I introduce the Honda V8... splooge
Originally Posted by MattnTheHATch
dude, there are quite a few 1.6/1.8/2.0 liter all motor honda's that will beat all motor 4.0+ liter fords
you mean heavily built 1.6/1.8/2.0 all motor can sometimes beat a stock V8, i'll buy off on that. built all motor v8 > built all motor 4 banger anybody can see that. I'm sure there are a few cases out there where this won't apply, yes some 4 cyl cars can beat some v8 cars but similar work done to them both and the v8 should win everytime.
i see where you and GOAT are coming from, but you cant deny that a 2.0liter motor with 200 WHP is impressive versus a what 3.6 v6 mustang with the same horsepower.
Originally Posted by Flite
I never said I hate V8s....I have gotten frustrated in the past with the lack of any domestic companies using their V8s to the potential they have. I think what Honda guys "hate" (more like make fun of) was the fact that their much much smaller motors were keeping up with these huge V8s. Times have changed now and domestic car companies have stepped up to the plate and started producing motors that perform as well as their size indicates they should.
Originally Posted by MattnTheHATch
like flite said the only time i make fun of V8's is when a motor less than half the size kicks its ass.
just like when POS HYBRID raced BRUTL. 1.8 liter beat some big v8 muscle car. both all motor! makes the big v8 look like a pussy.
just like when POS HYBRID raced BRUTL. 1.8 liter beat some big v8 muscle car. both all motor! makes the big v8 look like a pussy.
Originally Posted by TheGoaT
really? What are these stock 13sec beasts?
Originally Posted by Flite
My 2L 4 cylinder ran a 13.87@102 stock. Very much on par with your typical late model Mustang GT...maybe even a tinge quicker, and definantly faster. Again, my only point was that if Honda could do that with an N/A 2L, I'd really like to see a company like Ford push the power/displacement of their 4.6L+ motors. Lately they've been performing better. The Mach1 and new GTs are getting more where a medium displacement, OHC V8 should be. I think a lot of the joking comes from a few years back when 5L GTs could barely squeek out a 14.9 stock.
I think my 4.6 is doing okay on power though.
Another thing about Hondas is that, yes, they can make good horsepower, but they've always lacked in torque. A favortie quote of mine is from Carol Shelby, "horsepower sells cars, torque wins races".
Originally Posted by XCELR8
A favortie quote of mine is from Carol Shelby, "horsepower sells cars, torque wins races".
Mugen S2000 holds the fastest street prepped convertible at Laguna Seca, beating out, Ferrari, Porsche, Corvette, and Lotus (others go without saying), Mugen S2000 motorwise is nearly stock, only about 1/4" lower than stock, nearly stock interior, and 17" wheels with very high quality street tires.
Favorite quote of mine is from me, "engines sell cars, chassis design wins races".
HP/Liter is useless to me. I dont understand why everyone gets their panties in a bunch because V8's dont make as much HP per liter as a b16 or whatever. HP/Liter doesnt win any races.
Yes, in 1994-1995 the mustang could barely squeek out a 14.9 stock. Name one import of equal or lesser value that could do that. In 1995, that was fairly impressive. Now, the 99+ mustangs are knocking down high 13 second times bone stock, with the 05 GT's down in the low 13 second range for some people. Cobras are in the mid 12s from the factory floor, LS1's were running high 12's back in 1998 off the showroom floor. I guess since people compare newer cars to older models and think its fair, then the Supra must be a shitty car right? I mean, it only ran what mid 13s?
Besides, just because a manufacture rated a motor at a certain hp doesnt mean that that is always true. LS1's were rated at 300bhp, and then 310bhp. They routinely break 300whp, which if you calculate 15% drivetrain loss, is 345bhp. Same with 03 Cobras, which have put down anywhere from 365whp at the lowest up to 390whp, all completely stock, which puts the motor at 420bhp to 450bhp, whereas the b16 puts down 130whp(?) stock, giving it a whopping 150bhp if paired through the same drivetrain loss (which is usually less for FWD cars, but we'll worry about that later.)
Now lets do some hp/liter calculations from that
345bhp/5.7l = 60.5hp/l
420bhp/4.6l = 91.3hp/l
450bhp/4.6l = 97.8hp/l
150bhp/1.6l = 93.8hp/l
The s2000 i will give credit for having an insane hp/liter.
220bhp/2.0l = 109.3hp/l
These are all based on real wheel hp figures + 15%, so they're far more accurate than a manufacturer's rating.
Either way you cut it, hp/liter doesnt mean shit unless you're racing in a class that has a limit on displacement.
Yes, in 1994-1995 the mustang could barely squeek out a 14.9 stock. Name one import of equal or lesser value that could do that. In 1995, that was fairly impressive. Now, the 99+ mustangs are knocking down high 13 second times bone stock, with the 05 GT's down in the low 13 second range for some people. Cobras are in the mid 12s from the factory floor, LS1's were running high 12's back in 1998 off the showroom floor. I guess since people compare newer cars to older models and think its fair, then the Supra must be a shitty car right? I mean, it only ran what mid 13s?

Besides, just because a manufacture rated a motor at a certain hp doesnt mean that that is always true. LS1's were rated at 300bhp, and then 310bhp. They routinely break 300whp, which if you calculate 15% drivetrain loss, is 345bhp. Same with 03 Cobras, which have put down anywhere from 365whp at the lowest up to 390whp, all completely stock, which puts the motor at 420bhp to 450bhp, whereas the b16 puts down 130whp(?) stock, giving it a whopping 150bhp if paired through the same drivetrain loss (which is usually less for FWD cars, but we'll worry about that later.)
Now lets do some hp/liter calculations from that
345bhp/5.7l = 60.5hp/l
420bhp/4.6l = 91.3hp/l
450bhp/4.6l = 97.8hp/l
150bhp/1.6l = 93.8hp/l
The s2000 i will give credit for having an insane hp/liter.
220bhp/2.0l = 109.3hp/l
These are all based on real wheel hp figures + 15%, so they're far more accurate than a manufacturer's rating.
Either way you cut it, hp/liter doesnt mean shit unless you're racing in a class that has a limit on displacement.
Originally Posted by Shawn
HP/Liter is useless to me. I dont understand why everyone gets their panties in a bunch because V8's dont make as much HP per liter as a b16 or whatever. HP/Liter doesnt win any races.
Yes, in 1994-1995 the mustang could barely squeek out a 14.9 stock. Name one import of equal or lesser value that could do that. In 1995, that was fairly impressive. Now, the 99+ mustangs are knocking down high 13 second times bone stock, with the 05 GT's down in the low 13 second range for some people. Cobras are in the mid 12s from the factory floor, LS1's were running high 12's back in 1998 off the showroom floor. I guess since people compare newer cars to older models and think its fair, then the Supra must be a shitty car right? I mean, it only ran what mid 13s?
Besides, just because a manufacture rated a motor at a certain hp doesnt mean that that is always true. LS1's were rated at 300bhp, and then 310bhp. They routinely break 300whp, which if you calculate 15% drivetrain loss, is 345bhp. Same with 03 Cobras, which have put down anywhere from 365whp at the lowest up to 390whp, all completely stock, which puts the motor at 420bhp to 450bhp, whereas the b16 puts down 130whp(?) stock, giving it a whopping 150bhp if paired through the same drivetrain loss (which is usually less for FWD cars, but we'll worry about that later.)
Now lets do some hp/liter calculations from that
345bhp/5.7l = 60.5hp/l
420bhp/4.6l = 91.3hp/l
450bhp/4.6l = 97.8hp/l
150bhp/1.6l = 93.8hp/l
The s2000 i will give credit for having an insane hp/liter.
220bhp/2.0l = 109.3hp/l
These are all based on real wheel hp figures + 15%, so they're far more accurate than a manufacturer's rating.
Either way you cut it, hp/liter doesnt mean shit unless you're racing in a class that has a limit on displacement.
Yes, in 1994-1995 the mustang could barely squeek out a 14.9 stock. Name one import of equal or lesser value that could do that. In 1995, that was fairly impressive. Now, the 99+ mustangs are knocking down high 13 second times bone stock, with the 05 GT's down in the low 13 second range for some people. Cobras are in the mid 12s from the factory floor, LS1's were running high 12's back in 1998 off the showroom floor. I guess since people compare newer cars to older models and think its fair, then the Supra must be a shitty car right? I mean, it only ran what mid 13s?

Besides, just because a manufacture rated a motor at a certain hp doesnt mean that that is always true. LS1's were rated at 300bhp, and then 310bhp. They routinely break 300whp, which if you calculate 15% drivetrain loss, is 345bhp. Same with 03 Cobras, which have put down anywhere from 365whp at the lowest up to 390whp, all completely stock, which puts the motor at 420bhp to 450bhp, whereas the b16 puts down 130whp(?) stock, giving it a whopping 150bhp if paired through the same drivetrain loss (which is usually less for FWD cars, but we'll worry about that later.)
Now lets do some hp/liter calculations from that
345bhp/5.7l = 60.5hp/l
420bhp/4.6l = 91.3hp/l
450bhp/4.6l = 97.8hp/l
150bhp/1.6l = 93.8hp/l
The s2000 i will give credit for having an insane hp/liter.
220bhp/2.0l = 109.3hp/l
These are all based on real wheel hp figures + 15%, so they're far more accurate than a manufacturer's rating.
Either way you cut it, hp/liter doesnt mean shit unless you're racing in a class that has a limit on displacement.
completely stock itr's could run as low as 14.2's off the showroom floor.....
195 bhp/1.8l=108.3hp/l (thats stock crank hp.)
now, i dont really care about hp per liter, unless i really wanted to be a dick and rub it in peoples faces that im making 193 hp/l now....(this is stock internal, boosted at the wheels.)






