I am now part of the elite V8 club.

[drpootums]

Originally posted by: mtnd3vil
What do you even think makes an engine good? Let me tell you what 'I' think is going through your minds.

-Big?
That's what you Votec 4300 and 3800 series II people must think--those are the two biggest, dumbest, mediocre 6 cylinder engines that come to mind. "My 1995 Chevy blazer rocks SO HARD that I can tow like.....two jet-skis with it" Yeah, that's fantastic

-Power?
I KNOW this is what LS6/7 people think.
"Yes I'll buy 1970's style engines with modern electronics and metal, as long as they have lots of power, that's all that maters!" Please go buy that, you deserve it

-Outsourced?
Taurus SHO V-6 lovers.
"Dude, my taurus is more advanced than an Apache "long-bow" attack hellicopter. I think it might also be faster!"
"This engine must be from the future!" Wrong: modern-time Asia

-Completely Un-usable power?
Cadilac V-8
"Dude, my caddy has SO much power that I can spin the front right tire through all 4 gears, isn't that bad-ass?" Noooooo it is not


***What might ACTUALLY be a good definition of a good engine***


-Revolutionary?
BMW 4.5L V-8
Fully electo-magnetic valve actuation
no pushrods
no camshaft
no throttle plate
"I don't belive you, you're making that up. NO WAY that's a production engine." 2006 BMW 545i -- suck it

BMW Inline 6s
IAS system.
Integrated Alternator Starter
"Again, what are you even talking about?"
Die

-High output per capacity and cost?
WRX STI
"Wow, did I really just pass that new mustang GT with my cheap 4 cylinder?"
Hell F*ing Yes


Forward thinking-
E320 CDI
"A full size diesel sedan that's faster than almost every car in it's class? WTF?"
"Wait, you're kidding? This thing's been tested to cover a hundred thousand miles on a racetrack at a sustained 130MPH non-stop?"
"... and now they've made an E420 CDI that has broken the world record for MOST TORQUE in a passenger vehicle ever and it gets to 60mph in less than 6 seconds?"
"WTF Mercedes-Benz"
Yessssss Sir:shocked:


These are my criteria for a 'good' engine.
What are yours? Might wanna think twice about putting your 1999 Bonneville on a "Best Engine" list.






Get a few more things off my chest:

Originally posted by: OS

The Z06 motor is kind of a bad example, it's not a mass production engine and has manufacturing materials/processes in it that would never make it into any volume car. The connecting rods, pushrods, valves, valve springs, retainers are all titanium and the heads are CNC machine ported.

OMG, pushrods in a brand new MY2007 engine! Where do I sign up to get one of those?

You're right, the Z06 motor IS a bad example........of an engine.

Originally posted by: Mr N8
We've got 2 V8's (Ford Crown Vic and Ski Nautique with 5.7l inboard), a V6 (Jeep Cherokee 4.0), and an inline 4 (Hond Civic). Yep, the Civic get driven the most and the Crown Vic is about to wave bye-bye.

Your Jeep Cherokee 4.0L is an inline 6.

Originally posted by: OS
I don't see how you can say the SHO motor is exceptional and the accord V6 sucks. The accord V6 makes more power with the same displacement and with one less cam per head (SOHC vs DOHC).

Yes. I'm very curious about this too. I'm not an asian car person and even I think this is an intelligent statement. I also know that the last two generations of Honda Accord V-6 are faster than A LOT of other cars.



FYI-- I love ATOT car threads

WOW....you dont know much about engines....


for one, yes, i agree that the 4.3 L GM v6 is a pretty poor engine. Yes, it has a ton of torque for a V6, but due to the transmissions that GM matches them with that makes them run faster for more power even at highway speeds, it makes them not last as long.

The 3.8 V6 on the other hand is one of the best engines ever made. You say it's one of the dumbest engines, but i'd like to see you run the BMW 4.5 to 276,000 miles like my bro did on his Oldsmobile and still have it run great with good compression....(btw, this is on a car that cost about $17,000 or so when it came out). Also, the 3.8 has been rated #4 on the top-ten engines of the world list back in 1999 i think.

BTW, did you know that pushrod engines tend to last longer AND have better torque delivery than over-head cam engines? Just because an engine has more modern features (such as VVT, SOHC or DOHC) doesnt necessarily mean it's better. All the overhead cams do is usually just allow the engine to have a higher redline.

Also, you calling the 7.0l V8 a poor example of an engine just shows how little you know about cars (and the car threads that you love so much). I'd like to see how many other production V8's that can push out over 500 hp and about 470 ft. lbs. of torque without any special induction methods.

The old GM small-block V8's push out plenty of power and have proven to be reliable and last a LONG time. It's still funny that the LS2 corvette engine has 400 hp and gets almost 30 mpg highway (pretty decent for a 1970's engine )

anyways, i just had to try and correct a few of your "myths" about american engines (for some reason you seemed to favor european/asian engines ).


EDIT (i messed up, fixed my post now): The cheapy WRX STi is actually more expensive than the Mustang GT.

 

[tbike06]

The STi can actually do 0-60 in <5 seconds. FYI.

 

[drpootums]

Originally posted by: tbike06
The STi can actually do 0-60 in <5 seconds. FYI.

crap....yeah, you're right. For some reason i thought i read that somewhere, but i guess i messed up....

(fixed post)

thanks for correcting me!

 

[SonicIce]

so it's like 4 cylinders in SLI?

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: raildogg
I am part of the Japanese V-6 club. Are we elite too?

No.

Aww :brokenheart:

 

[mtnd3vil]

Originally posted by: drpootums


WOW....you dont know much about engines....

I think that it is clearly evident to you, that you are disagreeing with someone that DOES know engines. What I say is factually sound, even if we don't draw the same conlusions.

Originally posted by: drpootums

The 3.8 V6 on the other hand is one of the best engines ever made. You say it's one of the dumbest engines, but i'd like to see you run the BMW 4.5 to 276,000 miles like my bro did on his Oldsmobile and still have it run great with good compression....(btw, this is on a car that cost about $17,000 or so when it came out). Also, the 3.8 has been rated #4 on the top-ten engines of the world list back in 1999 i think.

There is no way to even assume what the longevity of a new BMW engine would be and I don't know why you are trying to. Your brother sure got his money's worth, but I don't think his experiance provides any useful information to our debate.

Originally posted by: drpootums
BTW, did you know that pushrod engines tend to last longer AND have better torque delivery than over-head cam engines?

No, I did not know that. I also don't belive any of it. It sounds like some vague statements that you are saying with no substantation.

Single cam (push-rod) engines use rocker arms to actuate the valves. This design subjects the valves to slight lateral loads as well as the normal opening/closing action. This creates additional wear on the valve guides. It is very normal for pushrod engines to need the valve guides replaced with mileage. It is very normal for OHC engines to NEVER need new valve guides.

I also definately don't belive the bit about the torque. Cam-in-block push-rod designs are restricted from having over two valves per cylinder or having any type of varriable valve timing. These are two things that have a major impact on 'torque delivery'

Originally posted by: drpootums
All the overhead cams do is usually just allow the engine to have a higher redline.

Haha, absolutely not.
I've addressed some other advantages above. If this was the case, OHC designs would never have been implimented, ever

Originally posted by: drpootums
I'd like to see how many other production V8's that can push out over 500 hp and about 470 ft. lbs. of torque without any special induction methods.
[/b]

Why is making an engine bigger than it needs to be by not using forced induction a good thing?

The M-5 has a 5.0 V-10 that makes 500HP
SLR has a 5.5L V-8 with 600HP

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: mtnd3vil


Haha, absolutely not.
I've addressed some other advantages above. If this was the case, OHC designs would never have been implimented, ever

Originally posted by: drpootums
I'd like to see how many other production V8's that can push out over 500 hp and about 470 ft. lbs. of torque without any special induction methods.
[/b]

Why is making an engine bigger than it needs to be by not using forced induction a good thing?

I've tried to stay out of this but..............

What you fail to realize is the engine has overcome the effects of the added mass while developing power with a simpler system while being efficient. IMO that is much better than using a more complex ohc/ dohc system.

Forced induction? Too make the engine smaller? As someone who mantains a 450hp+ TT engine I think you are missing the reliability factor. Yes the bulletproof bottom end could handle boost but why?


I'm not trying to knock my turbos but......that is one fvcking awesome engine............ and I wouldn't mind having the immediate torque

 

[mooncancook]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
so it's like 4 cylinders in SLI?

Can I SLI two STi engine and get 600hp for cheap?

 

[SampSon]

I have a V10.

 

[BoomerD]

Wow...lots of testosterone flying around in here...

My 05 Expedition has a wimpy 5.4l 3 valve V-8, rated @ 300 hp. Not bad, but pretty weak compared tosome of the V-8's of the 60's and early 70's...

My 87 BMW 735i has a 3.5 l in-line 6, with 218 hp, and it's pretty good at get-up and go...with a decent gas mileage 24+/- hwy....120K on this one

My pathetic little 96 Dodge Dakota with the impressive 2.5l 4 cyl, with 120 hp...and currently 215K on the clock.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

i have a 4.0L V6 that outputs so little power in my Ford Exploder.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Elite Inline Six here.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: mtnd3vil

Originally posted by: drpootums

Why is making an engine bigger than it needs to be by not using forced induction a good thing?

The M-5 has a 5.0 V-10 that makes 500HP
SLR has a 5.5L V-8 with 600HP




Because force induction requires high RPM's to achieve high HP. Also forced induction has very very very crappy torque. Remember Turbo LAG????

Bigger the engine the stronger the torque. Why else u think H2's have like 200 something hp but they have almost double the Torque!

 

[mtnd3vil]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: mtnd3vil

Originally posted by: drpootums

Why is making an engine bigger than it needs to be by not using forced induction a good thing?

The M-5 has a 5.0 V-10 that makes 500HP
SLR has a 5.5L V-8 with 600HP




Because force induction requires high RPM's to achieve high HP. Also forced induction has very very very crappy torque. Remember Turbo LAG????

Bigger the engine the stronger the torque. Why else u think H2's have like 200 something hp but they have almost double the Torque!

??????

+The H2 has 320Hp and is a 6.0 V-8

+Forced induction does not require high RPMs to be useful. Almost every turbocharged car on the market right now is tuned to have LOW RPM torque it's greatest attribute.

+"Remember turbo-lag"
I love how you preface this question. REMEMBER. Yes I do remember turbo lag, from 10 years ago when it existed.

 

[mooncancook]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: mtnd3vil

Originally posted by: drpootums

Why is making an engine bigger than it needs to be by not using forced induction a good thing?

The M-5 has a 5.0 V-10 that makes 500HP
SLR has a 5.5L V-8 with 600HP




Because force induction requires high RPM's to achieve high HP. Also forced induction has very very very crappy torque. Remember Turbo LAG????

Bigger the engine the stronger the torque. Why else u think H2's have like 200 something hp but they have almost double the Torque!

Evo SuperCharged 2.0L @280hp > M5 5.0L @500hp
and you can easily tune it to 300+ hp and more

What crappy torque?
Subaru STi 2.5L 300 lb-ft @4000 rpm
Hummer H2 6.0L 360 lb-ft @4000 rpm
and don't forget the H2 engine is tuned for torque over hp

turbo lag? newer engine like the Audi 2.0T pretty much get rid of lags

btw Elite Supercharged boxer-4 here

 

[DivideBYZero]

"Also forced induction has very very very crappy torque."

The ignorance in this thread is quite something.

 

[mtnd3vil]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
"Also forced induction has very very very crappy torque."

The ignorance in this thread is quite something.

Yeah I know, I'm getting really stressed out trying to deal with the ignorance you speak of.


Nobody even understands the relationship between horsepower and torque.

They think they are seperate entities, and than an engine has one or the other.
Horsepower is torque at a higher RPM.

Horsepower is a function of where the engine has it's torque.


Here's a question:
Two engines--which is one has greater peak power?

Engine 1
5.0L V-8
228 HP
300 Lb.Ft.


Engine 2
5.0L V-8
285 HP
300 Lb. Ft.

Answer- they have the same peak power. Engine 1 has it's maximum power at 4000RPM and engine 2 has it's maximum power at 5000RPM. This single varriation is what gives engine 2 50 more HP.

Please learn about cars

 

[jtvang125]

1UZ-FE 4.0L V8 here.
300hp and 310 lb ft torque

I wouldn't mind dropping a 2JZ-GTE in but too much $$$.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
"Also forced induction has very very very crappy torque."

The ignorance in this thread is quite something.

LOL yeah because instant 700 ft-lbs from 2000-5500 RPM with 281ci is very crappy torque ... :roll: (This is with a twin screw supercharger on a 4.6L 32V OHV engine, note that OHV engines are traditionally weaker on bottom end torque to start with)

My picks for nice engines:

The '03 Cobra 4.6 and the Supra I6 that can both routinely handle over 20 psi boost and 800+ HP on the factory built long block with minor fuel/air mods.

A built 3S-GTE, 2.0L I4 that can run over 500 HP.

The new Toyota 3.5L V6's are making 300 HP and almost as much torque, thats more than alot of V8s!! (my fiancee's '06 Avalon slips the tires through second and sometimes third even with automatic and LSD and routinely smokes worthless jocks that think they are bad arse in their mustang gts; what she doesn't finish my blowzilla terminator does)

I'm waiting to see what the 5.4L in the new Shelby can do with a Whipple or KB blower and fuel/air mods... with 500 HP with only 9 psi stock, I'm hoping tuners will break the 1000 HP barrier with the same mods as the '03 on 93 pump gas :Q

 

[drpootums]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: mtnd3vil

Originally posted by: drpootums

Why is making an engine bigger than it needs to be by not using forced induction a good thing?

The M-5 has a 5.0 V-10 that makes 500HP
SLR has a 5.5L V-8 with 600HP




Because force induction requires high RPM's to achieve high HP. Also forced induction has very very very crappy torque. Remember Turbo LAG????

Bigger the engine the stronger the torque. Why else u think H2's have like 200 something hp but they have almost double the Torque!

WHERE THE **** did my name come in?!?!?!?!!? I didn't say this

 

[drpootums]

Originally posted by: mtnd3vil

Originally posted by: drpootums
BTW, did you know that pushrod engines tend to last longer AND have better torque delivery than over-head cam engines?

I also definately don't belive the bit about the torque. Cam-in-block push-rod designs are restricted from having over two valves per cylinder or having any type of varriable valve timing. These are two things that have a major impact on 'torque delivery'

Originally posted by: drpootums
I'd like to see how many other production V8's that can push out over 500 hp and about 470 ft. lbs. of torque without any special induction methods.
[/b]

Why is making an engine bigger than it needs to be by not using forced induction a good thing?

For someone who knows a lot about engines, apparently you haven't noticed that GM makes "cam in block" (pushrod) engines with VVT.

Also, forced induction (especially turbos) can significantly shorten engine life.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
It feels so good to use way more gas than I need.

:beer:

Too bad the V-8 club is no longer elite. V-10 is the new elite club.......

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mtnd3vil

Here's a question:
Two engines--which is one has greater peak power?

Engine 1
5.0L V-8
228 HP
300 Lb.Ft.


Engine 2
5.0L V-8
285 HP
300 Lb. Ft.

Answer- they have the same peak power. Engine 1 has it's maximum power at 4000RPM and engine 2 has it's maximum power at 5000RPM. This single varriation is what gives engine 2 50 more HP.

Please learn about cars

Dude, STOP POSTING. You're really making yourself look BAD. You are surely not worthy to post in a car thread.

The answer to your question is that engine 2 has more horsepower. If it has 285 hp compared to engine 1's 228 hp, how the hell do you think they have the same amount of horsepower?

They have the same peak torque, NOT the same peak power.

 

[91TTZ]

"We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole multi colored collection of uppers, downers, laughers, screamers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls"

That is a quote from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, from a guy who's taken a ton of drugs.

"Because force induction requires high RPM's to achieve high HP. Also forced induction has very very very crappy torque. Remember Turbo LAG????

That is a quote from someone who has obviously taken even more.

Forced induction has very crappy torque? My 3 liter engine has forced induction and put 389 ft lbs of torque down to the rear wheels. You will never find a naturally aspirated car of similar displacement make that kind of torque.

Increasing manifold pressure increases the effective displacement of the engine. At 14.7 psi, you're forcing twice as much fuel/air into the cyldinders than a naturally aspirated engine can ingest. Likewise, its torque will increase proportionally.

And forced induction needs high RPMs to achieve high horsepower? You're on crack. Since horsepower and RPM are intrinsicly linked, ANY engine that revs higher will make more horsepower. It's in the formula. Remember, HP= (Tq x rpm)/5252. But to completely contradict what you just said, since a forced induction engine makes much more torque than a naturally aspirated engine, the opposite of what you said is true. A forced induction engine, with its greater torque, will make higher HP at a given RPM. It doesn't have to come up high, for a Grand National makes 355 lbs of torque by 2000 rpm.

Did someone just get owned?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mtnd3vil

I also definately don't belive the bit about the torque. Cam-in-block push-rod designs are restricted from having over two valves per cylinder or having any type of varriable valve timing. These are two things that have a major impact on 'torque delivery'

where do you come up with this stuff? You can have more than two valves per cylinder with a cam in block design or VVT. If you knew jack squat about engines, you'd understand how this could be done.