this is funny...
08-29-2007, 01:26 PM
#71
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re: this is funny...
Originally Posted by fe3tcourier
bs, ------ of power is all that matters. see that dyno thread of leed to find a torque curve that would win most any race assuming all else was equal.
and not as good...
and you are calling that other guy ignorant. that is the height of ignorance... i cant even believe that you typed it! pull your ------- head in!
back this up with dyno graphs thanks! i strongly doubt that an engine with variable induction and vvt running out its **** has a week bottom end. my girls run of the mill black top 4age has a decently flatish torque curve with a rudimentary on off vvt system on the intake side only.
once again, with all else held constant 4 valves are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much much much much better than 2 or 3.
you might be surprised to learn that 5 isnt as good as 4, but that the blacktop 5v/cyl head IS better than the 16v head. why? included valve angle, something that the ls7 has got right. they know their ----, but for packaging and weight and "we have so much capacity and are selling to a bunch of head in hole old bastards" reasons, they dont care and make em like that anyway.
at least ford is moving with the times.
ffs, say something worthwhile here will you.
and not as good...
and you are calling that other guy ignorant. that is the height of ignorance... i cant even believe that you typed it! pull your ------- head in!
back this up with dyno graphs thanks! i strongly doubt that an engine with variable induction and vvt running out its **** has a week bottom end. my girls run of the mill black top 4age has a decently flatish torque curve with a rudimentary on off vvt system on the intake side only.
once again, with all else held constant 4 valves are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much much much much better than 2 or 3.
you might be surprised to learn that 5 isnt as good as 4, but that the blacktop 5v/cyl head IS better than the 16v head. why? included valve angle, something that the ls7 has got right. they know their ----, but for packaging and weight and "we have so much capacity and are selling to a bunch of head in hole old bastards" reasons, they dont care and make em like that anyway.
at least ford is moving with the times.
ffs, say something worthwhile here will you.
ford is moving with the times, chevrolet is moving right past them in performance.
which would you choose?
sucks when the star of ford, the GT loses to a c6 z06. and the z06 gets better mileage, is NA... etc...
and the GT uses a 5.4l blown v8... z06 has 2 valves per cylinder, and only one cam. it wins on everything but the "technology dyno"
funny how everything is stone age if it doesn't use overhead cams to open its valve(s)... even though the first production car with a OHC engine was produced in 1912 i believe.......
ferrari 430 dyno
ls7 dyno
08-29-2007, 01:33 PM
#72
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 0
Re: this is funny...
Originally Posted by fe3tcourier
bs, ------ of power is all that matters. see that dyno thread of leed to find a torque curve that would win most any race assuming all else was equal.
and not as good...
and you are calling that other guy ignorant. that is the height of ignorance... i cant even believe that you typed it! pull your ------- head in!
back this up with dyno graphs thanks! i strongly doubt that an engine with variable induction and vvt running out its **** has a week bottom end. my girls run of the mill black top 4age has a decently flatish torque curve with a rudimentary on off vvt system on the intake side only.
once again, with all else held constant 4 valves are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much much much much better than 2 or 3.
you might be surprised to learn that 5 isnt as good as 4, but that the blacktop 5v/cyl head IS better than the 16v head. why? included valve angle, something that the ls7 has got right. they know their ----, but for packaging and weight and "we have so much capacity and are selling to a bunch of head in hole old bastards" reasons, they dont care and make em like that anyway.
at least ford is moving with the times.
ffs, say something worthwhile here will you.
and not as good...
and you are calling that other guy ignorant. that is the height of ignorance... i cant even believe that you typed it! pull your ------- head in!
back this up with dyno graphs thanks! i strongly doubt that an engine with variable induction and vvt running out its **** has a week bottom end. my girls run of the mill black top 4age has a decently flatish torque curve with a rudimentary on off vvt system on the intake side only.
once again, with all else held constant 4 valves are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much much much much better than 2 or 3.
you might be surprised to learn that 5 isnt as good as 4, but that the blacktop 5v/cyl head IS better than the 16v head. why? included valve angle, something that the ls7 has got right. they know their ----, but for packaging and weight and "we have so much capacity and are selling to a bunch of head in hole old bastards" reasons, they dont care and make em like that anyway.
at least ford is moving with the times.
ffs, say something worthwhile here will you.
08-29-2007, 01:52 PM
#73
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 752
Re: this is funny...
Originally Posted by rawr
Fred, seriously, you act like you're completely ignorant to things like port velocity. You can design engines to make power in different ways for different applications. One way of designing an engine isn't necessarily worse than another, it's just made for a different application. Once you start opening the head up to the point where it can suck in gobs of air, it looses it's ability to operate efficiently in the lower rpm range. Things like number of valves, combustion chamber shape, intake runners, back pressure, displacement and stroke determine this. You're a seemingly smart guy, but it seems like you're pulling all of your tech out of "import tunar" magazine.
i said with all other things held equal, runner length, diameter, etc etc, all the same, the 4 valve engine will perform better.
mazda were kind enough to provide a close to ideal example piece for this argument
the fe engine i have is much the same below the hg as the 8 valve and 12 valve variants. power : 8 valve 2l : 90hp with injection, 12v 120hp with injection, 16v 150hp with injection. most everything else was close enough. sure by upping the compression and using higher octane gas you can close the gap a bit, but not all the way. the stock fe 16v has more torque from idle to redline than the 8 vave of exactly the same capacity and near identical bottom end design. this is no coincidence.
back pressure is a mythical bs piece. what you want is forward pressure, which you get with a well designed ex mani like many performance jap cars come with these days and numerous others...
in terms of overall engine performance per capacity, there are best better good and bad ways to design them. for chamber layout, the low included valve angle pent roof is by far the best for a conventional otto piston engine. next up, 5 valve heads, like various bikes, supercars audis and my girls corrola have. then 3 valve, then 2. each can be optimised to some extent, but fundamentally thats the pecking order.
i think its marvelous what theyve done with the z06, and i LIKE it, but its still got a dinosaur engine design thats been polished till its ok, not a good design that just works. i like the innovative suspension, i like the large brakes, i like the lightness, i like the dry sump, i like i like i like, but it should have 700hp from 7l, not 500. there is no excuse in 2007 to be building engines like that.
ffs, gm have only had what? 4 major different types of v8 block ever?
sooner or later they will move forward, and when that happens, i'm sure they'll do an ok job of it.
08-29-2007, 02:09 PM
#74
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 0
Re: this is funny...
16v and 8v engines drive differently. That might be the case for your mazda, but inbetween vw 8v and 16v it's not.
here's an 8v sheet, noticeable torque difference between the 16v
and the 16v sheet, still carries torque well because of it's long runners, but doesn't really feel the same while driving.
here's an 8v sheet, noticeable torque difference between the 16v
and the 16v sheet, still carries torque well because of it's long runners, but doesn't really feel the same while driving.
08-29-2007, 02:12 PM
#75
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re: this is funny...
Originally Posted by fe3tcourier
this is the sort of post that shows some understanding and is something that can be discussed, unlike "bigger = better" man above...
i said with all other things held equal, runner length, diameter, etc etc, all the same, the 4 valve engine will perform better.
mazda were kind enough to provide a close to ideal example piece for this argument
the fe engine i have is much the same below the hg as the 8 valve and 12 valve variants. power : 8 valve 2l : 90hp with injection, 12v 120hp with injection, 16v 150hp with injection. most everything else was close enough. sure by upping the compression and using higher octane gas you can close the gap a bit, but not all the way. the stock fe 16v has more torque from idle to redline than the 8 vave of exactly the same capacity and near identical bottom end design. this is no coincidence.
back pressure is a mythical bs piece. what you want is forward pressure, which you get with a well designed ex mani like many performance jap cars come with these days and numerous others...
in terms of overall engine performance per capacity, there are best better good and bad ways to design them. for chamber layout, the low included valve angle pent roof is by far the best for a conventional otto piston engine. next up, 5 valve heads, like various bikes, supercars audis and my girls corrola have. then 3 valve, then 2. each can be optimised to some extent, but fundamentally thats the pecking order.
i think its marvelous what theyve done with the z06, and i LIKE it, but its still got a dinosaur engine design thats been polished till its ok, not a good design that just works. i like the innovative suspension, i like the large brakes, i like the lightness, i like the dry sump, i like i like i like, but it should have 700hp from 7l, not 500. there is no excuse in 2007 to be building engines like that.
ffs, gm have only had what? 4 major different types of v8 block ever?
sooner or later they will move forward, and when that happens, i'm sure they'll do an ok job of it.
i said with all other things held equal, runner length, diameter, etc etc, all the same, the 4 valve engine will perform better.
mazda were kind enough to provide a close to ideal example piece for this argument
the fe engine i have is much the same below the hg as the 8 valve and 12 valve variants. power : 8 valve 2l : 90hp with injection, 12v 120hp with injection, 16v 150hp with injection. most everything else was close enough. sure by upping the compression and using higher octane gas you can close the gap a bit, but not all the way. the stock fe 16v has more torque from idle to redline than the 8 vave of exactly the same capacity and near identical bottom end design. this is no coincidence.
back pressure is a mythical bs piece. what you want is forward pressure, which you get with a well designed ex mani like many performance jap cars come with these days and numerous others...
in terms of overall engine performance per capacity, there are best better good and bad ways to design them. for chamber layout, the low included valve angle pent roof is by far the best for a conventional otto piston engine. next up, 5 valve heads, like various bikes, supercars audis and my girls corrola have. then 3 valve, then 2. each can be optimised to some extent, but fundamentally thats the pecking order.
i think its marvelous what theyve done with the z06, and i LIKE it, but its still got a dinosaur engine design thats been polished till its ok, not a good design that just works. i like the innovative suspension, i like the large brakes, i like the lightness, i like the dry sump, i like i like i like, but it should have 700hp from 7l, not 500. there is no excuse in 2007 to be building engines like that.
ffs, gm have only had what? 4 major different types of v8 block ever?
sooner or later they will move forward, and when that happens, i'm sure they'll do an ok job of it.
THE FIRST PRODUCTION OHC ENGINE WAS MADE IN 1912 DUMBASS
there is NOTHING NEW ABOUT IT.
this guy is a completely clueless ricer douche bag. he has no clue...
guess what, with a different cam, full exhaust, and a different tune... the ls7 can make 700 crank hp.
the engine was designed to be an all around performer... mileage, performance, realiability, etc... and it does it better than anyother engine ever made.
505hp 475ft-lbs, 26+mpg, everyday drivability, pump gas, affordable price, longetivity better than anyother 500+hp engine.
you're a ricer plain and simple. keep being a loser, but still feel great because you have more valves. dumbass.
ricers are the liberals of the car world. they think they're better than everyone else, when in reality they are losers and constantly have to make excuses or say something isn't fair.
pure ownage rawr, this guy is just another jealous ricer grasping at straws to bad mouth something he'll never have
08-29-2007, 02:58 PM
#76
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,935
Re: this is funny...
im not gonna lie id like to see what gm could do wirh a large displacement ohc engine. The problem with ohc v8 engines are weight and height. But why change aomething if its been proven time and time again.
08-29-2007, 03:57 PM
#77
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re: this is funny...
Originally Posted by scottsi
im not gonna lie id like to see what gm could do wirh a large displacement ohc engine. The problem with ohc v8 engines are weight and height. But why change aomething if its been proven time and time again.
lsX > lt5
both are sweet though
08-29-2007, 04:03 PM
#78
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,935
Re: this is funny...
very true, for its time though the lt5 was pretty innovative. Id wanna see what they can do with todays technology. but yes, OHC is more of a pain in the ***
08-29-2007, 05:48 PM
#79
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 752
Re: this is funny...
Originally Posted by random-strike
THE FIRST PRODUCTION OHC ENGINE WAS MADE IN 1912 DUMBASS
there is NOTHING NEW ABOUT IT.
there is NOTHING NEW ABOUT IT.
my girls dad rallied a fully worked lotus twin cam powered ford escort in the 70's, it made less hp with its dohc head than my girls stock toyota motor of the same capacity. it was dohc alright, and direct actuation as it should be for all sorts of reasons, but it was a 2 valve design, and thus even full of mods made less than his daughters corolla 25 years later with NO mods. the first dohc engine was a straight 6 8l beast, and killed its designer in a crash (may have that sentence slightly confused).
guess what, with a different cam, full exhaust, and a different tune... the ls7 can make 700 crank hp.
pure ownage rawr, this guy is just another jealous ricer grasping at straws to bad mouth something he'll never have
Originally Posted by me, are you blind?
i think its marvelous what theyve done with the z06, and i LIKE it, but its still got a dinosaur engine design thats been polished till its ok, not a good design that just works. i like the innovative suspension, i like the large brakes, i like the lightness, i like the dry sump, i like i like i like, but it should have 700hp from 7l, not 500. there is no excuse in 2007 to be building engines like that.
spot ya later...
08-29-2007, 05:54 PM
#80
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re: this is funny...
Originally Posted by fe3tcourier
ohc != dohc
my girls dad rallied a fully worked lotus twin cam powered ford escort in the 70's, it made less hp with its dohc head than my girls stock toyota motor of the same capacity. it was dohc alright, and direct actuation as it should be for all sorts of reasons, but it was a 2 valve design, and thus even full of mods made less than his daughters corolla 25 years later with NO mods. the first dohc engine was a straight 6 8l beast, and killed its designer in a crash (may have that sentence slightly confused).
with a peakier torque curve than a 7l dohc engine would have making the same power...
he'll never have it because he doesnt want it, further more, i wouldnt call the following bad mouthing :
anyway, i'm off on holiday to scotland for a week, so have fun being right while i'm not here. i know you'll make the most of it, and i sincerely hope you have a good time doing it ;-)
spot ya later...
my girls dad rallied a fully worked lotus twin cam powered ford escort in the 70's, it made less hp with its dohc head than my girls stock toyota motor of the same capacity. it was dohc alright, and direct actuation as it should be for all sorts of reasons, but it was a 2 valve design, and thus even full of mods made less than his daughters corolla 25 years later with NO mods. the first dohc engine was a straight 6 8l beast, and killed its designer in a crash (may have that sentence slightly confused).
with a peakier torque curve than a 7l dohc engine would have making the same power...
he'll never have it because he doesnt want it, further more, i wouldnt call the following bad mouthing :
anyway, i'm off on holiday to scotland for a week, so have fun being right while i'm not here. i know you'll make the most of it, and i sincerely hope you have a good time doing it ;-)
spot ya later...
