dasfinc

X2!!!

quoted for truth (on the 4 valve 10K RPM LS1)

a PERFECT example of this is the brand new BMW V-8 in the new M3, You get a 4 valve per cylinder high reving V-8, you have NO torque from of the worlds leading engine manufacturers:

*per Wikipedia*
"the BMW S65 engine was introduced. This S65B40 is a naturally aspirated, high revving 4-litre V8 (based on the S85B50 5-litre V10 that powers the E60/E61 M5 and the E63/E64 M6 to date) delivers 420 DIN-hp (309 kW, 414 SAE-hp) at 8,300 rpm and peak torque is 400 N·m (295 ft·lbf) at 3,900 rpm"

so 400hp, 300tq.

And the LS7:
*per wiki again*
"Peak output is 505 hp (377 kW) at 6300 rpm and 470 ft·lbf (637 N·m) at 4800 rpm with a 7000 rpm redline setting a new record for a production overhead valve pushrod engine. During GM's reliability testing of this engine in its prototype phase, the LS7 was remarked to have been repeatedly tested to be 8000 rpm capable"

manages 505hp, and 470tq, and STILL manages to make it up to 7000RPM despite being a pushrod motor.

and if you wanna get behind 'that being primative' take a look at the new ZR1 motor, finally cranking out 100hp per liter like someone was complaining about:

*per wiki one last time*
"The LS9 is a 6.2 L (376 in³) supercharged engine, based on the LS3; the LS7 block was not used due to the higher cylinder pressures created by the supercharger requiring the thicker cylinder walls of the LS3. Cylinder dimensions are now 4.06 in (103.25 mm) bore with a 3.62 in (92 mm) stroke. It is equipped with an Eaton four-lobe Roots type supercharger. Power output is 638 hp (476 kW) at 6500 rpm and 604 lb·ft (819 N·m) of torque at 3800 rpm."

crxmatt2

washed it today, took some better pics with no smudges. camera is still shitty though

txdohczc

and your a ------- idiot or just dyslexic becuase i said 100hp per liter N/A not super charged. they are not the ultimate engine efficiency wise or reliablility wise either. a honda,acura,bmw, and toyota have built plenty of motors what will out last them any day of the year. and still have 100hp per liter

E-b0la

I guess it's alright.














For a chevy.

mopar318

Thats a nice truck. I was working for a rich as freind of mine in mississippi. He has a SS truck with a turbo system built by a company in pittsburg, but anyways it cost hime 15 grand. His step dad had a SS as well with a powerdyne supercharger.

For god sakes though take off that bugaurd, hehe. And get a tune to get rid of that torque managment.

J-SMITH69

txdohczc is the ultimate ricer image.

lets just let him play in his fantasy world.

here is something for you to lookup ricer boy. google the quad 4 oldsmobile motors.

oh hell here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Quad-4_engine

W41 190hp way way way more torque than any gook 4 banger... in what 1991... stick your chop sticks up your *** loser no much for gook technology

txdohczc

your seriously are a ------- idiot. im not a ricer becuse i believe that the japanese and germans make a far more reliable and overall better engines. that ------- quad four was a piece of ---- along with the sunfires, the cavaliers,
grand ams,grand prixs, and the gay oldsmobile, and the ------- malibu. not one of those cars would even beat a 2000 civic si. and thats not a fast car. not to mention what the ---- are you talking about wow cool the w41 a 2.3 made a whole 190hp lets do the math ok that only makes 82.6 hp/liter. tell me whats so great about that. and the two cars that the w41 was in were peices of ---- who gives a ---- about that motor or that shitty company. look at this. this is j.d. power and associates. they rate cars for overall quality and dependability. http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings...tings-by-brand
you badass and quality company is number 19 on the list being beat by honda, acura, toyota, bmw, even mercedes beat them and if you live near a mercedes dealer go look at their service departmen and talk to a tech they will tell you how shitty mercedes are. so shut the ---- up unless you have some sort of real research or explination on how it is more efficient, dependable, hp/liter, or any information on what you are talking about

mopar318

Why do you keep using HP/Liter. You say nothing about TQ/liter. Who cares anyways? Thats like saying you have a 3" dick, but its really big because your only 5 feet tall.

So whats more dependable, a 600hp ls1, or a 600hp k20?

txdohczc

well becuase im noting its effeciency obviously. and and i am not talking about built motors i am talking about factory engines in mass production cars. andit depends on how well built and tuned the motors are for dependability. i dont know why you ------- muscle car lovers get so bent out of shape about this discussion. im not saying that imports have the most powerful engines in the worldthat why im not talking about built engines all im saying is that the american car companys leaves alot to be desired, and they really could use some better engineering. think of the possabilities a corvette with the 5.7L making 570hp factory all motor. and i just used the k20 as a reference. because a 600hp 2jz would be more reliable then a 600hp ls1 if both were properly tuned and the same goes for the rb25/26. which is still half the size of a ls1

J-SMITH69

this guy is a loser. who gives a damn lets just let him play around in his fantasy world.

keep crying because your car is slow and a piece of ----. i bet it has the best numbers on the technology dyno.