Your Fave Car Engines

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

the fastest land vehicle in the world weighs next to nothing... why? because in order for it totravel 300+ there can't be alot of weight or drag on the vehicle.

You are really making yourself look bad.


"The supersonic car weighed over 20,000 pounds, twice the weight of any other jet car"

Yeah, that's a pretty light car. 20,000 lbs. Next to nothing, really.

You'd think if you were right about weight slowing a car's top speed, they'd try to make it lighter than any other jet car, NOT twice the weight of previous jet cars.

ok the full quote so this out in the open:

The supersonic car weighed over 20,000 pounds, twice the weight of any other jet car. Two Rolls Royce Spey 205 jet engines were put on the sides of the car. The reason why the SSC was built heavy was because cars tend to be airborne at sonic speed which would mean that would be the end of the car and the driver. A crash at more than 335 m/s is something that would have to be avoided. The first record run was just over the sound barrier at 242 m/s, but on the second run, the SSC and broken the speed of sound at 342 m/s. This proved that even a car that weighs over 10 tons could still be as fast as the speed of sound

the weight of that car is relative to the power of the engine.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

ok then, if im lying, tell me where your knowledge comes from? tell us your experiences with weighing cars out for speed. why do you think racing cars are built so freaking light? for looks? no, for speed.

I'm arguing with a lightweight here.

For racing cars, all-out top speed is not the only consideration. For a land-speed record car it is.

A racing car must stop quickly, corner quickly, and accelerate quickly. Weight hurts this type of performance. Race teams gladly give up top speed in favor of downforce, which enables them to grib the road better. Using a lightweight wing will give them downforce at the expense of aerodynamic drag, which slows them down. This is acceptable in a race car.

A land speed record car doesn't need to stop quickly, corner quickly, or accelerate quickly. It's done out in the desert where there is plenty of room. The need to stay planted on the ground, but aerodynamic drag is unacceptable. So they use ballast instead. Weight doesn't make much of a difference in top speed. Aerodynamic drag does.

You have no clue.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

ok then, if im lying, tell me where your knowledge comes from? tell us your experiences with weighing cars out for speed. why do you think racing cars are built so freaking light? for looks? no, for speed.

I'm arguing with a lightweight here.

For racing cars, all-out top speed is not the objective. For a land-speed record car it is.

A racing car must stop quickly, corner quickly, and accelerate quickly. Weight hurts this type of performance. Race teams gladly give up top speed in favor of downforce, which enables them to grib the road better.

if you consider me a lightweight in this category, why have you continued this arguement? you realize you are not winning, that it is a stand off.

 

[David Brent]

3.2L straight 6 used in the M3, 3.6L v8 used in the ferrari 360, and the 2.5 flat 4 in the STI

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

drag causes downforce which is a form of weight. weight slows you down. you will have a higher top speed if your car is lighter versus heavier. its simple physics.

You are thinking of this completely the wrong way. You seem to think that the weight on the wheels is what's slowing the car down, and that either adding ballast (weight) to a car or a wing (downforce) both presses the wheels down, slowing it down.

This is entirely incorrect.

The weight on the wheels makes hardly any difference at all. Rolling resistance is only a minute form of parasitic drag which isn't a serious factor here.

What slows the car down on top speed is wind resistance. A wing always creates drag, this is aircraft 101 stuff here. It's not the fact that the wing's pressing the wheels down which slows the car, it's the disturbance of the air which is slowing the car down.

This is very basic stuff, which you obviously don't know. Please stop arguing as you are clueless.

 

[David Brent]

Originally posted by: Horus

Originally posted by: newParadime
The larger Reneis Rotary engine for the '94 Mazda RX-7

The '94 RX-7 didn't have a RENESIS. The RENESIS is the new 1.3L rotary that's in the RX-8, and soon to be in the new RX-7 with a supercharger.

The 94 RX-7 had a twin-rotor design rotary (the B-20?) that was either single or dual-turbo.

You people saying it's incredible that the S2000 can develop 200hp out of a 2.0L engine...

The RENESIS gets 240 out of 1.3L, Natural Aspiration!

and maxes out at 20mpg...lol

 

[AMDZen]

Honda Motors = B16A. B16B, B18C, H22, F20
Chevy Motors = All variations of the 350, 427, and all newer motors too, LT1, LS1, LS2, LS6

Just a start but I'm pretty busy today

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
you realize you are not winning, that it is a stand off.

LOL

I have you under control. Not only are you wrong, but you're clueless, too. I see the opportunity to not only prove you wrong, but to make you look bad and destroy your reputation in the process.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

drag causes downforce which is a form of weight. weight slows you down. you will have a higher top speed if your car is lighter versus heavier. its simple physics.

You are thinking of this completely the wrong way. You seem to think that the weight on the wheels is what's slowing the car down, and that either adding ballast (weight) to a car or a wing (downforce) both presses the wheels down, slowing it down.

This is entirely incorrect.

The weight on the wheels makes hardly any difference at all. Rolling resistance is only a minute form of parasitic drag which isn't a serious factor here.

What slows the car down on top speed is wind resistance. A wing always creates drag, this is aircraft 101 stuff here. It's not the fact that the wing's pressing the wheels down which slows the car, it's the disturbance of the air which is slowing the car down.

This is very basic stuff, which you obviously don't know. Please stop arguing as you are clueless.

I ask again, why are continuing an arguement that you cannot win?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt


I ask again, why are continuing an arguement that you cannot win?

I've already proven to everybody the truth, which is fairly obvious to people in the know. The only one arguing your side of the point is you, since you're clueless.

I've showed you links that refute just about everything you've said, yet you keep on arguing and show no proof of your own.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
you realize you are not winning, that it is a stand off.

LOL

I have you under control. Not only are you wrong, but you're clueless, too. I see the opportunity to not only prove you wrong, but to make you look bad and destroy your reputation in the process.

LOL! what reputation? the beauty of the internet is anonimity of it.

you can take what you've learned online and from books and try and put it into action and you will get the same results i've alreayd experienced. weight slows you down. that 10 ton super car? imagine right now they are trying to lighten it a bit to try and make it faster, along with making a more powerful engine.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: scorpmatt


I ask again, why are continuing an arguement that you cannot win?

I've already proven to everybody the truth, which is fairly obvious to people in the know. The only one arguing your side of the point is you, since you're clueless.

I've showed you links that refute just about everything you've said, yet you keep on arguing and show no proof of your own.

my proof only stems from my experience with this. all books and stuff i've read online contradict what i've already experienced

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Nik
351 Cleveland

429 Cobrajet Shelby GT 500
302 EFI Single Cam 79-1995
4.6 Modular Ford 1996-present

502 inch Chevy rat motor.. bore it big baby!

LS6 454 SS king

the CHEVY DZ Code 302 V8 (super freaking rare Z-28 motor)

and last but not least..
the late model Wankel rotorys...
1993+ Gen 3 RX7

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
that 10 ton super car? imagine right now they are trying to lighten it a bit to try and make it faster, along with making a more powerful engine.

You fool, lightening it would be counterproductive since they want to keep it on the ground. If they want to make it faster, they'd make it more aerodynamic and powerful, since as I already explained the main factor is HP vs. aerodynamic drag.

You are wrong about this. You have no clue. We are not on equal terms here, you lack the knowledge that I have, and you're making yourself look bad. You are not very smart.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

my proof only stems from my experience with this. all books and stuff i've read online contradict what i've already experienced

Ahh, so you're one of those guys.

"You can show me as much proof as you want, but I know it's all wrong!"

"Every college, learning institution, and speed record team in the world disagrees with me, but I know better!"

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
that 10 ton super car? imagine right now they are trying to lighten it a bit to try and make it faster, along with making a more powerful engine.

You fool, lightening it would be counterproductive since they want to keep it on the ground. If they want to make it faster, they'd make it more aerodynamic and powerful, since as I already explained the main factor is HP vs. aerodynamic drag.

You are wrong about this. You have no clue. We are not on equal terms here, you lack the knowledge that I have, and you're making yourself look bad. You are not very smart.

your knowledge of cars maybe above mine a hair or two yes, but your insults are closer to the 5 year old level. and yes, they can lighten that car more, they already said that the 10 ton car can go as fast as the rest, which are lighter!

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

my proof only stems from my experience with this. all books and stuff i've read online contradict what i've already experienced

Ahh, so you're one of those guys.

"You can show me as much proof as you want, but I know it's all wrong!"

"Every college, learning institution, and speed record team in the world disagrees with me, but I know better!"

no, im one of those "show it to me in real life, let me experience it, then i'll believe you. until then please kindly STFU"

 

[91TTZ]

I'm waiting for you to show me proof of your WRONG theory.

As I said many times already, top speed is limited by HP vs. aerodynamic drag, and HP vs. weight only matter for acceleration, NOT top speed.

Prove it.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: Horus

Originally posted by: newParadime
The larger Reneis Rotary engine for the '94 Mazda RX-7

The '94 RX-7 didn't have a RENESIS. The RENESIS is the new 1.3L rotary that's in the RX-8, and soon to be in the new RX-7 with a supercharger.

The 94 RX-7 had a twin-rotor design rotary (the B-20?) that was either single or dual-turbo.

You people saying it's incredible that the S2000 can develop 200hp out of a 2.0L engine...

The RENESIS gets 240 out of 1.3L, Natural Aspiration!

The original S2000 motor got 240 Hp out of that 2.0L, not 200.

It also has more torque then the 1.3L, and performs quite a bit better. Read any speed comparisson when the cars came out, the S2000 was quicker.

Besides one is conventional, and the other is rotary. Apples and oranges.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt


your knowledge of cars maybe above mine a hair or two yes, but your insults are closer to the 5 year old level.

A hair? Maybe if the hair was measured lengthwise and it was several miles long, yes.

and yes, they can lighten that car more, they already said that the 10 ton car can go as fast as the rest, which are lighter!

Ugh.

The reason that the 10 ton car can go faster than the other much lighter cars is because weight isn't that important, while aerodynamics vs. HP IS important. You just don't understand, yet you want to argue.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I'm waiting for you to show me proof of your WRONG theory.

As I said many times already, top speed is limited by HP vs. aerodynamic drag, and HP vs. weight only matter for acceleration, NOT top speed.

Prove it.

you said it yourself, twice now i think. drag. and drag is the force that causes you to slow down. its like air the back of a pickup or being held by a spoiler, causing downforce, IE weight.

btw, i like this site

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Horus

The '94 RX-7 didn't have a RENESIS. The RENESIS is the new 1.3L rotary that's in the RX-8, and soon to be in the new RX-7 with a supercharger.

The 94 RX-7 had a twin-rotor design rotary (the B-20?) that was either single or dual-turbo.

You people saying it's incredible that the S2000 can develop 200hp out of a 2.0L engine...

The RENESIS gets 240 out of 1.3L, Natural Aspiration!

The 94 RX-7 had a 13b, not the 20b, and it was only available in twin turbo. The 20b was the 3 rotor engine from the Cosmo.

You cannot compare the displacement from a rotary to a piston engine, since they are measured differently. On a 4 stroke piston engine, only half of the displacement is used for a powerstrok on each revolution. On a rotary, the full measured engine displacement is used. It would be more comparable to a 2 stroke piston engine in that regard.

 

[scorpmatt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Horus

The '94 RX-7 didn't have a RENESIS. The RENESIS is the new 1.3L rotary that's in the RX-8, and soon to be in the new RX-7 with a supercharger.

The 94 RX-7 had a twin-rotor design rotary (the B-20?) that was either single or dual-turbo.

You people saying it's incredible that the S2000 can develop 200hp out of a 2.0L engine...

The RENESIS gets 240 out of 1.3L, Natural Aspiration!

The 94 RX-7 had a 13b, not the 20b, and it was only available in twin turbo. The 20b was the 3 rotor engine from the Cosmo.

You cannot compare the displacement from a rotary to a piston engine, since they are measured differently. On a 4 stroke piston engine, only half of the displacement is used for a powerstrok on each revolution. On a rotary, the engine displacement is used. It would be more comparable to a 2 stroke piston engine in that regard.

from one arguement to another. i gotta hand it to ya, when you want to argue, you dont stop at one. cheers mate! :beer:

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

you said it yourself, twice now i think. drag. and drag is the force that causes you to slow down. its like air the back of a pickup or being held by a spoiler, causing downforce, IE weight.

I'd like to argue with that comment but it didn't even make any sense. You're clueless and reaching for straws here.

Aerodynamic drag is unrelated to weight. A parachute has a lot of drag, but doesn't weigh much. A bullet from a battleship weighs a lot, but doesn't have much drag. Attach both to a speed record car and see which one has more effect on the top speed- the 10 lb parachute, or the 2,000 lbs bullet? The parachute will slow it down much, much more.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

drag causes downforce which is a form of weight. weight slows you down. you will have a higher top speed if your car is lighter versus heavier. its simple physics.

You are thinking of this completely the wrong way. You seem to think that the weight on the wheels is what's slowing the car down, and that either adding ballast (weight) to a car or a wing (downforce) both presses the wheels down, slowing it down.

This is entirely incorrect.

The weight on the wheels makes hardly any difference at all. Rolling resistance is only a minute form of parasitic drag which isn't a serious factor here.

What slows the car down on top speed is wind resistance. A wing always creates drag, this is aircraft 101 stuff here. It's not the fact that the wing's pressing the wheels down which slows the car, it's the disturbance of the air which is slowing the car down.

This is very basic stuff, which you obviously don't know. Please stop arguing as you are clueless.

I ask again, why are continuing an arguement that you cannot win?

Cocky bastard, aren't you?

Weight is generally a negligible factor regarding top speed. You remind me of the people that don't understand Schrodinger's Cat and claim that it's hogwash.