- 17,897
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
How the heck is an engine from a Chevrolet Cavalier considered a "real" engine?
Funny things RICErs say (radically immature car enthusiasts)
- Thread starter MK1 MR2 lover
- 2,003 comments
- 133,616 views
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
- 7,703
- Indy
- xXKingJoshXx
You guys can't seriously tell me you don't see AMERICAN MUSCLE when you look at this picture...
Look at that! So manly and tough and it has a real engine, too!
Look at that! So manly and tough and it has a real engine, too!
- 17,897
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
I got a Jet Engine and the Batmobile as a result.I typed in "real engine" on Google images, and the search returned a 426 Hemi.
You guys can't seriously tell me you don't see AMERICAN MUSCLE when you look at this picture...
Look at that! So manly and tough and it has a real engine, too!
With that logic, the 2.0L I-4 Zetec in my Ford Focus would be considered a "real" engine.
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
I got a Jet Engine and the Batmobile as a result.
With that logic, the 3.3L EGA V6 in my Dodge Caravan must considered an engineering miracle.
The only thing that has in common with the worlds "American Muscle" is it's ancient self.
Yes, that's a Sunbird. And yes, it had a V8.
Last edited:
- 524
- Michigan
- suprbk33
At least it's a Pontiac 'Bird. That's kinda close to a car I would drive.With that logic, the 3.3L EGA V6 in my Dodge Caravan must considered an engineering miracle.
The only thing that has in common with the worlds "American Muscle" is it's ancient self.
Yes, that's a Sunbird. And yes, it had a V8.
- 524
- Michigan
- suprbk33
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
I don't mind the Camaro because it's basically the same car but the Firebird and it's variants have always been more of an eye candy than the Camaro.
The Mustang was always a car I drooled over. I guess it was the headlight/tailight configuration and the fastback roofline.
The Mustang was always a car I drooled over. I guess it was the headlight/tailight configuration and the fastback roofline.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
2.2L for the I4 or 3.1L for the V6. Newer models may have 2.3L I4's.
I'd take that over a 1.4 any day.
- 3,475
- Vilnius
Nah, I'll have that VW Scirocco 1.4, 160 all-meaning-hp and all...
- 3,475
- Vilnius
Ahhh, I knew it. Those feminine tree-loving non-car-enthusiasts and their evil comforts and efficiency.
- 7,703
- Indy
- xXKingJoshXx
Yep. A 2.2L 4 cylinder that makes 95hp and a 3.1L V6 that makes 130hp are so much more appealing than a much smaller engine that makes the same power while not costing you an arm and a leg at the pump. I think everyone here can agree with you on that...
http://[domain blocked due to malware]/instances/250x250/37563837.jpg
- 17,897
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
A 2.2L I-4 & 3.1L V6? Not exactly what I would call "real engines", just saying.
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Come on man, we know White & Nerdy has that special logic, he puts his pants on both legs first I hear.
But you don't understand Jet, the Scirocco's what them evil commies want you to drive!
I died laughing when I saw this. and it wasn't the commies it was the evil Nazi reptilians that are still churning out Sciroccos. Don't worry W&N has a pamphlet all about it.
- 8,100
- Guelph, Ontario
How about a .6 N/A?
Because you know that they make more power than the 3.1 right? Right?
Fuel to the fire, make it burn brighter, oh oh yeah yeah logic er'ryday.
Edit: Found a Sunbird in its natural state of tune.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
You're bringing up bikes again?
Seriously?
A bike engine can do that because it doesn't have to worry so much about fuel economy and emissions regulations - therefore it can run in a near-racing state of tune with a minimal exhaust system. And because a bike weighs very, very little, the tuning can be biased heavily towards the high end (which will be very, very high) without making the bike feel sluggish when not actively racing. Try sticking that 0.6L engine in a car and the results might not be so fast. A bike is a totally different kind of vehicle with totally different requirements.
A 1.4L in a Skoda makes 140HP?
If I remember the post correctly, it never said anything about a turbo, which means that engine would be lucky to make 100HP.
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
What about the N/A GM 2.4L Quad 4 that made 150hp?
It would be different if the aftermarket was as large as it is for something like say an LS1 but it simply isn't. The engines (2.2L and 3.1L) are gutless pieces of garbage that are worth nothing more to anyone other than being a boat anchor...and maybe not even that since they probably aren't heavy enough for anything other than a sailboat.
It would be different if the aftermarket was as large as it is for something like say an LS1 but it simply isn't. The engines (2.2L and 3.1L) are gutless pieces of garbage that are worth nothing more to anyone other than being a boat anchor...and maybe not even that since they probably aren't heavy enough for anything other than a sailboat.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
There are plenty of engines of 1.4 size that make over 100hp without the assistance of a turbo.
Also not sure why you challenged a well known bike enthusiast on the forum because what you said thus far on the subject makes no rational sense and isn't correct.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Because every time engine displacement comes up in a discussion, he brings up a bike engine with more specific output that just about any passenger car engine ever. This is about cars. Bikes are irrelevant. I'm sure some people would like to have 600cc engines in normal passenger cars, but I wouldn't and, probably because of technical limitations, it's just not happening outside of Japan's comically small, advertised-horsepower-limited kei cars. To be perfectly honest, I hope it never does happen.
You'd be surprised. I suspect there's a lot more potential hiding in that engine. Exhaust is probably the major bottleneck, as well as the reason it runs out of power by 5300 RPM. A single pipe setup full of crush bends, with an early-1990's catalytic converter that by law can't be replaced with a better one until it fails, can't do much good for output.
Last edited:
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
Bikes aren't irrelevant actually. An engine is an engine regardless of it's application. You are talking about an engines displacement and it's power output. Who cares what it's in, that's not the point. Yes, they don't follow the same emissions regulations but that's all part of it. If you took that same 2.1L I4 and put it in a bike, it wouldn't automatically make more power now would it...
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Europe has cars with small engines like that an GM has theirs that is in testing. So these can be compared on level with Bike engines of similar size. The only reason the engines don't spin that high is because they wouldn't have the torque necessary to push a car (especially FF) that obviously weighs much more than a bike. Also there is no point for the car to have 12k rev limit with 171 or more hp because the idea is to run the least amount of power as possible that can get the car to operational highway speeds and save tons of gas to make the manufacture money.
Also what technical limits are you talking about?
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
If I took my 200cc trike that makes 18hp stock, and bumped the displacement up to 1.4L, it would theoretically make 126hp...this is a 28 year old, 2V headed, poopy exhaust system single cylinder engine we are talking about here...so really, please speak of these limitations. I'm intrigued.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
The ones you mentioned. A car weighs a lot more than a bike, so a bike's high-revving, no-low-end setup would fail badly, and 0.6L NA tuned for passenger car use would get run over on the highway. @Slashfan (post before last) no, but it would be able to make a lot more. First you could ditch the cat and run a much shorter, simpler exhaust. Then, because a bike doesn't need any torque to get moving, you could run a ridiculous cam that puts out high levels of horsepower at 10,000 RPM at the price of doing absolutely nothing until then. Of course other parts would have to be upgraded to avoid throwing a rod or bending valves at that RPM, but the point is, the physics of a bike call for different engine tuning that makes it easy for a small engine to produce more power.
