how much hp/l naturally aspirated is considered a lazy engine and how much is considered a high strung engine?
For a road engine 200 is reasonable, 300 is a bit naughty, much above that is a bit silly.
>>27985541What?Why are zoomoids so stupid?
>>27985530I don't have a HP/L gauge in my dash so I have no idea. If I can pass at or under 3500rpm consistently, it's lazy. If I have to bring it up to >5500rpm, it's high strung. Simple as.>t. learned to drive on two lazy I6s
>>27985547Boomer, pal, Boomer.>Why are boomoids so stupid?
>>27985541oof
>>27985541... I get 60 hp/LWhat do I win?
>>27985583HP is in the filename.
>>27985530HP/L is a retarded measurement. A GR Yaris has the same HP/L ratio as a Hellcat Redeye. One of those cars is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the other.
>>27985583chebby 5.3l?
>>27985530Anything under 60hp/L is abysmal
>>27985594Only thing is that OPs question isn't how many HP/l a car needs to be considered fast. You need some work on your reading comprehension.
>>27985594Well then it's a good thing OP wasn't using it as a measure of how fast the car is, but as a measure of how highly strung the engine is, isn't it? You fucking retard.
>>27985595Chebby 5.0LBreddy aure the 5.3 LS has a lil more
>>27985530You can have a high HP engine but it still feel sluggish if matched to a transmission with like 8-10 gears. A lot of trucks now feel that way because the gearing and the computers are adjusted in a way that try to combine the best of fuel efficiency, and power.
>>27985641Are you sure it's not just because the truggs weigh 9001lbs that they feel sluggish?
May I present the 500ci Cadillac V8.>500ci / 8.2 Litres>235 hp at best (29 hp/L)>190 hp at worst (23 hp/L)I would consider this one of the laziest engines ever conceived.
>>27985646Not every truck weighs as much as your momma sorry
>>27985651How much did these sluggish truggs weigh then?
>>27985541Nobody has offered an alternative to this answer so I'm going to accept this
>>27985656My truck only weighs 4000lb, 1000lb less than a dodge charger
There is no replacement for displacement.>HP/LUseless made up metric for dick measuring and bench racing. HP/weight is what matters.
Today, 80-85hp/l for na is a fairly standard engine. 90-95 would be higher tuned and at/above 100 hp/l is modern NA performance. High strung would be achieving 125+ NA.>>279856901800 pounds less than the top model EV charger, actually.But only 400lbs less than the 500hp hurricane charger.
>>27985690Ok now how much horsepower does it have?
>>27985714>Useless made up metric for dick measuring and bench racingOr like... you know.... used as a gauge for how lazy or highly strung an engine is - kinda like how OP used it?
>>27985648Everybody dunks on this engine. It's total shit but it was the peak of the malaise era.
anything below 14:1 compression ratio is lazy
My engine is ~70 HP/L. 2.5 L displacement. Definitely low strung by todays standards
>>27985594How is that relevant
>>27985530Meme metric, it implies there is a performance penalty for more displacement, when in fact there is not. Displacement doesn't mean engine weight either and its only penalty is for taxes and emissions in some places.
>>27985813I kekd
>>27985736"Lazy""High strung"Also meaningless terms, you would be better served by looking at things like compression ratio or peak cylinder pressure.
>>27985591Uno?
>>27985597Nah.
>>27985648>>27985742No, it's actually a really good engine in terms of reliability, serviceability, and torquePutting in a cam and letting any malaise block breathe is doable for cheap (if you do it yourself)Even if you don't heavily mod it malaise engines are great for croozin, advance the timing a few degrees for em pee gees and yer gud
>>27985648You don't know what you are talking about.>>27985742It's not shit, the intake is very restrictive. If you move the carb up a bit it makes plenty.>For four grand, our 512-cube Cad pumped out 514 hp at 4,400 rpm on the dyno. Torque? Try a healthy 575 lb-ft at 2,600 rpm on for size, buster. Whether in a De Ville or a Chevelle, that translates to streetable, repeatable low-12/high-11 quarter-mile times. With uncommon class.
>>27986122
My kia sorento weighs abour 4000lb and puts out 172 at the crank and it is slow as shit lmao
>>27985736>What is a compression ratio
>m52b20 is 75hp/liter>n52b30 is 85hp/liter>10+ years of engine development between them with added exhaust VANOS (variable valve timing), Valvetronic (variable lift), 3 stage DISA (variable intake) for 10hp/liter moreI would say torque/liter for petrols is more important
>>27985530200bhp is the minimum imo. Anything lower is lazy. 230-250 is nice and 300+ bhp is at the top of bhp per litre for a NA.
>>27985594>>27985603This anon may be retarded, but he has a point. A certain HP/L in smaller engines like the 3 cylinder corolla are higher strung than a bigger engine with the same HP/L like a hellcat redeye i.e. the corolla is more likely to epxlode.
>>27985541Rotarychads, we are fucking reasonable now lmao
>>27986063>meaninglessMany things can be derived by an engine's hp/l, including how much meat is left on the bone.Just because you are not intelligent to make use of it, does not mean it's not useful. >>27986369Compression ratio doesn't mean much if you can't fill the cylinder, retard.
>>27987273>meat is left on the boneKek, more empty terms, this must be b8
>>27985821Found the altima driver
>>27985530>FOR A NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE200 horses.That's what top of the line road going superbikes are making. That's high strung250-close to 300 hpThat's what race engines that get rebuilt every other race make. So literally on the absolute edge of performance
>>27987366That's not what high strung means.A tuned 2 stroke making it's powerband in a 500rpm slice 500 rpm before redline is high strung.An engine like a downtuned ford 302, with torque that falls off a cliff after 3500 rpm is lazy.
>>27985530Serious answer over 120 is highly strung, under 60 is lazy
>>27987376>A tuned 2 stroke making it's powerband in a 500rpm slice 500 rpm before redlinepeaky
>>27987299>I don't understand terms so therefore they must be emptybased brainlet
>>27987376>That's not what high strung means.(that is what high strung means)
>>27985530My 2 liter makes 118 HP, you tell me.
My 34 year old 250cc makes 180hp/L at the crank, pretty strung.
>>27987376Bad example, IMO.That's just the simple fact of how naturally aspirated 2-strokes have to be tuned. Just because an engine is tuned for a specific range doesn't necessarily mean it's high strung. A lawnmower engine is lazy and will make peak power/efficiency in the band just before its low set redline but can run on the scent of an oily rag and farts for years. Motorcross 2-stroke service intervals are swapping out rings at 20-40 hours and pistons at 80-100, compression is retarded and don't cheap out on premix.
>>27987530go bsck go school you actually needed it
>>27987603>needed itAfter you, past-tense.
