100 Hp per litre?

virtuvas said:
+1 and to be a bit more pedantic, the torque curve shape (as in area under the curve + gearbox combo) wins races ;)

FF, on the plus side, the S2000 doesn't need heavy clutches and doesn't really give the kicks unless you're happy driving around at 5K+ rpm (which I'm not, never was even when much younger!)

cheers

V.
Click to expand...

of course I absolutely agree, but the whole thread was about 100hp per litre... and I think as impressive as a 5 litre engine with twin turbo's perhaps producing 500hp, so is 1996cc engine that produces 240hp NA in total reliability.... it wasn't about motor racing... :rolleyes:

Me, I own a few cars, some Honda's, some not, and some with a lots of cc's but an s2000 engine I can still appreciate.
 
Firefly625 said:
:D:D;)

fyi ASM S2000 holds the lap record for the fastest Naturally Aspirated (NA) car at the Tsukuba Circuit in Japan having won the Front Engine Rear Wheel Drive (FR) NA Class five years in a row...
Click to expand...

FF, ok, you're a honda man (and I'm definitely NOT!) but care to mention other tracks that the S2000 does well? Anything european fexample? I wonder how it fares in Laguna Seca or other taxing tracks.
It HAS a good engine, a V.Good engine indeed, but that's not enough
[mind you I rather had that engine compared to my BMW X3 2.0lt petrol that blew gasket, warped its head, still after a rebuilt leaks from the c/head :eek:, is dead as it could ever be, no torque, no power, lots of knocking (preignition/whatever), possibly messed up electronics and ecu maps (even after numerous flashing by different BMW garages around the country!), ffs driving machine my ar5e...
All that in 5yrs 120K km normalish driving and I paid 44K euro for this piece of junk! (and all that because wife wanted a suv)

Seriously considering selling and staying with the 13yo trusty Fiat coupe :(

V.

ps and drifting again...
 
Firefly625 said:
and I think as impressive as a 5 litre engine with twin turbo's perhaps producing 500hp, so is 1996cc engine that produces 240hp NA in total reliability.... it wasn't about motor racing... :rolleyes:

Me, I own a few cars, some Honda's, some not, and some with a lots of cc's
Click to expand...

then I think we cannot discuss car vs boat engines as duty cycles are SOOOO much different that makes no sense whatsoever...

I mean, if I could mate my 330wbhp 2lt 4cl 16vt engine of my fiat onto the iveco gearbox of MiToS, it would probably last the whole 5-10mins at planning speed The Honda would probably last 15mins, any difference there?

Wouldn't be able to run the car engine at 1.5bar CONSTANT for more than a few mins, you would be able to run the honda at WOT with this type of load for longer (But then again only 240bhp not 350 or 400 on some evos) doesn't prove much other than we shouldn't compare apples with oranges...

cheers

V.
 
virtuvas said:
FF, ok, you're a honda man (and I'm definitely NOT!) but care to mention other tracks that the S2000 does well? Anything european fexample? I wonder how it fares in Laguna Seca or other taxing tracks.
It HAS a good engine, a V.Good engine indeed, but that's not enough
[mind you I rather had that engine compared to my BMW X3 2.0lt petrol that blew gasket, warped its head, still after a rebuilt leaks from the c/head :eek:, is dead as it could ever be, no torque, no power, lots of knocking (preignition/whatever), possibly messed up electronics and ecu maps (even after numerous flashing by different BMW garages around the country!), ffs driving machine my ar5e...
All that in 5yrs 120K km normalish driving and I paid 44K euro for this piece of junk! (and all that because wife wanted a suv)

Seriously considering selling and staying with the 13yo trusty Fiat coupe :(

V.

ps and drifting again...
Click to expand...


should have bought a CRV.... sorry, couldn't resist..:D;)

... and yes, I am a Honda man but do appreciate and indeed buy and sell and, as I said personally own other makes so I really am not that blinkered
 
Last edited:
Don't see the problem with 100hp or 200hp per litre its down to the engineering quality of the engine. All you are comparing is the size of the combustion chamber, the pistons, connecting rods, bearings, cooing system etc... in any engine will have been designed to cope with the expected power output so all parts should last the same amount of time, some engines just have smaller combustion chambers. Personely if a company can produce a very high output from a small capacity engine then their engineering must be very good e.g the Honda S2000, BMW 550D as mentioned previously.

That squirrely little bloke who can run a marathon might live to be a hundred but the hugely strong fat bloke might croke it at 40:)
 
So, between all this I assume that most agree to the ol' truth:

There is no replacement for size so of two engines, of equal build quality and output, the larger is still preferable. On top of mechanical specs more mass will help heat dissipation and cooling.

The lifecycle consideration (worthless cars for scrap with perfectly ok engines) differs between markets as some keep cars alive for very long time.
 
Spi D said:
So, between all this I assume that most agree to the ol' truth:

There is no replacement for size so of two engines, of equal build quality and output, the larger is still preferable. On top of mechanical specs more mass will help heat dissipation and cooling.

The lifecycle consideration (worthless cars for scrap with perfectly ok engines) differs between markets as some keep cars alive for very long time.
Click to expand...

...the only other stumbling block in the world we live in today is fuel consumption? What is more efficient, larger or smaller?
 
I sell cars in the 5-6 year old range and I can tell you for a FACT that the stuff we buy in from Auction now often needs lots of expensive work on it to make it good whereas it didn't before.

Dual mass flywheels, injectors and fuel pumps, all the engine management stuff.... all giving lots of trouble in these small high output engines......

Find an old lazy 3.0 lump and it should still be absolutely sound - so yes, I think small engines with high outputs are fine when under warranty - a PITA afterwards...
 
Cookee said:
Wow - Wonder if that's the same block that we're using? The Yanmar uses the X5 3 litre block with a different turbo and brain and it's only 260hp.
Click to expand...

I've read that it is.

Having seen how complicated the twin turbo set up was whilst in Munich once, I can only imagine that the tri-turbo set up must be horribly complicated.

The stats though are staggering
 
willfinch36 said:
BHP sells cars,
Click to expand...
Not for me it doesn't. When I'm buying a car these days, I always compare torque per ton first rather than bhp per ton because IMHO torque is a much better indicator of real world performance than outright bhp.
With motorboats it's different. Because motorboats are designed to cruise at constant high speed, outright bhp is more important. Torque only determines how quickly you get to that constant speed
 
Questor said:
How about this then....

New BMW 550d - Tri-turbo 3 litre diesel inline 6.

375 bhp with 546 lb/ft torque.

0-62 mph in 4.7 seconds and (alleged) average mpg of 44.8.

No doubt the new M5 (4.4 Petrol twin turbo V8) is more fun to drive, but the diesels figures are mighty impressive.
Click to expand...

Sounds great but there's only one problem. BMW don't intend to sell it in the UK because they can't/won't engineer their 4WD X drive saloon models for RHD. If BMW UK ever wonder why Audi sales are increasing in the UK much faster than theirs, they might try connecting up the dots on this one. One reason I moved from BMW to Audi myself
 
virtuvas said:
! that must've been mid sixties
Click to expand...
Well the motors were. A BMC A series was long stroke, non-crossflow, pushrod operated, so it was never going to be high-output (until you bolted a twin-cam head on).
My last one produced just 130 bhp which was slightly under 100 bhp per litre (1380cc).
It had little go under 3000rpm and not much above 6000 rpm.
However the power delivery was frantic. It felt much more brutal than modern, whizzy, superminis.
Within it's power band it had excellent torque.
Love 'em.
 
Deleted User said:
Sounds great but there's only one problem. BMW don't intend to sell it in the UK because they can't/won't engineer their 4WD X drive saloon models for RHD. If BMW UK ever wonder why Audi sales are increasing in the UK much faster than theirs, they might try connecting up the dots on this one. One reason I moved from BMW to Audi myself
Click to expand...

Ah! But they are bringing a rear wheel drive version to the UK and it's 70kgs lighter than the X Drive. So probably even quicker :-) And more economical.
 
Firefly625 said:
...the only other stumbling block in the world we live in today is fuel consumption? What is more efficient, larger or smaller?
Click to expand...

Fuel consumption is only one parameter when you compute the cost of owning a car (=providing transport between places).

Add all to get Total Cost of Ownership (TCO):

Depreciation/loss
Service & Reapirs
Insurance
Fuel (real life mpg - not the brochure's)

And estimate resale value.

Only then will you know the true TCO and if you compare, you'll notice that improved mpg alone does not affect it much.
 
Spi D said:
Fuel consumption is only one parameter when you compute the cost of owning a car (=providing transport between places).

Add all to get Total Cost of Ownership (TCO):

Depreciation/loss
Service & Reapirs
Insurance
Fuel (real life mpg - not the brochure's)

And estimate resale value.

Only then will you know the true TCO and if you compare, you'll notice that improved mpg alone does not affect it much.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought we were talking about boat engines!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top