Engine Modification

[cooler]

Electric motor produces maximum torque at 0 rpm . The best combo is diesel-electric.

someone is listening to you


http://www.autointell.net/nao_compan...ge-esx3-01.htm

[cooler]

peter lsd, if you want cost effective flat torque curve, stuff a v6 in it.
Try and true auto/bike makers toyota, honda, ferrari, M. Benz, yamaha, kawasaki, suzuki, bmw, etc don't use turbo in their sport cars/bikes. Some sport bikes can rev over 10,000 rpm and turbocharging is still not used.

There is no replacement for displacement.

Super Power: AMG V8 proves there’s no replacing displacement
DUTCH MANDEL and GREG KABLE
Posted Date: 7/15/05
In what Mercedes-Benz claims to be the most powerful, naturally aspirated eight-cylinder engine extant, the firm’s performance arm has developed a powerplant that will make it into virtually all its high-horsepower models.

M-B claims the 6.2-liter V8 develops “a minimum” of 510 horsepower and 464 lb-ft of torque without a supercharger, and has 20 percent more torque than other free-breathing engines in class. Cars fitted with the engine will get a 6.3-liter badge.

The engine and cylinder heads are high-strength aluminum and created with the latest metallurgical technology. Cylinder walls undergo a process to minimize friction, increase durability and add strength: The cylinder walls are twice as hard as conventional cast-iron liners.

AMG developed the engine without Mer-cedes. It has a throaty exhaust note reminiscent of late-1960s Trans-Am cars. It not only sounds better than the supercharged 5.4-liter models it replaces, it is smaller and lighter—438 pounds vs. 485 pounds.

AMG fitted a CLK DTM street racer with an engine for drive impressions. A bit of a shell game, on-site engineers privately agreed the car developed near 580 horsepower. Regardless, at first blush and full throttle the engine is a torque beast. That the 6.3 can fit in a current C-Class lends expectations that of the 24,000 engines AMG can build annually, they will be spread across the lineup. The 6.3 debuts at this fall’s Frankfurt show in an M-Class. It will be available in the States next year.

[other]

Cars fitted with the engine will get a 6.3-liter badge.

wow....that's scary

[glencomienda111]

honda engines are nice. small displacement but big in horsepower, all motor engines, i had a b18c integra type r engine tuned by spoon sports that pumps out 220hp

[Pete LSD]

wow, what did the dudes do to it? new camshafts, new chip, new ignition system, . . . etc.? No turbocharger & intercooler? And 220 hp is wheel horsepower?

honda engines are nice. small displacement but big in horsepower, all motor engines, i had a b18c integra type r engine tuned by spoon sports that pumps out 220hp

[ants]

honda engines are nice. small displacement but big in horsepower, all motor engines, i had a b18c integra type r engine tuned by spoon sports that pumps out 220hp

Can your car handle philippine road? too many potholes..

[taneepak]

Horsepower doesn't mean anything by itself. A 600 bhp power car may be easily beaten by a 90 bhp car in an acceleration test. It is power-to weight ratio, OTHBE, that really counts.

[cooler]

Horsepower doesn't mean anything by itself. A 600 bhp power car may be easily beaten by a 90 bhp car in an acceleration test. It is power-to weight ratio, OTHBE, that really counts.

i think ur exaggerating the hp difference in making your point as u didnt specify the test duration. What good is beating a 600hp car for the first 0.25 sec?

[taneepak]

i think ur exaggerating the hp difference in making your point as u didnt specify the test duration. What good is beating a 600hp car for the first 0.25 sec?

In performance cars power-to-weight ratio, AOTBE, is the key. A 90bhp car like in one model of the Lotus Elite, which weighs 600 kg, will out-accelerate a 600bhp car weighing 4,000 kg, on the straight and on a curve, for 1 minute or an hour, even when both cars have the same power-to-weight ratio. The heavier car is let down by it's massive rotating unsprung weight-huge tyres, brakes, wheels, etc.

[cooler]

In performance cars power-to-weight ratio, AOTBE, is the key. A 90bhp car like in one model of the Lotus Elite, which weighs 600 kg, will out-accelerate a 600bhp car weighing 4,000 kg, on the straight and on a curve, for 1 minute or an hour, even when both cars have the same power-to-weight ratio. The heavier car is let down by it's massive rotating unsprung weight-huge tyres, brakes, wheels, etc.

give me a break, who drive around a 4 tonnes car and has 'only' 600 hp?

a better comparison should be with this foreign car eater AND IT'S A AFFORDABLE CAR.

http://www.americancarfans.com/spyph...id/6050701.001

oh, btw, it weighs 1317 kg, power to weight ratio=0.46 vs your lotus of measly 0.15


taneepak, if a car is 4000 kg, u need to up the hp to like this one

[taneepak]

give me a break, who drive around a 4 tonnes car and has 'only' 600 hp?

a better comparison should be with this foreign car eater AND IT'S A AFFORDABLE CAR.

http://www.americancarfans.com/spyph...id/6050701.001

oh, btw, it weighs 1317 kg, power to weight ratio=0.46 vs your lotus of measly 0.15


taneepak, if a car is 4000 kg, u need to up the hp to like this one

Cooler, you have now come around and are talking sense, like "...power to weight ratio=0.46 vs your Lotus measly 0.15". See what I mean?

[cooler]

Cooler, you have now come around and are talking sense, like "...power to weight ratio=0.46 vs your Lotus measly 0.15". See what I mean?

i 'never had to' come around, it's in me all the time The problem with your comparison is that it has very limited application. Your lotus elite excel in low speed and/or short distance and/or for short duration, so what. There are many things in nature that can blow away both lotus elite and blue devil corvette. Take an ant, it has far more power than any cars compare to its weight. A dog flea, about the size of a pinhead, it can jump about 100 times its own height, a far greater leap than that possible for the multi-million dollar basketball player. However, can they do those feats when i sit on top of them? How about your lotus elite if a couple (american size) get on it with some golf equips or camping gears, watch the lotus elite performance go south, FAST The only time when i refer the 90 hp lotus elite as 'fast', LOL

Also, power to weight ratio alone isnt everything. There are many other design parameters that can enhance or degrade acceleration

[Neil Nicholls]

How about your lotus elite if a family of four (american size family) get on it, watch the lotus elite performance go south

On it is right. they won't get IN it !

I thought he meant the Elise at first, but as the Elite is a 40 year old car I guess he really means the Elite.
Dunno why pick the Elite though if you're after acceleration. Closest model to that described that i can see is the 1962 @ 660kg and 83bhp 0-60mph 11s (maybe there was a sportier version back in the day)
why not go for the recent Exige @ 930kg 243bhp 0-60mph 3.9s

[taneepak]

I meant it to be Lotus Elise.

[Pete LSD]

Are you sure? Elise uses Toyota Cecila & Matrix high-output I-4 engines.

I meant it to be Lotus Elise.

[cooler]

I meant it to be Lotus Elise.

It doesn't matter which lotus, "In performance cars power-to-weight ratio, AOTBE, is the key" was your be all end all claim.

There are many models and modified version of lotus elite, lets compare FACTORY VERSION and a factory version of a american truck.

From these links:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame...php&carnum=618
General specifications of Lotus Elite
Record last updated Before 12 / 01 / 2004
Country of origin Great Britain
Years of production 1957 - 1963
Introduced at 1958 Geneva Motorshow
Numbers built 1050
Body design Colin Chapman, Peter Kirwan-Taylor, Frank Costin
Weight 673 kilo / 1483.7 lbs
Drivetrain
Engine Coventry Climax FEW Straight 4
Engine Location Front , longitudinally mounted
Displacement 1.216 liter / 74.2 cu in
Valvetrain 2 valves / cylinder, SOHC
Fuel feed 2 SU H4 Carburetors
Aspiration Naturally Aspirated
Gearbox BMC 4 speed Manual
Drive Rear wheel drive
Performance figures
Power 75 bhp / 56 KW @ 6100 rpm
Torque 104 Nm / 77 ft lbs @ 3750 rpm
BHP/Liter 62 bhp / liter
Power to weight ratio 0.11 bhp / kg
Top Speed 193 km/h / 120 mph
0-60 mph Acceleration 10.7 s

AND COMPARE TO a 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE with 0.11 bhp/kg ratio too.

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/oney...rd/index4.html

2002 Chevy Avalanche
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
Drivetrain layout Front engine, rwd
Engine type V-8 OHV, 2 valves/cyl, iron block, alum heads
Displacement, ci/cc 326.9/5358
Hp @ rpm 285 @ 5200
Torque @ rpm 325 @ 4000
Transmission 4-speed automatic
Suspension, front; rear Upper and lower control arms, torsion bars, anti-roll bar; solid axle, multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
Brakes, f;r 12.0-in vented disc; 13.0-in vented disc, ABS
Wheels 17x7.5, cast alum
Tires 265/70R17, Goodyear Wrangler HP
Traction control Yes (opt)
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase, in 130.0
Length, in 221.7
Width, in 79.8
Height, in 73.5
Curb weight, lb 5678 (2578 kg)
Seating capacity 5
Cargo capacity, cu ft 41.1
Fuel capacity, gal 31.0
TEST DATA
0-60 mph, sec 8.2
1/4 mile, sec/mph 16.22/83.42
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 127
600-ft slalom, mph 54.5

bottom line, two vehicle with same power to weight ratio and yet very different 0-60 mph time. A soccer mom auto tranny 4x4 suv beats a agile sport car with manual transmission in acceleration with same power to weight ratio. Even if i assume that moter trend technican used the best time for the 2002 avalanche, let me give it some slack and add another 0.5 sec on top of best time of 8.2 sec, this truck is still under 9 sec compare to a lotus sport car of 10.7 sec. Displacement rules and i really didn't come completely around

[Neil Nicholls]

but cooler,
you haven't kept all other things equal
I can see some differences between those two vehicles