ToxicBug wrote:If a 4.6L V8 Mustang GT had the same HP/L like that civic (300hp/1.8L) then it would have 767HP N/A
of course, it will never be calculated that way
the torque numbers are even if not more than what the horsypower is at...that is where the extra size makes the difference
The peak torque of that 1.8L is 178lb-ft, therefore the 4.6L would have to make 455lb-ft of peak torque. Considering that it would rev to like 8500rpm, that is more than enough torque.
as if 7000 rpm torque peaks are great for taking corners.
highreving engines are only usefull if you never use the brake pedal (aka Drag, oval, or something silly like an f1 car with so much downforce the term "corner" becomes quite relative)
ToxicBug wrote:If a 4.6L V8 Mustang GT had the same HP/L like that civic (300hp/1.8L) then it would have 767HP N/A
of course, it will never be calculated that way
the torque numbers are even if not more than what the horsypower is at...that is where the extra size makes the difference
The peak torque of that 1.8L is 178lb-ft, therefore the 4.6L would have to make 455lb-ft of peak torque. Considering that it would rev to like 8500rpm, that is more than enough torque.
what are you on about? do you even understand the concept of peak torque?
edit: regardless of that, the pwoer of a bigger engine is available at lower rpm, or in english- and you don't have to rev the shit outta it to get power = longer engine life.
and to all you rice monkeys, my car if 27 years old, and depending on how i maintain it easily could have another 100,000+ miles left in it. lets see your bucket last that long.
Btw, that Civic is 2.0L not 1.8, and the dyno was a DynaPack, which generates happy numbers, in the 10~15% range higher than a more sophisticated (read; realistic) dyno like DynoJet.
300 crank hp from a 1.8liter engine is not physically possible without forced induction or a shot of nitrous.
andyman wrote:
of course, it will never be calculated that way
the torque numbers are even if not more than what the horsypower is at...that is where the extra size makes the difference
The peak torque of that 1.8L is 178lb-ft, therefore the 4.6L would have to make 455lb-ft of peak torque. Considering that it would rev to like 8500rpm, that is more than enough torque.
what are you on about? do you even understand the concept of peak torque?
edit: regardless of that, the pwoer of a bigger engine is available at lower rpm, or in english- and you don't have to rev the shit outta it to get power = longer engine life.
and to all you rice monkeys, my car if 27 years old, and depending on how i maintain it easily could have another 100,000+ miles left in it. lets see your bucket last that long.
mxrz wrote:Btw, that Civic is 2.0L not 1.8, and the dyno was a DynaPack, which generates happy numbers, in the 10~15% range higher than a more sophisticated (read; realistic) dyno like DynoJet.
300 crank hp from a 1.8liter engine is not physically possible without forced induction or a shot of nitrous.
It was a 1.8L when it was manufactured, just because it was bored doesn't matter much, its not like its a B20 or a k20/24.
Deathshroud wrote:At least the 1.8T's have plenty of mods available to them to make them a bit faster. The older 2.8's are just dogs.
Apples to oranges. The B5 platform had a 1.8T as well, the B5 2.8 is as much a dog as the B6 3.0 and B7 3.2... And it's really a matter of no tuner bothering with the A4 V6's except for expensive superchargers that don't add much power anyway. But no one said it's not possible to twin turbo charge the 2.8/3.0/3.2 Audi V6 in the same manner as the RS6 V8.
ToxicBug wrote:I meant that it doesn't change the fact that they got 300hp from an engine that was 1.8L originally.
Yeah, but the displacement enlargement is what makes it much less impressive, not to mention, as I pointed out earlier, DynaPack numbers aren't realistic. DynaPack dyno is connected to the hubs, with no wheels, and uses a less accurate method of measuring torque, compared to a roller based Dynojet.
ToxicBug wrote:
The peak torque of that 1.8L is 178lb-ft, therefore the 4.6L would have to make 455lb-ft of peak torque. Considering that it would rev to like 8500rpm, that is more than enough torque.
what are you on about? do you even understand the concept of peak torque?
edit: regardless of that, the pwoer of a bigger engine is available at lower rpm, or in english- and you don't have to rev the shit outta it to get power = longer engine life.
and to all you rice monkeys, my car if 27 years old, and depending on how i maintain it easily could have another 100,000+ miles left in it. lets see your bucket last that long.
