vid; 69 Camaro vs Supra

[91TTZ]

Ok, time for some ownage.

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/113_0312_turbo/

"Only the most efficient normally aspirated race engines with very specialized induction tuning can exceed 100 percent volumetric efficiency (VE), but a supercharger's forced induction makes exceeding 100 percent easy; 15 pounds of boost pressure (defined as pressure above the normal 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure) effectively doubles an engine's displacement--with correspondingly huge potential horsepower increases."

http://www.procharger.com/faq.shtml

"So in more technical terms, supercharging increases both the volumetric efficiency of the engine and the mass air flow through the engine to produce gains in both horsepower and torque."

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-idc.htm

"For forced induction engines, VE can easily exceed 100%. "

http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer/dyno_testing_defininations.html

"Volumetric Efficiency; A four stroke engine's volumetric efficiency would be 100% if it were 360 cubic inches, and it flowed 360 cubic inches of air every two revolutions. With good intake manifold, camshaft, and exhaust header tuning 100%+ VE can be achieved in a naturally aspirated engine. Engines with forced induction will have VEs of well over 100%."

http://home.quixnet.net/~cosmic/EngineCalc.htm

"Most stock engines have a volumetric efficiency of 75-80%. Modifications (intake manifold, cam, exhaust, porting & polishing, etc.) can bring this up to 80-85%. Really highly tuned engines can actually go above 100%, but this occurs over a very small speed range. Forced induction engines (turbocharger, blower, etc.) can go well above 100%. "

http://www.automotivearticles.com/Turbo_Selection.shtml

"To get the most accurate results from this step I would suggest researching your engine and coming up with the most realistic VE possible as this does have a significant affect on engine flow. If you are just messing around with compressor flow maps and need a value for VE just to experiment with, 85% efficiency is a nice conservative number for most modified turbocharged cars at high rpm (6500-7500). Keep in mind though that on a forced induction setup VE can easily exceed 100% so again it will be very beneficial to research your engine."

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0411em_super/

" With a blower, volumetric efficiency can easily exceed 100 percent, while most naturally aspirated engines struggle to achieve 60-80 percent VE."

another link

"By supercharging and turbocharging, you can bring the volumetric efficiency figures to over 100 percent."

Should I keep on going or can you take the hint?
(Hint: the hint is that you were wrong)

 

[MercenaryForHire]

<Ricer Answer> Oh yeah, well, that's because you have a V8, and I get better mileage!

- M4H

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: BadNewsBears
http://bargainnet.org/TurboBuicks.wmv

Two grand nationals SMOKE a viper. the camera car smoked em too

not bad but too bad they look like shiet.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Reck
i'd still take the supra anyday.

are you nuts.. a 69 camaro SS (specially if its a rare DZ 302 car) in mint condition you can buy 5 suped up Supras...

 

[boyRacer]

I see that another YACT has drawn in the "my e-penis is bigger than yours" club.

 

[Jimmah]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Ok, time for some ownage.

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/113_0312_turbo/

"Only the most efficient normally aspirated race engines with very specialized induction tuning can exceed 100 percent volumetric efficiency (VE), but a supercharger's forced induction makes exceeding 100 percent easy; 15 pounds of boost pressure (defined as pressure above the normal 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure) effectively doubles an engine's displacement--with correspondingly huge potential horsepower increases."

http://www.procharger.com/faq.shtml

"So in more technical terms, supercharging increases both the volumetric efficiency of the engine and the mass air flow through the engine to produce gains in both horsepower and torque."

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-idc.htm

"For forced induction engines, VE can easily exceed 100%. "

http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer/dyno_testing_defininations.html

"Volumetric Efficiency; A four stroke engine's volumetric efficiency would be 100% if it were 360 cubic inches, and it flowed 360 cubic inches of air every two revolutions. With good intake manifold, camshaft, and exhaust header tuning 100%+ VE can be achieved in a naturally aspirated engine. Engines with forced induction will have VEs of well over 100%."

http://home.quixnet.net/~cosmic/EngineCalc.htm

"Most stock engines have a volumetric efficiency of 75-80%. Modifications (intake manifold, cam, exhaust, porting & polishing, etc.) can bring this up to 80-85%. Really highly tuned engines can actually go above 100%, but this occurs over a very small speed range. Forced induction engines (turbocharger, blower, etc.) can go well above 100%. "

http://www.automotivearticles.com/Turbo_Selection.shtml

"To get the most accurate results from this step I would suggest researching your engine and coming up with the most realistic VE possible as this does have a significant affect on engine flow. If you are just messing around with compressor flow maps and need a value for VE just to experiment with, 85% efficiency is a nice conservative number for most modified turbocharged cars at high rpm (6500-7500). Keep in mind though that on a forced induction setup VE can easily exceed 100% so again it will be very beneficial to research your engine."

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0411em_super/

" With a blower, volumetric efficiency can easily exceed 100 percent, while most naturally aspirated engines struggle to achieve 60-80 percent VE."

another link

"By supercharging and turbocharging, you can bring the volumetric efficiency figures to over 100 percent."

Should I keep on going or can you take the hint?
(Hint: the hint is that you were wrong)

You know there's no real point arguing with you, while you have your internet and tons of unqualified people saying its more VE with forced induction, while if you look at the true physics of it, its really not ingesting any more air than it could in the first place, only difference is air density. I'm glad you believe everything you hear online, you must lead quite the sheltered existance. Personally I believe the prof and my old texts, as they're just a little more experienced with this field than any of those website could ever hope to be. I'm done with this, you don't seem capable of grasping the concepts.

 

[Ornery]

Whoa Andy, don't you think you should be able to come up with at least ONE link, or scanned text that supports your position?

Honestly, the burden of proof is on you at this point! For example, his last link was Based upon a text provided by the U.S. Navy :Q

 

[skyking]

I have to say, those buicks look like a lot of fun. I had no idea you could get that much out of a gimmy V-6.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Jimmah
[
You know there's no real point arguing with you, while you have your internet and tons of unqualified people saying its more VE with forced induction, while if you look at the true physics of it, its really not ingesting any more air than it could in the first place, only difference is air density. I'm glad you believe everything you hear online, you must lead quite the sheltered existance. Personally I believe the prof and my old texts, as they're just a little more experienced with this field than any of those website could ever hope to be. I'm done with this, you don't seem capable of grasping the concepts.

You keep claiming that your "professor" and your "texts" say otherwise, yet you've shown absolutely NO proof, not a single shred of supporting evidence. And I've asked to see it multiple times.

While I keep providing links supporting my claim, the idiot (you) on the other side of the conversation refuses to believe any of it, and in fact refuses to even show a single piece of evidence stating otherwise. How does that look for your case?

Obviously if you had evidence you'd show it. But you don't, so you can't.

Back up your bogus claim. I've backed up my side of this, it's your turn.

 

[Jmman]

That Camaro was sweet. Reminds me of my first car. Of course my car was one of those rare big block 69's........fun, fun, fun.....

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

This might rival the "Electricity Question" thread for the biggest e-penis battle.

And I didn't even have to participate this time.

 

[Acanthus]

I bet the supra driver didnt have a mullet and say "yall" a lot.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Nebor


That's just not true. For the last 10 years the most powerful and the fastest cars in the world have come from Europe.

I said the most powerful car engines in the world. Top fuel dragster engines.

Yep.. Top Fuel dragsters and Top Fuel Funnycars are simply INSANE. Formula 1 and any other European racing has produced nothing like them, not even close.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OS
lol, advanced cams? More like one cam with fat ass lobes?

16 cams, 1 camshaft.

Originally posted by: no0b
Funny how "Hemi" means nothing considering most 4v engines have hemispherical heads. Ricer boys could slap Hemi badges to their civics and technicaly be accurate.

Negative. A hemispherical head only allows for 2 valves per cylinder. 4 valve per cylinder engines have pentroof heads.

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
What does volumetric efficiency have to do with where the camshaft is located?

Nothing. OHC valvetrains rob less horsepower and have less moving parts than OHV valvetrains.
DOHC valvetrains allow the exhaust and intake valves to be timed independently.
I think what was meant was that OHC valvetrains make 4 valve per cylinder engines more practical, and 4 valves does improve volumetric efficiency considerably.

Originally posted by: Jimmah
I remember back when I was in my first semester of mechanical engineering, the prof was a rear gearhead and somehow we got talking about VE, even had a referrence in my machines and tools text. He explained how increasing air pressure/density doesn't do anything to the VE, how the engine is still pulling in 87% (or whatever) VE but at a different pressure. Now I'm not going to believe a bs website which probably has no true credentials saying VE is modified via forced induction vs what the prof said, he who IS a real engineer and HAS the masters degree + experience to back it up. You may keep your misconceptions.

Your prof was whacked (and so are you). FI increases VE in excess of 100%. If you actually studied engineering, then you should know that there are simple standard equations for understanding this. How the fsck else do you think they get 300+ hp out of a 2.5L engine? Solve for VE with 300 hp and 2.5L and I guarantee you get > 100%.
As far as I am concerned, forced induction should be renamed to forced displacement.

I would take the Camaro over the Supra any day of the week and especially on Sunday. That thing was gorgeous... and the sound! :Q

 

[Vic]

Just to amuse myself, I looked up the equation for calculating VE assuming sea level atmospheric pressure when displacement and hp at a given rpm are known.

It is:
VE = (HP * 792001.6) / (AP * CR * CID * RPM)

So, calculating using a Subaru WRX-STi (2.5L = 151.8 CID):
VE = (300 * 792001.6 ) / (14.7 * 8.5 * 151.8 * 6000)
VE = 237600480 / 113804460
VE = 2.088 or 208.8%

Someone feel free to check my math.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Are there any ricer cars that push 400hp and are capable of over 25mpg? This is an honest question, I keep hearing the ricers run off at the mouth about the incredible efficiency of their way of building things, but none of them can point out anything the can match the LS-7 Vette. I'm curious if there is anything out there.

Also, why is it that VE is detemined solely by the swept area of the piston? This seems assinine to me and ignores the significant weight and size penalites DOHCs and superchargers have in particular(turbos to a much lesser extent).

 

[Ornery]

Why is it, when Japan wants to build a sturdy vehicle, it's a V8, RWD, ladder framed, normally aspirated, Automatic that gets 15 mpg / 18 mpg? How quaint, and old fashioned!

 

That was a camera running alcohol.
He could smoke just about anything on the road.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Jimmah

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Ok, time for some ownage.

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/113_0312_turbo/

"Only the most efficient normally aspirated race engines with very specialized induction tuning can exceed 100 percent volumetric efficiency (VE), but a supercharger's forced induction makes exceeding 100 percent easy; 15 pounds of boost pressure (defined as pressure above the normal 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure) effectively doubles an engine's displacement--with correspondingly huge potential horsepower increases."

http://www.procharger.com/faq.shtml

"So in more technical terms, supercharging increases both the volumetric efficiency of the engine and the mass air flow through the engine to produce gains in both horsepower and torque."

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-idc.htm

"For forced induction engines, VE can easily exceed 100%. "

http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer/dyno_testing_defininations.html

"Volumetric Efficiency; A four stroke engine's volumetric efficiency would be 100% if it were 360 cubic inches, and it flowed 360 cubic inches of air every two revolutions. With good intake manifold, camshaft, and exhaust header tuning 100%+ VE can be achieved in a naturally aspirated engine. Engines with forced induction will have VEs of well over 100%."

http://home.quixnet.net/~cosmic/EngineCalc.htm

"Most stock engines have a volumetric efficiency of 75-80%. Modifications (intake manifold, cam, exhaust, porting & polishing, etc.) can bring this up to 80-85%. Really highly tuned engines can actually go above 100%, but this occurs over a very small speed range. Forced induction engines (turbocharger, blower, etc.) can go well above 100%. "

http://www.automotivearticles.com/Turbo_Selection.shtml

"To get the most accurate results from this step I would suggest researching your engine and coming up with the most realistic VE possible as this does have a significant affect on engine flow. If you are just messing around with compressor flow maps and need a value for VE just to experiment with, 85% efficiency is a nice conservative number for most modified turbocharged cars at high rpm (6500-7500). Keep in mind though that on a forced induction setup VE can easily exceed 100% so again it will be very beneficial to research your engine."

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0411em_super/

" With a blower, volumetric efficiency can easily exceed 100 percent, while most naturally aspirated engines struggle to achieve 60-80 percent VE."

another link

"By supercharging and turbocharging, you can bring the volumetric efficiency figures to over 100 percent."

Should I keep on going or can you take the hint?
(Hint: the hint is that you were wrong)

You know there's no real point arguing with you, while you have your internet and tons of unqualified people saying its more VE with forced induction, while if you look at the true physics of it, its really not ingesting any more air than it could in the first place, only difference is air density. I'm glad you believe everything you hear online, you must lead quite the sheltered existance. Personally I believe the prof and my old texts, as they're just a little more experienced with this field than any of those website could ever hope to be. I'm done with this, you don't seem capable of grasping the concepts.

You're an idiot. I hope you're not an engineer at this point. He posted several credible links. You havent posted ANYTHING AT ALL. Yet, you claim he cannot grasp concepts. Grasp that you were wrong, put your shriveled e-penis away, and confess that you were dropped on your head as a small boy, then return to your hole for ninety days or until Ornery permits you back to OT.

 

Originally posted by: Ornery
Why is it, when Japan wants to build a sturdy vehicle, it's a V8, RWD, ladder framed, normally aspirated, Automatic that gets 15 mpg / 18 mpg? How quaint, and old fashioned!

It's called catering to the American public market. Imagine that, a company catering to one of the most rabid consumer based populations around.


They build plenty of sturdy vehicles that don't match your description.

Now I'm going to wait for you to post some "funny" picture you found on the internet.

 

[Ornery]

I'm lost. You tout the advanced engineering of small hyper powertrains, including turbos, and manual trannies, but when they want to compete with old fashioned American technology, that all flies out the window! WTF? Why not fall back on that "superior" technology?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I'm lost. You tout the advanced engineering of small hyper powertrains, including turbos, and manual trannies, but when they want to compete with old fashioned American technology, that all flies out the window! WTF? Why not fall back on that "superior" technology?

Because Cletus and Billy Bob don't want a small engine that they need to rev to get power.

They done want them thar Hemmuhs.

- M4H

 

[Ornery]

Why don't they up the anti?

 

[Vic]

Jeez, Ornery... if you had your way we'd all still be driving Model T's... :roll:

A truck is a truck. It's a utility vehicle. It needs to be V8, RWD, and ladder-framed as a function of its utility.

Passenger cars, however, are not trucks, and don't need to be. Other factors apply.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Why don't they up the anti?

Up what ante? Small car? Truck? Huh? English? Hemi? Boy Howdy?

- M4H