT, then maybe I'll own one. ;)

I regularly eat up the little imports through the corners. The cars that give me more trouble are the FDs (3rd gen RX7) and other cars which have power to get out of the corner. What you might see is eating up the Camaro in the braking zone a bit, and through the early part of the turn, but at the apex they storm away...

The point being: there's more than one formula to taking corners quickly. Ed Luce gives me crap for braking so late with the smaller cars and scaring them off the track... Camaros reward a slow-in, fast-out, rotate-under-power methodology, while the low-powered FWD cars favour a smoother fast-in, maintain-speed, rotate-and-scrub method. Both work. Handling can be an aspect of torque! :)

I'd own an old early-70s 240Z with an worked aluminum smallblock, a Lancer Evo or a 3rd gen RX7, though. Maybe a 1G Talon AWD, and if I could afford it, an AWD Porsche 911. Yummy imports there, and not FWD.

FWIW, I'll be really ticked if I don't turn a 55.x on DDT this year ... I'm really hoping we'll run at least one day of the same reverse perimiter as we did last year. That was awesome fun, AFAIC.

[ADAM]

i agree, i would never own a FWD import...i can't stand driving a FWD car....
i would get a 4WD for sure like a talon though :)

i guess i have never been a fan of v8 power....although i always wanted a 71' fastback mustang with a 351 cleveland... :)

in most cases the lighter car will come out ahead...and with todays technology...there is replacement for displacement...as long as you move the same amount of air...the smaller lighter motor will always win.. :)

[Shaman]

I disagree vehemently.

The very fastest tube-framed, forced-induction 2JZ (Supra) and Skyline motored cars are running high sixes in the 1/4 mile today. Large displacement naturally aspirated V8s are pushing production-based chassis to 6.60s today with rules that don't allow them to go faster! That's not replacement for displacement at all... in fact, the direct parallel to those small-displacement engines is North American Funny Cars, which have touched high three second quarter miles. Those cars are so fast that they put up with 900hp parasitic losses from supercharging because they honestly don't want to go any faster.

There truly is no replacement for displacement. There is only catching up for a little while because the larger motor isn't as modified.

I have this argument a lot. The other issue is that all that turbo equipment adds weight, as does the overbuilt block, etc. required to survive overboost conditions if something goes wrong (with stock turbo systems, that is). A 300ZX, 3000GT, Supra Turbo are all significantly (350+ pounds) heavier than a C5 Corvette while having half the displacement. All three are heavier than my Firebird, as a matter of fact. Perry's Mustang is as light, and probably lighter than, Blair + Victor's Talons with an engine almost three times the displacement. :)

Incidentally, a C5 hardtop 'vette with a single turbo system at 8.5# of boost weighs under 3300 pounds and will push approximately 625rwhp (720hp crank) very reliably. This is a faster package than the one (one of the original turbo LS1s) that Lingenfelter drove to 226mph! The fastest "top secret, 1200hp" Skyline has only managed 203mph, which ARE's 2000 C5 entry into the Silver State Challenge almost touched with 198mph - a 6.6L LS1 naturally aspirated and fully streetable.

P.S. I remember having this same argument this summer while having lunch and sitting on Blair's trailer at the DDT. That was the day I ran a 56.8 with my car, and the next day I ran a 56.234. My car is well over 3600 pounds with me in it (probably 3700) and has full interior, no weight reduction to speak of and was on stock-sized tires (275/40). You might want to have a look (http://www.soloontario.com/event9and10.htm) where all the heavy big-motor ASP cars were in the pecking order that weekend, on a track that is nearly impossible to get real benefit from big horsepower on. :)

[ADAM]

ok...but lets get away from what exists to the theory behind it...

power is based on how much fuel you can burn...which is based on how much air you can get into the engine....

so...if you are able to burn equal amounts of fuel in a 1litre engine as you would in a 8l engine....while the 1l engine weighs 100lbs and the 8l engine wieghs 800lbs....the 1l engine will always win.....

because...we can change the displacement of the engine while still making the same amount of power

but we cannot change the laws of physics in regards to the MASS of the engine...that is the fixed portion here and a bigger engine using the same materials as a smaller engine will always weigh more....and that is the key on why smaller displacement engines in theory will always be better....

now you say that will never exist......well what if.....

someone makes 2l engine... that has ceramic piston sleeves...with titanium block, titanium rods, valves...head ect..that can withstand 100psi boost...runs on oxgenated fuel...it could create 5000hp.....mabey more

now do the same with the 8l v8...you might get 20000hp......

but once you reach the level where adhestion to the road becomes the issue(tires)........MASS will always win over...and i bet in the next 10 years you will see in the NHRA a small displacement motor taking over...because of the above reasons......given equal traction the car with less mass will always be able to acclerate harder....

please advise if my thoery is wrong :)

[ADAM]

sorry 1 more important point as well......

an 8cyl engine can NEVER match the frictional losses that a 4cyl has...thats another good reason...

[Shaman]

There are other issues... how heavy will the 1L block be to withstand the power that the individual pots produce? That's one issue to deal with. But I don't believe we'll see the small motor reach that point because the issues are more complex than that... there are the issues of fuel predetonation that are often solved by not requiring as much "squish" in a larger engine, and there are issues of adequate cylinder size to make the flame front burn long enough, since slow-burning fuels are required for high horsepower applications.

Have you ever seen a titanium connecting rod from a Funny Car? It's huge. Absolutely unbelievably strong. And yet, the connecting rods have to be replaced often and regularly in those engines. Each cylinder makes approximately 900hp in those motors - how will you find materials and design strong enough to wring 1300hp per cylinder and also thin enough travel up into those small cylinders? Then there's also the concept of boost efficiency, at 100PSI there will be all sorts of problems with efficiency - and you need all you can get with the smaller motors.

I think you're being short-sighted with your observations. Torque is more important than horsepower, and big, instant torque is built in big motors.

You may be right that the advances in forced induction start to produce some really seriously fast cars, but until I see one, I'm not convinced. And if it does happen, maybe the establishment will just switch to turbocharging and pick up 2,000hp+ and find some way to run 2s. :)

[mytzlflick]

well i will admit I like the lighter smaller cars to drive, if my bank account was unlimited I would run the beemer for sure. however for me getting into racing i want to run in the slowest class I can. also the cost of replacement parts has to enter into this, yes I could put a turbo on the bmw and go faster than the camaro everywhere, but when i hole a piston or whatever I will be out big bucks. a 350 chev sells for less than $500 and i can bolt it in a race with it. maybe not the fastest combo but I am really looking at fun per dollar factor right now.
besides nascars run on road tracks, for a while guys would get a big weight break to run a v-6, they stopped doing it cause the high output of the motor was worth more in lap times than the lightweight.

can anyone tell me, if I run the camaro, bone stock with the required safty gear, what kind of cars would I be running against? how much tire am i allowed to run under that without going up a class? engine mods?

just so you all know my theory is the engine goes up front and the rear wheels do the spinning.

[Lowerit]

Get a C4 vette ...all or more power than a camaro and twice the chassis.

[Shaman]

Hee. I dunno. I get by.

But my next car: C4 'vette so heavily modified that it'll only look like one. :)

[Dave Barker]

Rather than get into a debate about small engines , small car vs big engines , big car , the original question was about whether or not it would be worthwhile to build a 2 nd gen F body for the track , of which my opinion would still be don't bother . BUT seeing as we've gone beyond the original question , I think the acceleration , braking and balancing required to control a live axle RWD car is both more challenging and more rewarding than the point and shoot of either a FWD or 4 WD car. After all if you want to carry the light and small argument to the extreme get a shifter kart . They aren't particularly fast in high speed bits i.e. trap speeds at Fabi but they can do Turn 1 at Fabi flat out . Sounds like being a passenger on a thrill ride roller coaster but doesn't offer the same questions about when and where to brake , balance the vehicle and whether that live axle is going to stay put or not . Steve is also right about the fact that in general the A classes are faster than B or C especially on the pro track , Fabi and likely Cayuga , let alone if you go lapping at the big track at Mosport .

[Lowerit]

Thrill per dollar hard to beat a C4 I think. Cheap , runs low 14's stock , mid 5's to 60 , 155mph top speed, all independant suspension , reliable.. Lotsa guys run them very successfully without modding the hell out of them...

You can get a good car for 10 grand.. Heard of lots of guys swapping in ZZ4 crate motors , 100hp improvement with the proper injection setup. We plan to do this to ours sometime , kinda got put on the back burner when we got the 911. You can get a 355Hp ZZ4 for $4000 Canadian if you know the right people at a dealership. IF you throw on the stock TPI they dyno out at 270 Rear wheel HP , Beef up the TPI with a ported manifold and SLP runners you have a killer bulletproof combo.

[Shaman]

I'm looking for 650hp to the wheels, myself. :)

[Theo]

I *think* you'd be in A3, running against other pony cars.
Go to www.soloontario.com and you'll find the classification outlines. You'll see the allowable mods for each class.

[mytzlflick]

some of you people have a funny idea of racing cheap, I would be happy if I had a total of $4k in the car, I can't imagine spending it on the engine alone. and a c4 vette? not on my paycheques.
I went into the classifications and figured it out finally. as I see it I am in a3. so I get 8 points to modify the car and still be in the slowest class right?
as far as I can tell this allows me to do almost anything to the suspension for five points,would subframe connectors and solid bushings fall into that or no? then run an aftermarket intake and cam, plus a larger exaust on stock manifolds for the other three right?
however there is some confusion on my part as to what drivetrain I can use, is a swap to a 350 from a 305 if they were available from the factory allowed? or do I pay points for engine change?
basically if I can start with the hottest factory specs for that body style and then modify i will be a lot furthur ahead than If I have to meet the specs for a 305 budget model.
I also couldn't find anything on wheels tires and brakes. I can get 12 inch disks on there from a caddy easily enough, is this allowed? does it cost? can i run other than stock sized tires? I know I can fit a lot of tire under these cars.

thank you for the help guys, I know I'm kinda trying to push the envelope but seeing as an iroc camaro fits this class I knwo my competition will be stiff. however starting from the underdog position is the best way to learn what works and dosn't.

[Dave Barker]

Sorry to deflate your position but if you do the suspension mods , whether you use 8 points or just 1 point you will be in ASS2 which means you will be up against 4th gen LT1s and LS1s , as well as some really well done Mustangs . With all due respect , I think your mods will have to be VERY effective to run a 2nd gen car there although a well done 3 rd gen can be very effective given its greater number of prep points in ASS2 . The only way to stay in A3 ( STOCK ) is to build the car within OE parameters which is why I don't recommend it . BTW the comments on the C4 are all true but remember that those mods push it up in class to likely ASS1 which means you'll be seeing the new Zo6s which I hear will be running this year . Again they may well be beatable with the right prep but it will be a tough go and lots of $ .

[mytzlflick]

well I want to thank you all for the input, I am going to run with the 2nd generation car.
my reasons are simple.
1) I will have less into the entire car than some people have in tures.
2) parts are cheap and most people I know understand enough about them to help in setup
3) I want a slow car for now so I can learn how to drive more easily
4) cause its a bad idea and i feel like it.

anyone know what the fastest model I could run is and still be in a3???? some of those cars came with 427's after all. (I'll probably stick to a 350 for the weight distribution)

[ctenche]

I don't think anyone has answered your tire and break question.

You can use any size wheel/tire combination that you can fit on the car. The only caveat is that in Stock class you have to leave the fender alone. In SS you can roll the fender lip and in SP you can add fender flares.

Brake mods are free except that you must retain OEM rotor diameter in Stock class. Otherwise you can change everything else.

[ADAM]

steve...i agree that my theory is far fetched....but the point i wanted to make is that once we reach the adhesion limit of the tires...the smaller engine is better for racing.....it may be years before they could design an engine that could support 6000hp in a 4cyl motor.....and that we can't change MASS...

[mytzlflick]

ok just my 2 bits on this fast discussion, do you remember the height of the turbo era? f1 cars running 1600cc four bangers that made over 600 hp, unlimited budget engines and they couldn't keep em together very long, lasted one race then back to the builder. look at a well build small block chev, stroked small block to 427 can easily pass 600 hp, drive to and from work, last 100,000k, ok its not as light but the reliablity is a great asset.
second point, to have 600 hp from a four cylynder it has a powerband that looks like a pencil point on a graph, the chev has a lot more usable powerband, may not matter if you turn a perfect lap but the first time you botch it a little and come out of a corner a little too slow you'll love the v-8's ability to pull the gear.
anyone know what the hottest 350 specks for a 2nd gen z-28 camaro are?

[ADAM]

well well...v8 against 4cyl debate goes on :)

1= how the power looks on the dyno.. very peaky or wide power range really depends on your transmission...and for racing you want peak power(with a transmission that keeps it in the peak power range) ....ever diven a 2 stroke motor bike? really crap of the street but keep it in its power band...and watch out.....

2=regarding 1.6l honda f1 engines...they produced 1200hp.....now do that with a 427 :) also the 427 would weigh to much...remember MASS....it hurts you starting, stopping and transient changes.

what you want in racing is thermodynamic efficiency.....and N/A engines....especially big ones do not have that....

adam

[Shaman]

This is the point where I add once again that they have naturally aspirated V8s in the mid sixes @ over 200mph traps in production-based, back-halved chassis cars. To repeat, that's with no power adders whatsoever, just air pulled from the atmosphere without comperession or addition. :)

[mytzlflick]

first there is no tranny in the way on a chassis dyno.
we are talking road racing here, if you have a tranny that has the speeds to keep you in the power band fine, however any time spent shifting is time that is not spent accelerating. plus it adds more work to driving the car.

I still feel that a flexible engine is worth a lot more in traffic than all out power.
how much mass are we talking about here, whats a good four cyl weight? 300lbs? small block chev 600 lbs, add in aluminum heads and intake you'll be getting closer.

and in my "you guys have a funny idea of cheap" motto, chev engines must have the best horsepower to cost ratio going.

[Shaman]

Modern smallblocks are aluminum block and heads, and weigh about 400 pounds. They're no longer all that heavy.

A new Z06 'vette now weighs less than 3100 pounds. For a car that big and that loaded with features, it's very impressive - and considerably lighter than the Porsche 911 or M3, both of which have more "technically advanced", smaller motors.

I know they're not completely fair comparisons there, but the performance of the new Z06 speaks for itself. :)

[Lowerit]

From reading Gm hi performance I have heard the LS1 isn't as stong a motor as the old LT1. Lots of letters to the magazine saying give me back my LT1. Has any one noticed that the times for the Z06 don't seem to compute??


On one page of a Car Magazine you have an ad saying 0 to 60 in 4.0 sec..we have all heard te claimed 12 sec 1/4 mile times. The next page is a road test saying 4.6 seconds to sixty...Hmmmmmmmmmm. I have a Few video's I took from the drag strip in Norwalk Ohio , Z06's running low 13's , C5's running high 13's, Even the Mighty Viper was disapointing running 12.9's. This was at the Pontiac Nationals this summer , I hope to put the video's in AVi format this week, for all too see..

[ADAM]

ok...look at at this way...my little 240sx with my new turbo set up will be running in the 12's...all this for approx $10k...why spend $60k on a vette when my little 4cyl can keep up with it? plus the fun of demo'ing these v8's is 1/2 the fun... i already love to smoke mustangs with my NOS :)

if you want to have a car for the highways......nice even power curve is the way to go

if you want a race car.....you want peak power that is matched to the proper transmission so that you can carry that peak power through out the gears.....

remember.....gearing is how you win on the track.....and that means peak horsepower rules....not grunty torque.......thats why the acura type r's are so powerfull....they have peak horsepower at a high rpm.... :) and use thier gearing to thier advantage....

really...what does it matter how the power is made...as long as you have the lightest and most powerfull powerplant for the car? and right now...that is turbo charged 4cyl cars :)

[Lowerit]

How much boost , whats done to the motor??


V8's don't take much effort to make power. I can remember from our old merkur , it was as fast as my moms 5.0ltr mustang (merkur had a rebuilt turbo and a bit more boost (17psi as a pose to the factory 15psi). But you had to drive the living crap out of it for it to make power..The mustang has Torque all over the powerband. Get the merkur off the curve and it was a slouch.

Catch a 4cyl turbo off the power and it's a sittig duck for something with larger displacement.

[Shaman]

Hmm. Personally, I think the Integra Rs are bloody slow. It's the chassis that gets them reasonable lap times, definitely not the motor. Tony M. usually couldn't get within a second and a half of me in the full-weight, full-interior, full-street car of mine. Given the mods, weight of the car and calibre of driver (much more experienced than me), you're proposing that he should have killed me easy - but it doesn't happen that way, now does it? Get the two cars on one of the big tracks in the states like MIS, Road Atlanta, Sebring, Laguna... the gap would widen alarmingly. That dog won't hunt, Adam.

What's more, it's torque more than anything that makes my car as quick as it is. Check out this video (http://racing.kos.net/images/videos/Mosport-Wide.mpg) and watch how I messed up the first corner a bit, and just how fast my car gained speed again - that's torque. Horsepower is just a function OF torque. What you're seeing there is my car instantly picking up big speed because it can sort of "slap itself" out of the corner, even if it's well out of its peak horsepower range.

I ran a 56.234 on the track that day. There's a CD stack in the back of the car, trust me when I say the car is full weight. If torque is so unimportant as you surmise, where are my competitors to that time... Eric J. is the closest, and again in a car much like mine... there is only one four-cylinder car (at a much higher modification level than mine) within two seconds and that's Tony M. driving, again.

The vibe here from you is that V8 motors and cars which are large have no future. They're slow. But the truth is anything *but* that case. My car, for instance, should run low 11s on slicks, and it is at full weight, street gas, idles like stock, naturally aspirated. It will destroy your proposed turbo car in a straight line... and you still talk it down (as a genre). I guess I don't get it. Is what you're really talking about the bang for the buck factor? If so, give me a C5 with full luxury that runs 11s anyday. :) BTW, I get 26mpg on the highway, as good as a new M3.

P.S. there's a video floating about with a stock Z06 running 12.4@114mph and I personally ran a 13.5@105 in my car when it was stock, with a 2.3 second 60' time (that's tires spinning badly, for the wondering). There's nothing fake about the power they produce. Bad drivers can be found anywhere.

[ADAM]

i guess this always comes down to import vs domestic :)

my engine would be at 10psi boost...and if that boost is not enough...my nos kit could be activated once underway so as not to smoke the tires.....

on the race track....you are not caught off gaurd.....lets stick to the track cause...street and track racing are 2 very different things.....

yes torque and horsepower are directly related (horsepower being calculated from torque) but how the engine does work(horsepower) is very key in relation to the gearing...and it is how the gearing is used that really makes the difference.....

i will give you 2 gears for your 600hp v8....and let me have 6 with my 140hp 4cyl.......

i just feel that there is more than one way to make power.......and displacement is not the only way......

just look at some of the talons and honda's making over 600hp....wow...or that skyline with over 1000
....remember this is still in its infancy....you v8 guys have had the last 20 years to mess around with your heads..and cams...and stroker kits...and push rods.....

[ADAM]

steve, that video link is not there?

[MikAnchovy]

LOL... Shaman, I knew I'd find you in some sort of debate like this :)

A couple of things I'd like to point out...

-The weight difference given between 4-cyl engines and small-blocks was totally off. I read somewhere that the SR20DE in my NX weighs 400-ish pounds... I'm sure you could make an aluminium 302 weigh that much or less.

-Torque is important in races. A normal car with normal gears isn't always in that 1000-2000-RPM-wide sweet spot that gives them total power. Torque becomes very important in corner exits and, if nothing else, gives you a margin of error.

-Being a FWD car owner, I don't see why everyone hates that layout so much. You generally do lose the ability to throttle-steer and most FWD cars have an inherent forward-weight bias, but there's ways to cope with such things as well. LSDs and proper suspension tuning can make an FWD car very effective and oversteer is possible.

-Why the hell do people believe that Camaros and Mustangs can't handle? This isn't the '60s anymore, people...

-4-cyl. technology is definitely not in its' infancy! People have been tuning Datsun L16/L18/L20s, Toyota 4A-GEs and other such early japanese 4-cyl engines since before I was born.

Now, given that I mainly said pro-domestic things in my post there, I still drive a FWD import, albeit one with a pretty flat torque curve, lots of negative camber in the rear suspension and an LSD. My car is at least as fast as the RWD musclecars that go for similar amounts around here ($5400 will only get you a '82-86 5.0 or a pre-'88 Camaro in Regina, we have a messed-up used car market), and it's easy enough to drive in winter. It handles too. In fact, I think that it's quite honestly the best compromise I could have made, and I'm happy as hell with my car. I just don't feel the need to got around bashing euro and domestic cars because of that.

[Shaman]

O.K. on the street I have a low 11s car that will spin the tires shifting into 4th at 100mph. All with White Zombie gettin' some "Electric Head" on the 10 speaker audio system and Filter's "Skinny" next in the play list. And my car is not anywhere near to being a high-mod car. On the scale of its peers, it's just a fast daily driver with some suspension work. I guess I still don't see your points, but I'm trying.

The 600hp Talons and the 1000hp Skyline (I've got a video of a 1200hp one from inside the car) don't impress me anymore than anything else. Dave DiLuca's budget full-weight Z/28 is running 9.11@155 with no more than a small nitrous shot and some good engine work. These are just different ways of getting to the same goal

What does bother me is the assertion that 4-cyl cars haven't had twenty years. They've had as long as any other motor has. Turbo systems have been commonplace for nearly that long too. And the assertion that V8 motors can't take advantage of the same thing is... hrm... inaccurate... there are 7-second, street-driven turbo Mustangs out there, and they're a much newer concept than turbo 4-cylinders.

You do realize that Lingenfelter sells a fully streetable (and street legal) turbo C5 setup that will run 135mph traps (on only 8.5# of boost) in the 1/4 mile and comes with a year warranty (motor, drivetrain and all), right? You do know they also sell a 725hp naturally aspirated Viper with the same warranty too, yes? What would you say if I said I knew of a street-driven 1000rwhp turbocharged '98 Trans Am right now... which has not yet been featured in a magazine and is roaming around picking up race money from 600hp talons... is that a stone-aged, over-the-hill concept too?

This is fun. :)

[MikAnchovy]

Shaman, you have to acknowlege that the turbocharged C5 as well as the Viper you just cited are in a hefty enough state of tune though. Definitely not to the extent of the Talons and Skylines that the other guy talked about, but I'd definitely hesitate before driving one of those every day. I'd just get a damn beater :)

I do think it's fair to say that, bone stock for bone stock, the average import 4-cyl is more capable of taking turbo/NOS/abuse than your average domestic engine. Crack open the engine and that's no longer true. And of course, the larger engine doesn't need near the tuning to go as fast.

[mytzlflick]

ya know ati sells an intercooled procharger kit for the second generation camaro / firebird, whatcha want to bet that kit nukes your turbo four in the long stretches. I admit handling is hard to match with a heavy car, aspecially with a live axle, but I kinda like steering with my right foot anyways.

remember that anything you can do to an import can be done to an american v-8, only with three times the displacement to play with you get a lot better results.

if only my chev v-8 was a legal swap into my 318i!

[ADAM]

yes 4cyl motors have been around as long as v8's but the technology to get power out of them has not.....forget datsun 510's ....it has been the computer that has brought this to the forefront, and it is the ability to control the engine with computers that allows this power to be had..

but the engine with the most efficient, least weight and most power is the best one....

i just think the "ultimate in theory" engine will be a boosted small displacement engine. as again displacement is not the key in making power. i think honda in its f1 days was on to something....and they had to worry about reliability...what if they only had to make it work for 30sec? and were allowed to run whatever boost level they wanted? and bumped engine size to a nice 3l......? 1.6 litres could produce 1200hp.....so far in the import scene we have basically seen "bumkins" creating these import drag cars....what if honda or nissan factory teams got involved with some serious budgets like in the top fuel?
1/4 mile times would be dropping like lead.....just wait...as the import sport grows...some really silly 4cyl factory motors will be popping up...

i am not against v8's in fact i have always wanted to get a muscle car..and love the v8 exhaust note...and that awesome torque they have....

but the hiss and fart of the turbo setup also has its benifits.....

[MikAnchovy]

Actually, I personally wouldn't bet that that kit would nuke the 4-cyl. of my car. My car's engine is internally balanced, with piston weight tolerances to one gram, shot-peened rods and a pretty much bulletproof bottom-end. You'd have to play around with the timing quite a bit, as my car also has a 9.5:1 compression ratio and carelessness would cause detonation, but I'd definitely say that my car is better-equipped to take big hits of boost or NOS than most stock domestic engines.

[ADAM]

actually i was in california at sears point last year and a callaway vette was there smoking some low 10's that was fun to watch....

[Shaman]

Guys are swapping LT1s with superchargers into 240Z Datsuns because they're as light (and remember, they're 85# heavier than LS1s) even with the added piping, as the straight six that came out of them, but a lot more capable.

I have a great video of some dude straight-line beating a modified Hyabusa in this 240Z... running only 8# of supercharged boost on a LT1 motor. Total cost if you did it yourself: maybe $10 in the motor all considered. That's a lot of bang for the buck... running nines in a $12,000 car with daily driver reliability (motor-wise, at least).

(fixed the video link)

[MikAnchovy]

Adam, by saying "forget the 510", you're forgetting, in large part, what made imports today. While it has been computer and turbocharger technology that have made imports run 9s in the 1/4 mile, it was the initial construction quality and engineering of japanese engines that laid the framework for today's interest in japanese cars. Do you honestly think that half as many people would be interested in CiViCs and Eclipses if Datsun 510s, Datsun Roadsters, Zs and Mazda Rotaries were less than the stellar products they were? Even today, it's not all computers and turbos that defines import enthusiasts. Let's face it... most imports are econoboxes, and most are N/A as well.

[ADAM]

at shannonville this year we will have to have a solo 1 drag shootout....

i would love to go you with the procharger..........i get to use my NOS as well ok...

basically whoever has the most power to weight is gonna win...

so i will have a 2700lb car with 400hp=6.75... mabey with the nos 480hp=5.62

lets say traction is equal and we all have RWD cars right....
ok what about the rest of you

[Shaman]

Heh... well, we'll see. I'll go heads-up with you, but then it's not much of a risk to me... it's like driving to the grocery store... :)

Hmm. Except for my rear ring + pinion. I hate blowing that stuff. :(

[ADAM]

steve...well thats where weight comes in....accelerating a big mass is really hard on things :)

oh i agree the design and quality of import motors is very very hard to find in domestic engines...especially the old v8's.....

i doubt a stock v8 could hold the boost that my little motor can take....but i have an awesome crank, main cap girdle....and most of the engine has awesome meturlagy...small lands on the piston are the only weakness...and thats only because my block started out from a 1.6l and has been bored and stroked by nissan thru various itterations of it..

if domestic makers put as much attention into the quality of the engines, as they did blabbering on about how the new grand am has a wide track etc... they would be better off....mind you some of those northstar v8's are silky smooth...

[MikAnchovy]

And as good as the KA24 is... the SR20's better :p

[ADAM]

unless you like displacement :)

2.0l vs 2.4l

[Shaman]

Hmm. It occurs to me that the old 60's motors were better than just about anything made up until 2001. Now, the LS1 and LS6 motors are made with different materials than they were even a couple of years ago.

It's all moot though. There have been no stock 345hp Japanese engines to date that I know of, and nothing at all with the kind of output of a Viper.

Regarding quality of parts, though... really, haven't we all seen taxi cabs with 400,000km on them still ripping around like everything's just dandy? It's no mistake that there are 20 year old cabs still in service. If that's bad metallurgy, give me two. ;)

[mytzlflick]

yes most japanese stuff is better designed, however its also harder to work on. I liek the simplicity of the old v-8's, much easier to work on.

[ADAM]

the better design becomes very apparent when you stress the motor with NOS or boost...my good old KA24D engine had 170,000km of really hard driving on it...and about 20 bottles of NOS....

todays engines are not complex....all you need is the correct electronics and your in business... :)

if you like the old technology you can still work on your old 4 stroke lawn mower :)

(not a new honda one though they are also logic controlled now )

[Shaman]

I dunno myz... my motor is very complex, electronically.

[MikAnchovy]

Adam... about the only thing the KA24 has on the SR20 is displacement and torque at the expense of top end. Most of the crazy-tuned Japanese Sylvias used SR20DETs :)

Shaman, most good understressed motors should be capable of 400,000 kms, provided they spend their lives below 3000 rpm. OTOH, you'd have to splurge for an engine build to get most domestic V8s to the construction level of an average import engine.

[ADAM]

i would also have to say that my ka24d engine is simple as well....

sohc 3 valves/cyl....no vtec....standard ignition coil...hydralic actuated valves.....

[MikAnchovy]

And as far as the 345hp factory japanese engine goes, that's probably realistically the output of many japanese engines. Of course, they're rated at 276hp ;)

[ADAM]

thats only because of the law in japan..the max power allowed is 276hp....now over here we do just the opposite........

that skyline with 1000hp...it still retained stock crank and rods and pistons didn't it?

or look at the supras....750bhp with stock internals.....wow

[Shaman]

Well, there's some debate about that when Craig Paisley's engine builder came into the newsgroups two years ago looking for Craig because he was owed some money. ;)

But anyway, the 1000hp Skyline was not a stock motor at all. It was completely built through. However, realistically it doesn't perform as well as 850hp V8s do, because of the torque band issue. The 1200hp Skyline has run low 8s @ 180mph or so, which is just starting to get to the limit of street driven cars. There are street-driven Mustangs in the 7s though. That Skyline is impressive, but at over $350K invested... I dunno...

[ADAM]

ok i agree 350k is nuts...i would build a big block up instead...for way way cheaper.....

i always thought about stuffing a smallblock in my 240sx...i have gobs of room in the engine bay....

but i can't wait to hear that turbo hiss......as that big t4 compressor spools up...ohhhhhh

still there is nothing like NOS...that wild hit of power....


what is the biggest displacement 4cyl in the market? the porche 944 i think had a 2.5l

[mytzlflick]

you know noone has ever sung a song about driving a honda that i have heard, i wounder why?
all out drag hondas have two choices, go pretty fast or pop the cv joints.

[Shaman]

Actually, at their boost levels, those hondas have two other choices: wide open throttle or idle. Anything in between means blown head gaskets, etc. :)

[MikAnchovy]

I think the Porsche 968's 3L I-4 is the biggest production car 4-cyl. engine of all time...

In much of this argument, the basic point has been lost. We're discussing the merits of racing a near-stock, lightly-tuned V8 here... no one said anything about 8-second cars here!

[Lowerit]

Hahahaha This is Funny ..V8 and reliability... What motor is in every taxi you have ever ridden in ...a basic 305 small block!! 500, 000kms no prob. We have a 240,000Km Caprice wagon (Impala SS rims , grill , eibach lowering springs , Dynomax ultraflows , big bars) The motor is identical to that of the Impala SS , it's got 260hp and even after all those miles there isn't a stock Civic , 240SX , Integra GSR or any other popular Import that would have a prayer in hell at a stop light grandprix. The wagoon pulls like a frieght train to 60 , shifts into 2nd gear and leaves rubber @ 70km/h all while weighing 4600Lbs. It will embarrass badly our 5.0ltr Mustang (95 Convert). The motor has never been touched and runs perfectly. Our old tow car went 375,000kms before we sold it to a taxi company.

Small block reliability Vs Import motor?? My civic blew its head gasket @ 180,000 kms. The small block works well because it's a basic design.

[MikAnchovy]

But think about why V8s power taxis in North America. Simple... it's because most taxis here are full-sized american cars, and most passengers expect the room and comfort provided by full-sized cars. C'mon, what would you rather ride in the back of, a Crown Vic or a Civic?

It's been five and a half years since my visit to Ireland, but while there, I recall riding in a Toyota taxi and an Opel taxi, or something like that. Both were undoubtably powered by I-4 engines. People there have come to better accept the necessity of travelling in subcompact cars, and gas prices there were (and still are) atrocious.

As far as your Civic goes, I can see that happening. Civics are generally very reliable cars, but shit does happen. Hey, my parents' '85 Civic GL's transmission tossed its' cookies at 170,000 kms. The process was no doubt accelerated by my abuse of the unit (I once did a 6000-rpm neutral drop on the Hondamatic gearbox... I was a retard :rolleyes:), but it was still a catastrophic enough failiure to sell the lightly-rusted car for $500 to a mechanic. Overall though, the car served us far better than any comparable domestic car my family had ever had... it replaced a 1982 Ford Mustang 2.3l that badly burnt oil @ 83,000 kms, and it shared garage space with a horribly temeramental Ford Tempo, a car that often refused to start at -10 and a car that lost about $10,000 in value over five years. While the Honda went through timing belt and brake replacements, our 1990 Dodge Caravan went through two transmissions and needed a third when we sold it. Hell, that head gasket that your Civic needed at 180,000 kms, our 1997 Chev. Venture needed at 100,000 kms.

I'll admit that my paragraph above was antecdotal and relates highly to personal experience, but that's my family's vehicular history right there. I'm sure you can see why we replaced the Honda with a Corolla and not a Cavalier or an Escort. I'm not going to dispute that your V8-powered cars lived so long, or that domestic cars are capable of long lives. My family just hasn't had that luck, I guess... at least not with half-baked Ford subcompact products...

[mytzlflick]

well in the original theory of this thread let me throw this into the mix.
not too long ago a guy i wokk with broke his honda civic, having gone 120000km, not bad breakage, the bearing in the distibuter was failing (horrible noise) and his clutch was slipping (bad driver)
the bearing for the distributer is not available anywhere, you have to buy a whole new distributer.
that set him back $450. same part in a chev? available in a local bearing store for $15

the clutch assembly only cost him $200 perfectly resonable untill we tried to get the flywheel turned, the dowls are not pressed or threaded in ,they are a permanent part of the assembly, a phone call to honda confirmed that you are not supposed to turn the flywheel, you buy a replacement, cost $550
same thing on a chev, turn it for $50 tops.

end result? yes lightweight cars are easier on parts and handle differently, however if you add up the cost of those parts compared to the domestic parts you realize this is a false economy, my friends honda gets three times the milage 2nd gen firebird does, but then $1000 is a lot of fuel and that old lump just keeps going. blow up the distributer, no problem, $20 at the wrecker gets me another hei to abuse.

can it be competitive against the lighter less powerfull cars? well maybe we'll find out in 2002 when I (hopefully) bring one out to play.

[Lowerit]

Just a quick comment..... My 88 Civic was built like a tank quality wise, My roomate and I shared his 96 Civic for a while , no comparison , it didn't handle as well , it was heavier (88 was 2098 , 96 was 2440 ) Stuff seemed to break on it a lot easier. The window cranks both broke @ 70,000 kms , had to replace various engine parts.. His dad owns a Honda dealership , and He now works @ the Honda civic plant in Alliston ..apperently The civic is going down hill. Quality has been traded for light weight

Oh Well

[MikAnchovy]

I actually really dislike the direction that the Civic is travelling in... McPhereson Strut front suspension, Focus looks... no thanks! Anyways, everyone in the domestic camp has perfectly good perogatives for buying domestic. But there's definitely nothing wrong with imports...

[Shaman]

You're right, it does look like a Focus. How odd.

[ADAM]

so what is the conclusion to all of this?

any?

[Shaman]

He's going to drive the 2nd gen. :)

And big motors are stronger. heh

[ADAM]

no....big motors are bigger :)

well built motors are strong :)

[mytzlflick]

the conclusion is that when we are discussing stock cars my 2nd gen firebird with a 455sd is gonna be a heck of a lot more powerfull than a honda civic, and is gonna cost less to fix.
in highly modified versions though... well I have no idea what the conclusion was there, i think it was just a nice discussion to argue!

[Shaman]

I can't imagine how you'll ever hurt that 455 unless you're running it with a monster cam. :)

P.S. bigger motors can make more power, which is the whole point of my message to date... when comparing a max-mod turbocharged 3L motor, you have to compare with a max-mod supercharged 10L motor, and well... there's no comparison.

[Theo]

Friends of mine own a fast (the fastest?) 7.36sec Turbo Mustang.

They run it in Pro 5.0 and if I'm not mistaken, it's the fastest Mustang out there.

That car is not streetable. I don't see how a 7 second car can be streetable, unless your version of streetable is more liberal than mine.

Another question... If Type R's aren't "that" fast, than how did Tony post the FTD in an ITR @ Blainville?
He ran a 100.240 (240, like that Adam? :) )
2nd fastest time was by Dave Pratte in a Z28. He ran a 103.000.
That's a WIDE open track. Presumeably ideal for a V8.

BTW - Dave is working on a car that will surprise ALOT of people this season. V8's beware!

[Shaman]

I wasn't there. Neither were any of the other "really fast" ASP cars. There's your reason. :) I would think that Tony would agree given the lap times seen elsewhere.

Lest we forget, Tony is getting 110% out of the car (I've watched him in it, and there's no mistake) and the car is at a very, very high level of modification. In fact, if I was to do the same modifications to my car, it would be unbelievably, totally, insanely fast instead of just stupid fast :D. A low 10s car for sure, and I'm not joking - maybe faster. But instead, there's a CD stack in the back and full interior (I'm putting the back seats back in, hah!) because I don't want a total stripper. There's an awful lot of room left for modifications in my car, and I know people don't see that because it's already fast.

You have to be very careful when considering cars because things are not equivalent at face value all the time. Honestly I was surprised that the ITR was able to run in a SP class given the modifications to it. There's control arms entering the interior of the car FCS. :)

My V8 doesn't feel terribly worried, and I'll bet Eric J's doesn't either. I have a couple of little tricks up my sleeve this year too (nothing rules illegal or unstreetable, FWIW). I set FTD at Mosport DDT in August - I suspect I can get another 1/2 second or more out of the car this year - because I am/was a rookie and the car is still becoming sorted. In fact, there will be a lot of really heavily modified cars this year... some of which will be (fortunately) IN modified classes.

[ctenche]

Oh come on people. Why are we comparing the ITR to a V8? It makes no sense at all. They are totally different cars and would never run in the same class. Take a look at Motorola Cup or Speedvision WC - these cars are in a different class. Period.

Shaman, big HP cars were at Blainville. In fact there was one very well driven C5. While I'm sure the C5 hit a faster top speed then the ITR on long straight, Tony more than made up for it in the twisty bits of the course. That's were the strength of a smaller lighter car comes in.

Going fast in a straight line is easy. Any monkey can do it. Let's not forget that it's the corners that count during racing and in the corners, all cars are going at roughly the same speed and it's all due to mechanical or aerodynamic grip. It has nothing to do with the size of your engine.

[Lowerit]

Well said.. I can relate from seeing my father blow the doors off of Mustangs and Camaro's for 30 years in his 66 corvair , 2.9ltrs , but only 2200lbs... He finished best of 4th at the scca solo 2 nationals in CP , dubbed the "heavy metal class" against cars with twice the Horsepower and displacement.

it's all about average speed.

[Shaman]

:D I look forward to seeing all the Hondas blowing my doors off again, just like they did last year, then. :D

This is truly funny stuff. :D I guess I need to remind Caius that I beat him by nearly four seconds a lap on street tires in July, on a track that was 100% "small-car oriented". :D I am aware Tony was smokin' that day, because, I repeat, that track config was "small car oriented".

On the Pro Track, though:
Me (rookie with a steering problem): 75.948
Tony: 78.292
Caius: 83.408

Even the Pro Track is "small" and "tight" compared to the tracks I've been on in the states. That ITR wouldn't begin to hit mid-pack on Road Atlanta, or Sebring. And I'm sure Tony would have beaten me in my own car.

This is getting really silly. :D We'll see what happens in May. Remember what you said about the cars being in different classes, because it's not a mistake.

P.S. if anyone can tell me the best way to get onto the front straight of Nelson, let me know. I'm having a bugger of a time optimizing that section. :(

[ELeMental]

Okay, now I'm REALLY confused...

"Why are we comparing the ITR to a V8? It makes no sense at all."

And then...

"On the Pro Track, though:
Me (rookie with a steering problem): 75.948
Tony: 78.292
Caius: 83.408"

I'm pretty sure Caius is running a Integra LS, so how'd he get thrown into the comparison?

[ctenche]

Shaman, you don't need to remind me that you beat my time by 4 seconds.

Imagine that, me in my 140 hp car and you in your 500 hp car. Gosh, it would have been a very sorry state of affairs if you would have been slower than me.

Again, we shouldn't even be comparing lap times as our cars are WAY too different. Of course you're going to be faster.

[Shaman]

Just wanted to set perspective, that's all.

The long and short is, we disagree. We also disagree about the ITR that Tony M. has been driving, which I consider to be in a much (much) higher state of racing development than mine, not to mention driver experience. And my old-school, fat-assed V8 rookie car is doing just fine against it. My point being, of course, that not all things are equal here in preparation... yet I can rip around the course listening to a 10 speaker sound system while still outdoing that car. You express amazement for that ITR, I express mild interest while shaking my head at the loss of streetability. {shrug}

One thing about bench racing, it's really easy to lose sight of the facts. :)

[ADAM]

what did your 500hp v8 do on the nelson? i agree the pro track is not a valid comparison, but the heart of the matter is how these engines affect racing...and weight is a key factor, and most of the v8 cars are heavy beasts....i always liked following the camero's and mustangs during lapping......on the straight away...you hear the v8 roar...and they pull away like mad....then comes the corner...and you are all over thier butt.....as they slide all over the place under hard braking.

my 142hp 4cyl can do 57.95 (i am sure with a better driver it would go faster)


what would the extra 358hp do to my time if i had 500hp?

how far behind am i against the mustangs or camero's or firebirds?

[Shaman]

With another 385hp you'd be sliding around under braking... and lots of other things that you don't like about V8 cars. :) You seem to have a healthy disrespect for V8 cars, Adam, and I just don't understand it. Your body of experience with them seems pretty limited.

To answer your question, I ran 56.399 on street tires. Unfortunately I didn't have my race shocks or any brake venting then. So, that's my time with bad (flaming, actually) brake fade, used street tires and overwhelmed (for the springs I have) shocks. That was my first Solo-1 event ever, and I'm happy with it.

I've run 55s before, on street tires. Shannonville seems to be getting slower for my car, though I only have one prior year of ripping around it, really. Nelson is particularly favourable towards smaller cars, almost as much so as Fabi, where every straightaway is more like another tight corner coming up.

You should go to a track like Watkin's Glen or Road Atlanta to find out what a large track is like. You'd gain a healthier respect for accelerative power there.

[ADAM]

i am just saying that i like the high tech aspect of racing, and for me that is a small car with a small engine.....that makes lots of power....talons are a good example...so are the type r's

mabey its like ....F1 racing vs NASCAR...i don't know? same sort of debates

and i like acceleration.....i have lots of seat time in a stealth(310hp), 911 (214hp), and even in a saleen mustang with 410hp....

and out of all of these my little 240sx would be the nimblest of them all....the stealth is a big beast...fun but a heavy beast....the 911 is smooth....but antiquated....and the saleen.....has stupid straight line power....but still handles like a pig, even with the suspension changed.

i just think there is alot of potential for these small imports on the track once they have the power to move them...i mean i am running around on the nelson with a 170,000km old 4 banger...with 140hp....now match the handling with a potent powerplant and i think that is a good combination.....(something that mustangs and camero's cannot do, as they are stuck with the body frame they have)

[ELeMental]

Hey Adam, what kind of mods have you done to your car?

I'm just interested as to your level of prep versus that on Shaman's "Badass Bird". 'Cuz even though he was on street tires without shocks and brakes, you were within a couple seconds despite the monstrous HP difference (albeit on a smaller track).

I know what you mean about following the V8's into the corners. Heck, even though the V8's blow by my little 127 hp 1.6L SOHC VTEC on the straights, it's fun watching THEM watch YOU stay in their mirrors through the corners.

And if you ever wanna kick V8 butt, go to the PMSC events in Peterborough. They used to do Solo 2's on a TINY course at this TINY little parking lot at Sir Sandford Fleming College. I know a certain bunch of Hondas beat up the F-Body club pretty badly there last year. :)

[Shaman]

Hmm. Now it's a Camaro vs. Import thing. OK. Well, I think a good look at Tony McGrath's performance in a Camaro tells that tale well enough. He's one of the few people to turn 72s on Fabi. That one had nowhere near the motor I have in mine, which underlines the fact that I'm still a rookie. :)

Anyway, you say that a f-body cannot have a good chassis, which has been proven wrong in all sorts of motorsport. Motorola Cup is a good example. What's more, you can strip a '98+ 4th gen Camaro to 2800 pounds or so and you might get it lighter if you went to real extremes. The straightline acceleration will be wild even with a stock engine, and the chassis can be brought to a high point too, or as high as the live axle can let it go, at least.

Like I said, we'll see this year. If I, and Eric J. etc. don't hold our own, then you'll have proven me wrong, at least on all these little tracks.

Regarding Solo-2... there is just barely enough room for a 4th gen f-body to fit through the gates at all, much less do well. It's nearly impossible not to mow cones. Nothing against Solo-2 but it's designed to keep the speeds low and the track small. Kind of like asking a big shark to swim around in a small swimming pool. If you're asking me to concede a failure there, fine, but let's see the cars that dominate there try to go one-on-one at a track like Watkin's Glen or Nelson Ledges. Not going to happen!

[ELeMental]

Hey Shaman,

Don't get me wrong. I know that ANY big HP cars - forced-induction import OR big-displacement domestic - can smoke my little mildy-modded daily driver. I was just letting Adam know where to go if he feels the overwhelming need to beat up on V8's. :)

Me, I'm just gonna run said vehicle in C/SS-1 this year 'cuz I wanna race something, somewhere, legally without spending a fortune that I don't have. :D

[ADAM]

well we have to get into examples....because the theory of it got no where

i am just saying that a 500hp motor that weighs 300lbs...is gonna be quicker than a 500hp motor that weighs 400lbs...and that can now be done thru forced induction......

so if i take my 140hp car...and bump up the power to the level of the 500hp v8...while the weight remaining the same (mabey another 30lbs for all the turbo crap) then i think i will be able to drop the extra 1.56 seconds that i am behind? i would wager that with only 300hp i will be able to make up that 1.56 seconds...so my point is why do we need all that displacement? that is really the crux of the situation here... my 142CI engine vs the ? what is a 5.7 l?

[Shaman]

500hp naturally aspirated with a broad, flat, deep torque curve will often outperform a motor with 550hp that has a short, narrow torque curve. So your idea of 500hp and my idea differ considerably.

In regards to 100# difference, I doubt you'll find that after all the turbo plumbing. If you do, however, the torque difference between the two should make up the difference.

To give an example, a motor with 400# of torque from 2,000 to 7,000 RPM and a total of 500hp will easily outperform a motor that starts at 200# of torque, gains and peaks quickly at 400#, then drops swifly again as the turbo and flow characteristics fall, totalling 500hp somewhere in the mix.

Those are hypothetical engines, of course. But the point is that the car with the extra torque will not be as adversely affected by more weight, will push harder through most of the RPM range, and will be very predictable to drive.

This is why 950hp V8 cars run as fast as 1200hp V6s in the 1/4 mile with similar weights. This is the reason why Pro Stock cars run 6.6s naturally aspirated, while 3.0L turbo motors require "2000hp" max-boost motor setups and ultra-lite tube-framed chassis to accomplish the same goals. At the boost those turbo motors run, theoretically they take in more air and are less efficient than the Pro Stock motors. Those motors are two valve per cylinder pushrod motors, FYI.

Like I've said before in this very thread, things are a lot more complex than you've boiled them down to.

Incidentally, I too am fascinated by the technology behind F1, but I'd far rather watch Grand American, LeMans, NASCAR when they road race, CART, Rally or BTCC. They're more exciting and a lot more reachable (well, maybe not CART).

[ADAM]

ok .....lets forget the 1/4 mile for one...we have been sidetracked by that for a while now.

torque in the 1/4 mile is more important than on the track....why because you are starting from a standstill.....and on a race track you are moving which means peak horsepower is the key because of the gearing issue......why because the higher the peak horsepower at the higher the rpm the longer you can stretch the gear out...thus the next shift you will keep the engine nearer to the peak power level... you can have all the power in the world but without the ability to use it properly with gears it is not very usefull.

and thats why...people are concerned about horsepower all of the time and not torque(unless you are pulling stumps out with a tractor or grinding wheat ).....and in race cars gearing and peak power are more of a concern than grunty torque........

plus the more cylinders you have the more rotational mass...and the more friction......

:)

[Lowerit]

Just a question ...2800lbs??? Isn't a body in white as Gm calls it from the factory with nothing on it weigh 3200lbs??

[Shaman]

Again, we disagree, although when building a race engine you always favour horsepower if you can take advantage of gearing, and it's unimportant whether you are talking about roadracing or drag racing.

What you just said to me is that predictable, hard power out of corners doesn't mean much. Let me assure you that all the old timers with turbos that came on like freight trains and then fell off like hitting a brick wall will disagree with you rabidly. :)

Another example. Earlier, two-stroke motorcyles were brought up. I used to race motocross (in what feels like was a different life) and when the variable-port two-stroke motors came out, there was hue and cry because they didn't make the peak numbers of the wildly ported motors of the day. But in fact, they proved to be well worth the investment in complexity, space and weight, because they allowed the motor to make power all the time by raising and lowering the exhaust port for the RPM of the motor. And thus, the utterly wild, unpredictable bikes of my early teens became drivable and much faster than their predecessors even though they made less power.

Ever drive a Kawasaki 750 triple? I have. Wow, could those things be scary. But they're slow by today's standards.

Hmm. Reminds me also of the Yamaha OW69, still considered the wildest road racing bike ever built. The drivers all said it was undrivable. With 190hp detuned (richened and spark retarded), the bike terrified everyone involved in it. Not, as you would presume, from the power it made, but the fact that it made it all in one spot of the powerband and very little anywhere else. Lawson did a beautiful 125mph wheelie past the camera coming out of the fast corners, every time, while he tried desperately to get his body over the front tire. Today, bikes make that kind of power but are perfectly drivable (if also a bit crazy).

If we were talking about two strokes versus four strokes, you would have my undivided agreement. Imagine a 4L, 800hp, naturally aspirated motor weighing 200 pounds... :)

And no, the "body on white" does not weigh 3200 pounds. I don't know where you heard that, but there are a few guys around with 2900#, street driven 4th-gens. Maniacs. Damn, they're loud without an interior. :) I suspect that fully kitted with original LT1 drivetrain, exhaust, etc. etc. and rollcage, you'd find that a body-on-white car would weight 3200# or so. Dan Corcoran's weighs (and I believe him) 3300# with that heavy, heavy Borla stainless exhaust + cats and a full NASCAR-style cage (12 points? Maybe more?). He's got a supercharger and all that piping, as well. If I were him, I'd replace the exhaust with a SLP Loudmouth and no cats, and I'd have put in a chrome-moly cage instead of the painted steel one he has. But he's a stock car racer at heart, and I can't blame him for wanting to be safe as possible.

[mytzlflick]

I can build an all aluminum small block chev close to those power numbers there.
at the cornering limits under power smooth delivery is more important that all out power I think, 8 cylynders means you have 4 pulses of lesser intensity per revolution compared to a boosted four cyl at 2 pulses twice as strong for the same power output.
unless you can set it up in a big bang configuration you are more likly to lose grip and spin the tires.

[ADAM]

here is a good article to fuel the fire

Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

From Bruce Augenstein, rba@augenstein.ultranet.com



[Before I let Bruce explains the stuff, here's a quick summary. Remember that the magic number 5252 works only with torque
in ft-lbs units. Torque in other units such as Newton Meters or kg-m require a different number.

- Maximum acceleration at any speed occurs at the HP peak.
- Maximum acceleration in any gear occurs at the torque peak
- HP = torque * RPM / 5252
- torque = HP * 5252 / RPM
- torque = HP at 5252 RPM

HP is not measured directly, it is simply calculated from torque. However the HP to torque formula is useful to figure out how
much torque the engine is making at peak HP. I wish when the car magazines do a road test they would include the torque and
HP graph, gear ratios vs speed, 0 to top speed table in every 10 miles with G (acceleration) values... etc. - Frank]

There's been a certain amount of discussion, in this and other files, about the concepts of horsepower and torque, how they
relate to each other, and how they apply in terms of automobile performance. I have observed that, although nearly everyone
participating has a passion for automobiles, there is a huge variance in knowledge. It's clear that a bunch of folks have strong
opinions (about this topic, and other things), but that has generally led to more heat than light, if you get my drift :-). I've posted
a subset of this note in another string, but felt it deserved to be dealt with as a separate topic. This is meant to be a primer on the
subject, which may lead to serious discussion that fleshes out this and other sub-topics that will inevitably need to be addressed.

[Bruce hit it dead on. Anyone who's read UseNet for a period of time knows how much crap is on it. There are many
knowledgeable folks posting quality discussions (in all newsgroups) but they are easily overshadowed by stupid posts. - Frank]

OK. Here's the deal, in moderately plain english.

Force, Work and Time

If you have a one pound weight bolted to the floor, and try to lift it with one pound of force (or 10, or 50 pounds), you will have
applied force and exerted energy, but no work will have been done. If you unbolt the weight, and apply a force sufficient to lift
the weight one foot, then one foot pound of work will have been done. If that event takes a minute to accomplish, then you will
be doing work at the rate of one foot pound per minute. If it takes one second to accomplish the task, then work will be done at
the rate of 60 foot pounds per minute, and so on.

In order to apply these measurements to automobiles and their performance (whether you're speaking of torque, horsepower,
newton meters, watts, or any other terms), you need to address the three variables of force, work and time.

Awhile back, a gentleman by the name of Watt (the same gent who did all that neat stuff with steam engines) made some
observations, and concluded that the average horse of the time could lift a 550 pound weight one foot in one second, thereby
performing work at the rate of 550 foot pounds per second, or 33,000 foot pounds per minute, for an eight hour shift, more or
less. He then published those observations, and stated that 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work was equivalent to the power
of one horse, or, one horsepower.

[ADAM]

cont'd

Everybody else said OK. :-)

For purposes of this discussion, we need to measure units of force from rotating objects such as crankshafts, so we'll use terms
which define a *twisting* force, such as foot pounds of torque. A foot pound of torque is the twisting force necessary to
support a one pound weight on a weightless horizontal bar, one foot from the fulcrum.

Now, it's important to understand that nobody on the planet ever actually measures horsepower from a running engine. What
we actually measure (on a dynamometer) is torque, expressed in foot pounds (in the U.S.), and then we *calculate* actual
horsepower by converting the twisting force of torque into the work units of horsepower.

Visualize that one pound weight we mentioned, one foot from the fulcrum on its weightless bar. If we rotate that weight for one
full revolution against a one pound resistance, we have moved it a total of 6.2832 feet (Pi * a two foot circle), and, incidentally,
we have done 6.2832 foot pounds of work.

OK. Remember Watt? He said that 33,000 foot pounds of work per minute was equivalent to one horsepower. If we divide
the 6.2832 foot pounds of work we've done per revolution of that weight into 33,000 foot pounds, we come up with the fact
that one foot pound of torque at 5252 rpm is equal to 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work, and is the equivalent of one
horsepower. If we only move that weight at the rate of 2626 rpm, it's the equivalent of 1/2 horsepower (16,500 foot pounds
per minute), and so on. Therefore, the following formula applies for calculating horsepower from a torque measurement:

Torque * RPM
Horsepower = ------------
5252


This is not a debatable item. It's the way it's done. Period.

The Case For Torque

Now, what does all this mean in carland?

First of all, from a driver's perspective, torque, to use the vernacular, RULES :-). Any given car, in any given gear, will
accelerate at a rate that *exactly* matches its torque curve (allowing for increased air and rolling resistance as speeds climb).
Another way of saying this is that a car will accelerate hardest at its torque peak in any given gear, and will not accelerate as
hard below that peak, or above it. Torque is the only thing that a driver feels, and horsepower is just sort of an esoteric
measurement in that context. 300 foot pounds of torque will accelerate you just as hard at 2000 rpm as it would if you were
making that torque at 4000 rpm in the same gear, yet, per the formula, the horsepower would be *double* at 4000 rpm.
Therefore, horsepower isn't particularly meaningful from a driver's perspective, and the two numbers only get friendly at 5252
rpm, where horsepower and torque always come out the same.

In contrast to a torque curve (and the matching pushback into your seat), horsepower rises rapidly with rpm, especially when
torque values are also climbing. Horsepower will continue to climb, however, until well past the torque peak, and will continue
to rise as engine speed climbs, until the torque curve really begins to plummet, faster than engine rpm is rising. However, as I
said, horsepower has nothing to do with what a driver *feels*.

You don't believe all this?

Fine. Take your non turbo car (turbo lag muddles the results) to its torque peak in first gear, and punch it. Notice the belt in the
back? Now take it to the power peak, and punch it. Notice that the belt in the back is a bit weaker? Fine. Can we go on, now?
:-)

The Case For Horsepower

OK. If torque is so all-fired important, why do we care about horsepower?

Because (to quote a friend), "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of
*gearing*.

For an extreme example of this, I'll leave carland for a moment, and describe a waterwheel I got to watch awhile ago. This was
a pretty massive wheel (built a couple of hundred years ago), rotating lazily on a shaft which was connected to the works inside
a flour mill. Working some things out from what the people in the mill said, I was able to determine that the wheel typically
generated about 2600(!) foot pounds of torque. I had clocked its speed, and determined that it was rotating at about 12 rpm. If
we hooked that wheel to, say, the drive wheels of a car, that car would go from zero to twelve rpm in a flash, and the
waterwheel would hardly notice :-).

On the other hand, twelve rpm of the drive wheels is around one mph for the average car, and, in order to go faster, we'd need
to gear it up. To get to 60 mph would require gearing the wheel up enough so that it would be effectively making a little over 43
foot pounds of torque at the output, which is not only a relatively small amount, it's less than what the average car would need in
order to actually get to 60. Applying the conversion formula gives us the facts on this. Twelve times twenty six hundred, over
five thousand two hundred fifty two gives us:

6 HP.

[ADAM]

cont'd

Oops. Now we see the rest of the story. While it's clearly true that the water wheel can exert a *bunch* of force, its *power*
(ability to do work over time) is severely limited.

At The Dragstrip

OK. Back to carland, and some examples of how horsepower makes a major difference in how fast a car can accelerate, in
spite of what torque on your backside tells you :-).

A very good example would be to compare the current LT1 Corvette with the last of the L98 Vettes, built in 1991. Figures as
follows:

Engine Peak HP @ RPM Peak Torque @ RPM
------ ------------- -----------------
L98 250 @ 4000 340 @ 3200
LT1 300 @ 5000 340 @ 3600


[Numbers for 94 Integra LS/RS and GS-R


Engine Peak HP @ RPM Peak Torque @ RPM
------ ------------- -----------------
B18B 142 @ 6300 127 @ 5200
B18C 170 @ 7600 128 @ 6200


If you overlap the torque curve for B18B and B18C, you'll see that B18C's maximum torque (127 vs. 128 ft-lbs) is about the
same as B18B, except B18C's torque curve just keeps on climbing, thus the much higher HP. B18B and B18C are quite
similar, but not identical. Mostly notably the B18B has slightly longer stroke, which gives it the displacement of 1835 cc vs.
B18C's 1797 cc. The stroke explains why the B18B has better low end, and it is also a factor why it revs slower and has lower
redline than B18C. Monitor YAHP for an article that will talk about the basic relationship between bore and stroke. - Frank]



The cars are geared identically, and car weights are within a few pounds, so it's a good comparison.

First, each car will push you back in the seat (the fun factor) with the same authority - at least at or near peak torque in each
gear. One will tend to *feel* about as fast as the other to the driver, but the LT1 will actually be significantly faster than the L98,
even though it won't pull any harder. If we mess about with the formula, we can begin to discover exactly *why* the LT1 is
faster. Here's another slice at that formula:

Horsepower * 5252
Torque = -----------------
RPM


If we plug some numbers in, we can see that the L98 is making 328 foot pounds of torque at its power peak (250 hp @ 4000),
and we can infer that it cannot be making any more than 263 pound feet of torque at 5000 rpm, or it would be making more
than 250 hp at that engine speed, and would be so rated. In actuality, the L98 is probably making no more than around 210
pound feet or so at 5000 rpm, and anybody who owns one would shift it at around 46-4700 rpm, because more torque is
available at the drive wheels in the next gear at that point.

On the other hand, the LT1 is fairly happy making 315 pound feet at 5000 rpm, and is happy right up to its mid 5s redline.

So, in a drag race, the cars would launch more or less together. The L98 might have a slight advantage due to its peak torque
occurring a little earlier in the rev range, but that is debatable, since the LT1 has a wider, flatter curve (again pretty much by
definition, looking at the figures). From somewhere in the mid range and up, however, the LT1 would begin to pull away.
Where the L98 has to shift to second (and throw away torque multiplication for speed), the LT1 still has around another 1000
rpm to go in first, and thus begins to widen its lead, more and more as the speeds climb. As long as the revs are high, the LT1,
by definition, has an advantage.

Another example would be the LT1 against the ZR-1. Same deal, only in reverse. The ZR-1 actually pulls a little harder than the
LT1, although its torque advantage is softened somewhat by its extra weight. The real advantage, however, is that the ZR-1 has
another 1500 rpm in hand at the point where the LT1 has to shift.

There are numerous examples of this phenomenon. The Integra GS-R, for instance, is faster than the garden variety Integra, not
because it pulls particularly harder (it doesn't), but because it pulls *longer*. It doesn't feel particularly faster, but it is.

A final example of this requires your imagination. Figure that we can tweak an LT1 engine so that it still makes peak torque of
340 foot pounds at 3600 rpm, but, instead of the curve dropping off to 315 pound feet at 5000, we extend the torque curve so
much that it doesn't fall off to 315 pound feet until 15000 rpm. OK, so we'd need to have virtually all the moving parts made out
of unobtanium :-), and some sort of turbocharging on demand that would make enough high-rpm boost to keep the curve from
falling, but hey, bear with me.

If you raced a stock LT1 with this car, they would launch together, but, somewhere around the 60 foot point, the stocker would
begin to fade, and would have to grab second gear shortly thereafter. Not long after that, you'd see in your mirror that the
stocker has grabbed third, and not too long after that, it would get fourth, but you'd wouldn't be able to see that due to the
distance between you as you crossed the line, *still in first gear*, and pulling like crazy.

I've got a computer simulation that models an LT1 Vette in a quarter mile pass, and it predicts a 13.38 second ET, at 104.5
mph. That's pretty close (actually a tiny bit conservative) to what a stock LT1 can do at 100% air density at a high traction drag
strip, being power shifted. However, our modified car, while belting the driver in the back no harder than the stocker (at peak
torque) does an 11.96, at 135.1 mph, all in first gear, of course. It doesn't pull any harder, but it sure as hell pulls longer :-). It's
also making *900* hp, at 15,000 rpm.

Of course, folks who are knowledgeable about drag racing are now openly snickering, because they've read the preceding
paragraph, and it occurs to them that any self respecting car that can get to 135 mph in a quarter mile will just naturally be doing
this in less than ten seconds. Of course that's true, but I remind these same folks that any self-respecting engine that propels a
Vette into the nines is also making a whole bunch more than 340 foot pounds of torque.

That does bring up another point, though. Essentially, a more "real" Corvette running 135 mph in a quarter mile (maybe a mega
big block) might be making 700-800 foot pounds of torque, and thus it would pull a whole bunch harder than my paper tiger
would. It would need slicks and other modifications in order to turn that torque into forward motion, but it would also get from
here to way over there a bunch quicker.

On the other hand, as long as we're making quarter mile passes with fantasy engines, if we put a 10.35:1 final-drive gear (3.45
is stock) in our fantasy LT1, with slicks and other chassis mods, we'd be in the nines just as easily as the big block would, and
thus save face :-). The mechanical advantage of such a nonsensical rear gear would allow our combination to pull just as hard as
the big block, plus we'd get to do all that gear banging and such that real racers do, and finish in fourth gear, as God intends. :-)

The only modification to the preceding paragraph would be the polar moments of inertia (flywheel effect) argument brought
about by such a stiff rear gear, and that argument is outside of the scope of this already massive document. Another time,
maybe, if you can stand it :-).

At The Bonneville Salt Flats

Looking at top speed, horsepower wins again, in the sense that making more torque at high rpm means you can use a stiffer
gear for any given car speed, and thus have more effective torque *at the drive wheels*.

Finally, operating at the power peak means you are doing the absolute best you can at any given car speed, measuring torque at
the drive wheels. I know I said that acceleration follows the torque curve in any given gear, but if you factor in gearing vs car
speed, the power peak is *it*. An example, yet again, of the LT1 Vette will illustrate this. If you take it up to its torque peak
(3600 rpm) in a gear, it will generate some level of torque (340 foot pounds times whatever overall gearing) at the drive wheels,
which is the best it will do in that gear (meaning, that's where it is pulling hardest in that gear).

However, if you re-gear the car so it is operating at the power peak (5000 rpm) *at the same car speed*, it will deliver more
torque to the drive wheels, because you'll need to gear it up by nearly 39% (5000/3600), while engine torque has only dropped
by a little over 7% (315/340). You'll net a 29% gain in drive wheel torque at the power peak vs the torque peak, at a given car
speed.

Any other rpm (other than the power peak) at a given car speed will net you a lower torque value at the drive wheels. This
would be true of any car on the planet, so, theoretical "best" top speed will always occur when a given vehicle is operating at its
power peak.

"Modernizing" The 18th Century

OK. For the final-final point (Really. I Promise.), what if we ditched that water wheel, and bolted an LT1 in its place? Now, no
LT1 is going to be making over 2600 foot pounds of torque (except possibly for a single, glorious instant, running on
nitromethane), but, assuming we needed 12 rpm for an input to the mill, we could run the LT1 at 5000 rpm (where it's making
315 foot pounds of torque), and gear it down to a 12 rpm output. Result? We'd have over *131,000* foot pounds of torque to
play with. We could probably twist the whole flour mill around the input shaft, if we needed to :-).

The Only Thing You Really Need to Know

Repeat after me. "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*." :-)

Thanks for your time.

Bruce

[ADAM]

re: 2 strokes....

i rode a yamaha rz500, and a rz350 for 3 years...and i would have to say that the 6 speed rz500 was a crazy machine.... it had over 100hp, and when it hit the power band watch out...it smoked...it was the fastest bike that i had ever ridden...it easly took down the 750's of the 90's......on many a ride i whipped the ass of many 750's....(if i was ready and had it in the power band) it could wheely any time you wanted it too...and was really a race bike

the rz350 was able to eat any of the 500's that were around.....the new 600's were a bit faster...

[Shaman]

Adam, I had a ported, polished, pipe-tuned Kawasaki KX500 with 93hp on a kart dyno. Way, way too much bike. I couldn't be competitive on it, and it was the last one that I ever owned. It cured my need for speed in dirt. :) Incidentally, it didn't have a VEV so it was nutbar when it "got up on the pipe".

And I love the explanation of torque vs horsepower, it's been on my web site for about four years now (a link). All it says is true, but it doesn't say enough about how two motors with identical horsepower figures but different torque curves behave.

[ADAM]

good point......

my rz500 had race pipes and power reeds...and a solo seat and damper...and a race chain....thats all....it was a crazy machine...i sold it because i knew it would eventually kill me....

the fastest i ever had it going was 280km....and it had more to give....

it was so shit in traffic...1st gear went to 70km/hr...and if you did not keep the revs above 9000rpm the pipes would fill with oil and the plugs would foul....

[ADAM]

well lets take 2 different motors...one a 4cyl turbo and the other a v8....

4cyl has

350hp@ 7000rpm 290ft/lbs@4000 rpm


v8 has

350hp@5000rpm 340ft/lbs@3000rpm

i think this would be a representative comparison of a good 2l turbo 4cyl, and a good 5l v8 engine.....would you agree?

in this case on a race track, the 4cyl motor would still win, it has another 2000rpm to rev out, and use its gearing, plus the motor is lighter, and the car would probably have less mass as well

[Shaman]

The 4cyl motor would be geared to those revs... it's hard to say whether it would be faster or not, my guess is "not" if the cars are the same weight. If they're not the same weight, then the lighter car should prevail.

Because the V8 pushes max torque pretty well all the time, the 2000 RPM difference is really fairly inconsequential, because the turbo 4 doesn't push its maximum torque all the time. In fact, the 4 probably only pushes good torque for a narrow part of the band, and being geared for a long RPM range, that's going to hurt it.

Volume under the torque curve does matter. In the dissertation on horsepower versus torque, the author makes an excellent point about building a motor for power or torque, but it's quite "old school" in terms of describing FI motors which have very flat torque curves. An excellent example is a newer C5 - the car never really feels "fast" although it's a 12 second car in the 1/4 mile... because from the minute you start accelerating to the time you hit the traps, there is almost no difference in the torque delivery... a turbo car with the same power often feels much faster/stronger while it goes through its powerband. An even better example is when Rick Potter and I were at Shannonville and had the same person in our cars during lapping... he commented to Rick that his RX7 felt like it accelerated much faster down the back straight, but my car is actually moving 15km/h faster when the binders go on - and we've had impromptu drag races out of the hairpin to prove that indeed, I can pull on him quite handily even with 14# of boost.

Don't make any weight assumptions about the latest V8s, because they are made of lightweight aluminum and lightweight rotating assembly. They are, in fact, often lighter than DOHC motors that have much less displacement and fewer cylinders.

[mytzlflick]

let s look at an entire race series, we take tow identical cars, one with a four cylynder and one a v-8, lets say the v-8 has a 300lb weight disadvantage, if you run a perfect race the four cylynder car will win out due to its slightly better acceleration curve and handling advantage, but if you miss the line on one corner and have to pick it up from out of that powerband the v-8 is gonna get you, if I botch the shift and drop the v-8 2000rpm out of band I'm still in a healthy part of the powerband, if I do the same with the turbo four I'm gonna be waiting a bit for the thing to get going again.
over the course of the race I think the v-8 will ahve an advantage, maybe it would be a problem in f1 where tires are going off over the course of a race but in a street based car? I doubt there is that much advantage to be had from a high strung motor vs a simple one.

(and I'd still arther troubleshoot a 70's v-8 than a new dohc four)

[Lowerit]

Just wondering who's faster you or rick potter??? Are you faster than corcran?

[Shaman]

That depends. I can usually hold my own against Potter, but that's just in the last of the year. He's still a better driver than I am, and he has a lot more experience on these Ontario tracks... tricks if you will. Same with Corcoran, but to be honest my car was all over the Corcoran machine last time we were out... he's got some engine management problems to sort out... his car should eat mine for brekky but I handily out-accelerated it.

Both are better drivers than I am, so it's hard to put the car's performance value into the mix.

[ADAM]

ok...as a final try at logic.....

1=a cars ultimate acceleration is limited by the available traction and the mass of the car
2= traction is not a product of the engine type( 4cyl vs v8) and is equal for both engines
3= if we have a 4cyl that produces "x" amount of power and a v8 that produces "x" amount of power they are equal.......so far so good....
4=since the 4cyl is smaller it is lighter..thus has less mass......
5= so the car with the least mass to accelerate will always win (given that "x" power is equal)


so the theoritical 4cyl motor is the better choice...or for that matter if a 1cyl RC aircraft motor could be designed to match "x" power...then it would win...

[Shaman]

Incorrect. The larger motors generate as much or more torque as compared to the 4s, and thus their greater mass tends to be a small factor. Ergo, the horsepower of the two is a definite factor, but generally, with the larger, flatter torque advantage of the larger engine, it will outperform the smaller engine of the same horsepower.

It's really the size and strength of the car that you need to build around the engine to handle the torque that generally limits production V8 cars. Now, bone stock Z06 'vettes run 12.4@115mph in the 1/4 mile, right off the showroom floor, and get 30mpg on the highway. They'll run circles around any "regular" production 'vette ever built. It gets better milage and produces much more torque than the "smaller, lighter" I6 motor in the M3. V8 technology has moved on, too. That and the LS1 are the modern motors to compare to.

And, in the end, there is a lot more power to be had out of the larger V8 engines. Even the big, heavy, old-school cast iron engines that you don't like are running sixes in the 1/4 mile naturally aspirated. Those same motors with inefficient superchargers are running 3.9x in the same kind of chassis (larger ones, actually) that the nine second Hondas are in. Those cars hit 120mph in 0.4 seconds. Think about that.

[Lowerit]

Oh , this is gonna be a can of worms..

12.4?? I went to the Pontiac nationals , GM brought out a bunch of cars , Incl a couple Z06's , they did a few Passes...low 13's..Have it on Video

Most vipers I have seen run in Norwalk run high 12's. My friend has been working close with Lingenfelter on a project , Lingenfelters personal z06 Test muls is only running 12.3's and it has a few mods on it.

again I have lots of drag race video's I will be converting into Avi's soon

you believing that GM hype again??

JM

[ADAM]

yes....but...once we reach the adhesion limit of the tires the rest of the excess torque and horsepower are meaningless...but mass is not....mass cannot be changed..it is a constant here

if the tires can only handle 4000hp......then 4019hp is useless.....or if at 4000ft/lbs the tires smoke off...then 4019ft/lbs does not really matter..

so if my 4cyl has 4000ft/lbs...and your v8 has 5000ft/lbs...but the adhesion is at 3800ft/lbs....then this is where mass comes into play....

[Shaman]

I can't apologize for bad drivers. I have a 12.4 on video. I'm working digging it out... will post in a few minutes.

Here we go. (http://www.rumour.com/Z06_124.mpeg) Note the trap speed. This is a stock car.

Adam: you missed the point where I said that Funny cars hit 120mph in 0.4 seconds - there doesn't seem to be a lack of traction there. :)

[ADAM]

the top fuel cars are limited now by traction...and clutch set up is the key to winning races, other wise they would smoke the tires the whole 1/4 mile...they have enough power 5000hp+...as i said onec you reach a certain level of power...more is useless

i think you will see advancements only through computerized control on the transmission, or new aerodynamics and tire compounds.....

[ADAM]

now...if we could have a combination of tire traction and some sort of forced air acceleration....like a 5000hp+ top fuel with 4wd, and a jet engine(s) or as well.....they may get into the high 2sec range?

since it gets to push against the air and the ground...

or how does this sound...a new type of track that has cogs (teeth) in it to allow a steel to steel gear meshing....so that all acceleration is instant..... :)