Which company got the most out of there engine

[jag_man_v12]

Which company got the most out of an engine
5.7 litre fuel injection 300kw 0 to 400 meters 14.0 sec
or
4.2 litre superchargered 289 kw 0 to 400 meters 14.2 sec

forget about what they are in all though some people will work it out

 

[LoudMusic]

That's similar to my comparison of the S2000's inline 4 up against the Viper's 10L V8. If you look at hp/L the S2000 absolutely blows the viper away.

Viper 10L 450hp = 45hp/L
S2000 2.5L 240hp = 96hp/L

I like to throw the RX8 in there as well (:

RX8 1.3L 250hp = 192hp/L

And these are all N/A engines. No turbo, no supercharger, no NOZ (yuck), no intercooler ... just raw horsepower.

~LoudMusic

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Well I think I can guess what car the 4.2L Supercharged engine is in!

I think you need to define where "most" is coming from. Are you talking about the highest specific output? Or perhaps highest output per unit of engine weight/size?

Ultimately, because one of the engines features forced induction, you're not really comparing like with like.

 

[LoudMusic]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie Ultimately, because one of the engines features forced induction, you're not really comparing like with like.

Good point, which is why I like comparing the three in my example. The thing I usually don't go into is torque. The Viper has an ungodly amount of torque, where the S2000 ... not so much.

~LoudMusic

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by LoudMusic


Good point, which is why I like comparing the three in my example. The thing I usually don't go into is torque. The Viper has an ungodly amount of torque, where the S2000 ... not so much.

~LoudMusic

Yes, the S2000 has some torque, but it's at like 7500rpm, which doesn't spell tractability.

I note that you sneaked a rotary into your comparison! Bad boy!

 

[LoudMusic]

(:

~LoudMusic

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by LoudMusic
That's similar to my comparison of the S2000's inline 4 up against the Viper's 10L V8. If you look at hp/L the S2000 absolutely blows the viper away.

Viper 10L 450hp = 45hp/L
S2000 2.5L 240hp = 96hp/L

True, if you pick that particular figure, you are correct. But what good is that kind of number if it is constrained to a power band about 1000 rpm wide, way up over 7500 revs? Good for road racing on an open track, but not much else.

The Viper, on the other hand, hits its peak early and holds it. It's making 70% of its torque before you hit 1500 rpm! The torque curve peaks well below 4000 rpm and is flat as a pool table all the way up to 7000 or so. The same with horsepower.

Now that's usable power, no matter what the volumetric efficiency number says in favor of the Honda.

 

[TVRKing]

I voted for the 5.7 litre. That's quite a mean feat being as it doesn't have a Turbo or Supercharger.

 

[DessViperV-10]

viper has sweet torque,the new with 502 ft-lbs,and 500 horses...

but the viper still gets 11-12 miles per gallon

about honda,i agree thats a very nice engine,4 inline,240HP,powerful car........

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LoudMusic
That's similar to my comparison of the S2000's inline 4 up against the Viper's 10L V8. If you look at hp/L the S2000 absolutely blows the viper away.

Viper 10L 450hp = 45hp/L
S2000 2.5L 240hp = 96hp/L

I like to throw the RX8 in there as well (:

RX8 1.3L 250hp = 192hp/L

And these are all N/A engines. No turbo, no supercharger, no NOZ (yuck), no intercooler ... just raw horsepower.

~LoudMusic

Correction the S2000 is a 2.0L I-4 which equates to 120hp/L

Double Correction, the Viper is a 8L V10. Only 1 Viper ever had a V8 and that was the concept car back in 89 that had a Vette V8.

Viper V10 8.0L - 56.25hp/L

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
Yes, the S2000 has some torque, but it's at like 7500rpm, which doesn't spell tractability.

I never really liked Honda's high-revving "performance" engines. They tout high HP numbers as if it really meant anything. Peak torque -- the actual output of the car -- is only 153 lb-ft. And even *that* comes late in the curve. Granted, that's on a lightweight car with a low-geared 6-speed transmission, so performance is not sub-par.

Driveability, as you say, leaves much to be desired. As for it being all that useable as a race car: super-peaky 14,000rpm F1 engines have a broader curve than that. Sounds nice at the exhaust, though.

I note that you sneaked a rotary into your comparison! Bad boy!

I remember hearing how rotaries almost don't count. The combustion chambers aren't fighting against each other as in a conventional piston engine, but instead help one another, pushing the next one along. Neat tricks to do with oddly-shaped discs of steel.

 

[jag_man_v12]

Originally posted by TVRKing
I voted for the 5.7 litre. That's quite a mean feat being as it doesn't have a Turbo or Supercharger.

true but 5.7 litre is big motor and there fore should have that power if not something is wrong