Is HP/L just cope for displacement limited countries? Why would you want to use premium fuel just to make less power than a bigger engine using regular other than dickwaving about a spec that is useless in real world applications.
>>28839219I want a mustang with a honda engine
>my metric is objective quality >your metric is arbitrary dickwaving
an engine with high hp/l is more desirable because it is more similar in character to a racing engine and 90% of what makes sports cars desirable is motorsports LARP
>top trumps thread
>>28839224You wouldn't be the first. >>28839231>hp/tq is objective quality>hp/l is a way to jerk off about making less powerYes.>>28839232A larger engine is more desirable because you can make more power with more displacement. You can only cram so much air into smaller/less cylinders. >>28839241>top trumps I'm just saying power>hp/l
>>28839219>604 KB PNG>Is displacement just cope for countries with terrible engineers?
>>28839219>dickwaving about a spec that is useless in real world applicationsThis is what Americans think "octane" means
>>28839232>What is power to weightInb4 you faggots cope by saying theres no accessories (which don't stick out any farther than the throttle body anyways)
>>28839219It's an important metric for talking about the engineering efficiency of an engine, but it's most often used as cope to defend a vehicle that is slower.If Europeans really wanted to make a good argument they'd be using power to weight ratio, but half of all people are below average I guess. You've got to realize that most enthusiasts(euro or otherwise) that interact with turbo engines will spend deep into the five figures on modifications before they think of using anything but the stock cams. It's honestly pretty disappointing how casual and willfully incompetent a lot of enthusiasts are. I was watching a David Freiburger video the other day where he was yet again farting around with trying to tune a carburetor. There was nothing special about the carb or the engine. And he's been doing this exact thing for well over 30 years. That he is not unequivocally an expert and did not immediately know how to set it up tells me that I really shouldn't be taking his advice on anything related to hot rodding. You've got a fundamental problem or a strong desire to not get good at what you're doing if you have that much experience and aren't a master at that point.
>>28839308>>28839349power to weight ratio is what matters for street cars but most racing series have displacement limits so high revving, high hp/l engines dominate and are have become associated with motorsports itself
>>28839311If you have to prevent high displacement engines from competing are they really the terrible engineers.
>>28839388Yes."Just make BIGGER" is not engineering, anon.
Bike engines > car engines
>>28839391It’s better engineering than “just prevent anything more powerful from competing so we can win”.
>>28839388>>28839397they only do that so the cars aren't so fast the drivers crash and die all the time.
>>28839397You have to regulate what kinds of cars are allowed to compete in a certain race and displacement is an easy, objective measure, while power output is hard to measure (especially when the contestants have incentives to keep the measurements on the lower side).
>>28839219>HP/L just copeIt's limits you or the government taxes you above a certain displacement.But otherwise no, it's COPE from euros.My 6.2L heads/cam LS3 puts 476hp to the tires.I don't care if the HP per liter is low, because it pulls good.
>>28839224you literally described the coyoteit might as well be 2 k24s bolted together
>Is HP/L just cope for displacement limited countries?Can't tell if users here can only think in terms of cope or are trolling. This question is so retarded that you'd have to be trolling, but I could definitely see someone thinking that this is a genuine question
>>28839219>Is HP/L just cope for displacement limited countries?Yeah lol, what else did you think it was
>>28839397like anons have said, to limit power outputs for a series your options are>displacement limit>restrictor plate>spec enginesand the displacement leads to more interesting solutions and more variation in design between manufacturers, so that's what has traditionally been used in F1 and others
>>28839219>dickwaving about a spec that is useless in real world applications.If you understood real world applications beyond the scope of your personal vehicle you wouldn't say retarded shit like this.
>>28839946In the real world a pushrod V8 that makes 50hp/l is better to drive than some high-strung 2l 4-banger that makes the exact same peak power and weighs the exact same.
>>28839219>useless in real world applications.its called enjoying top of the line hardware, same reason why slapping sticky tires on a mcdonalds shitbox cant compare to riding around with fully adjustable forged bones on all 4 corners. good luck.
hp/L is definite eurocope.
>>28839952I see you're doubling down on that retarded shit. Did you even understand what I wrote. >beyond the scope of your personal vehicle
>>28839952>50hp/lNah lol
>>28839946>beyond the scope of your personal vehicleLike heavy machinery where hp/l is irrelevant? >>28840315>I see you're doubling down on that retarded shitThe irony. >>28840316A LT1 4th gen Camaro have 50hp/l and are plenty of fun to drive and much quicker than 100hp/l Hondas of the era.
>>28839219>torque dropping off a cliff before 5k
>Car with a 1.8 runs low-15s.>Car with a 4.6 runs low-14s.Zoinks! Color me surprised!
before my recent street tune which pulls way harder than this. >tfw 161hp/l
I just love hearing engines absolutely rev their tits off.
>>28842903Turbo torque curves always make me sad
>>28842903All that to make the same as a cammed LS3, which isn't gutless below 3.5k.
People here seem to forget about time attack cars, which have classes that allow unlimited displacement but many cars in that class still have less than 4 litres of displacement. Pic related won pikes peak overall in 2023 with a K20 and a hairdryer
>>28843055Pic related
>>288430553 bar absolute on a 2 is the same as a 6 liter whats your point.
>>28843065Except you're about 200lb lighter and the packaging is way easier. Also, you have 600ft-lb as a progressive build instead of an on/off switch which also makes it easier to modulate cornering
>>28839219I just find it an interesting metric after learning that smaller engines of the same power can't effectively replace a larger engine especially in heavy vehicles.
>>28843131With larger vehicles the challenge is more of a transmission problem, making and breaking tension against that much mass is a huge amount of stress on the gearset, you can get around this by using a larger engine that makes peak torque near idle and require very slow shifts, i.e. unsynchronized manuals. The peak torque near idle is required because you will lose a considerable amount of speed between shifts, even in an automatic. As transmissions continue to improve you'll see displacements come down and peak power/torque figures move up in the RPM band
sneed
>>28839219Of course it is.Real men drive big cars with big motors, cowards drive what the government tells them to drive.
>>28843188He looks happier than some short li'l angry truckold flashing his lights at traffic
>>28843206He's not, though.
>>28843188The government tells you to spend more to get larger vehicles. This is obvious because EPA emissions limits based on vehicle class and square footage measured from above. Looser emissions requirements mean you get better fuel economy (relative to vehicle size), more power, and to top it off trucks aren't subject to many of the safety standards that smaller vehicles are required to follow. This incetivizes manufacturers to build bigger because development costs are lower, and you because of the obvious benefits of loose emissions requirements. Small cars would have a lot more appeal to large car owners if manufacturers could jam a cheap V6 into them, but that would go against the prescripted narrative of maximum consumption
>>28843042>>28843047I need to get another dyno session. the street tune it has now from a different tuner hits way harder than the graph pictured>takes a modded 6.2 v8 to make more than a turbo 3.0 v6interesting way to think about it but thanks for the compliment
>>28839224Fox body with the Lima and a turbo.
>>28839232>90% of what makes sports cars desirable is motorsports LARPThat's retarded. You have to be 18 to post here.
>>28843288That 6.2 V8 is lighter, simpler, and way more reliable. It also makes 350lb-ft at 2000rpm.
>>28843314cool. Is YOUR cammed ls3 car faster than my car? because if not, you might as well be one of those little rat dogs nipping at my heels.
>>28843314In a perfect world it would be more reliable, however most 6.2's are stellantis or chev so tragically they need total teardowns and rebuilds from factory in order to be reliable, on or off the track. Also, 2000rpm is irrelevant for any driving in between spirited backroad and track racing
>>28842886>108hp/l runs 15s>56hp/l runs 14sSo hp/l is irrelevant?
>>28843344Kinda, yeah. I've never once considered it.More hp/L could indicate either an advanced engine design or an over-stressed engine that could grenade in minutes.It's a worthless metric that I see no uses for.
>>28839952>completely ignores torque
>>28843399No, the torque curve is what makes the V8 better to drive.>>28843344Yes, it's a useless cope metric. It's interesting only as a relative point of comparison for tuning of equivalent displacements - not for comparing engines of different displacements.There is no single number which is even especially relevant on its own. Only full duno charts that show the HP+Torque curve.
>>28843416>only have 230lbft at 2300My carcel torquelet life...
>>28843437Most dyno charts don't even go that low, they crop the bottom RPMs off entirely because it's embarrassing.Having more than 200ft/lbs under 3k RPM is a rare luxury in 2026. Peak HP is almost as useless a metric as hp/liter. Total area under the curve is what makes a good driving experience on the road.
>>28843476200ftlb under 3k RPM is not rare in 2L-ish turbo cars at all, Mazda VW and honda all had/have cars that are nearly at 300ft-lb from 2000rpm
>>28843495Sure, but it's still not the norm.In any case, I'll take my >300lbs at 3k RPM naturally aspirated.
Dudes who do nothing but obsess over low end torque outputs and how flat their curve is need to hurry up and get an EV because that shit is exactly what they're looking for. Similar levels of cognitive dissonance as "straight" dudes who won't shut up about how great assplay feels.
>>28843615Powerful cope. Why so mad? Embarrassed you have to wrap your tach out to the top just to get moving off a stoplight?
>>28843615>get an EV because that shit is exactly what they're looking forNot really. It drops like crazy after an early peak. Compared to something like >>28843416 it's not even close for good curve shape.
>>28843641>She's a little sluggish after 120mphOh fuck how am I going to recover from this
Lads, should I build a LS3(L92 6.2L)Seems like good power for not a ton of $$.If I can sell my LS1 for $3K, this build would be around $5KWould make 100 horsepower and 50lbft more than my LS1 does.Pic is someone with the same build I'm looking at
>>28843149I thought the shift time was quite quick you just have to change gears 17 times to get to highway speed when loaded.
>>28843641>muh 300lbft at 3000rpm I love instant torque>how about 500 at 0rpm?>REEEEE NO NOT LIKE THATLoser
>>28844069There's still a lot of buffering during shifts, although it's a lot better than it used to be. These transmissions aren't really capable of handling higher RPM's, in general the more torque a transmission is intended to handle the less RPM it can take. There's a video on youtube where a guy k-swapped a hellcat for some reason, and they wanted a (conservative) 8000RPM redline and the demon transmission they picked was only good to 7200RPM, so they picked the smaller regular hellcat/ZF8 trans instead which was good to 8000RPM
>>28843649>>28844129NTA but he was talking about a flat torque curve, not a low peak then falling off. Try not to move goalposts next time.
>>28839349This fucking age old photo>miata engine has all accessories (alternator, coolant hoses, turbo, etc.) and both intake and exhaust manifold on it>LS has only intake manifold on it>LS yields less than half MPG>LS is still double the weightI've driven 2 LS swapped miatas (LS6/LS3) and they're cool and all but they suck for regular driving unless you *really* put in the work for a full suspension, firewall fabrication, transmission fabrication, diff swap, and a metric fuckload of ECM tuning. Even after all that there's a high chance it will run like shit for regular speeds.>but muh V8!!!If anyone REALLY wanted to drop 20k on a miata why would you do the potato brain thing of swapping in an LS? You might as well make it lighter and more powerful with a rotary swap or a 2JZ/RB26 swap for the boost potential?Oh, because you're a massive faggot, my bad.
>>28844734>You might as well make it lighter and more powerful with a rotary swap or a 2JZ/RB26 swap for the boost potential?Retarded ricer, the NA 2J weighs as much as a LS that makes twice the power. Which you can also boost. Also i6 is longer and will fit even worse.
>>28844727Incorrect, his assertion was about low-end torque being a stronger priority than top-end power was the topic. Please try to improve your reading comprehension
>>28844741the 13b is far lighter and can be done without and fabrication outside of the transmission tunnel if you use the FD/RX8 tranny, I said the RB26/2JZ for boost potential, which are greater than the boost potential on most LS engines, the tunes are easier, and they perform significantly better at normal speeds when swapped. The miata chassis doesn't do great with high low end torque unless you significantly stiffen all aspects of the frame and suspension.>inline 6 fits worse!but if you do the same amount of fabrication as you would for an LS you can make it a front/mid engine car because the first two cylinders wind up sitting behind the front axle and the weight distribution can still be close to 50/50, usually 55/45, whereas the LS makes the miata's weight distribution nearly 60/40 and thats if you strip out amenities like power steering/AC/Heat. The ONLY miata that does well with an LS swap is the NC because of the shape of the engine bay. And then you're still just an LS swapping faggot.
>>28844755Are you a legit retard? He implicitly mentioned the curve and how that falls off instead of being a broad, flat curve. >>28843641>Not really. It drops like crazy after an early peak. Compared to something like >>28843416 # it's not even close for good curve shape.>>2884475713b is a peaky, oil burning unreliable shit heap and the only fab work you have to do to LS swap a miata is widen the trans tunnel. You can buy a new front subframe and trans mount from multiple different companies and maintains a near 50/50 balance without cutting the firewall.
>>28844893>he thinks having the smoothest running engine design is a bad thing because muh oil muh apex seals>entire engine is 7 moving parts>can be disassembled far easier than any conventional engine>9k rev limityou're definitely a fat faggot bro
no herplacement for derplacementthe bulk and weight of the engine is also an consideration, otherwise the passenger compartment gets a bit cramped>>28839232helps to have the power spread out a bit if you dont have traction control
>>28845139Do you think it's pure coincidence nobody does rotary's?
