User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 9:14:24 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can't see the forest for the trees. D16A6 - 108HP, 67.5HP/per liter in 1988 B16A1 - 150HP, ~94HP/per liter in 1994 Foxbody 5.0 HO - 225HP, 45HP/per liter in 1987 Vortec 350 - 255HP, ~45HP/per liter in 1996 They WERE/ARE that impressive even 30-35 years later given what was available at the time. Take any mediocre/grocery getter d15/d16 head, put it on a flowbench and measure CFM against ANY Big 3 production v8 head from the same period (80s to early 90s) and the Honda head will beat it. Take a F22A1 head and it'll walk all over any production OE head save the race stuff. I used to own a Superflow 110. We'll see if my numbers match up to yours. Torque and RPM produced at matter both on the street and strip. HP per liter is only useful in bench racing and purse swinging. Ricebois never could understand that. Always enjoyed showing Hondas and Diamond Stars the taillights of my '67 F-Body after they ran their mouths about ridiculous HP/liter. High flow rates in heads and intakes hurt low speed torque production due to lack of velocity for cylinder filling - which you should know - in the era prior to variable valve lift, two stage intakes, modern forced induction tech (2000's FI, not the experiments of the 1980s/90s), etc. All of those later technologies sought to increase flow velocity at low engine speeds to improve torque and combustion efficiency so that high flow heads became more practical for street cars. The early VTEC technology was simply not enough to produce a good torque curve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 9:29:25 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most V8 blocks now could reasonably withstand 1000 horsepower intermittently, thanks mostly to much better metallurgy. Not really. I'm surprised at how many people in this thread are dead wrong about that. I've been a powertrain engineer for an OEM, and a powertrain executive as well, so I have some background on the topic. Steel, iron and aluminum properties haven't meaningfully changed outside of something like HSLA, which will never be used in an engine block. We have gotten much more consistent at casting and grain structure, but that will only get you so far. It was actually NVH that drove the adoption of things like main bearing girdles and cross bolting. The capability to handle more power because of the increased block stiffness, driven mostly by NVH and emissions durability concerns, was a happy coincidence. (For those who don't know, emissions have to be maintained for 100k miles. You can't have bores loosening up and poisoning catcons over that time period, so all OEMs had to start designing stiffer blocks. Even so, NVH was the main driver in block/head stiffening). Reliability at high combustion pressures (ie, high power) is also driven by combustion stability, which in turn is a product of modern CFD modeling of combustion processes informing chamber design, and an onboard ECM that can adapt spark and fuel the microsecond it hears the beginning of a pre-ignition (knock) event instead of adjusting a couple of hundred revs later (1980's state of the art) after several knock events, one of which may have already cracked a piston or the crank. In short, computing power was the real difference, whether its in the ECM doing work in real time, or in CFD of the heads, or in FEA of the block. Fun fact: Circa 1993, Ford Motor Co had about 2x the computing power of the entire US Government, including DOE, DOD, NASA, etc. And they still barely had enough to simulate partial crash tests. Now they probably have 100x that power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 9:35:47 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Negative. Difference was more combustion chamber than anything else, but 2 or more points higher - nope, not true on average. EU-spec cars where 93+ octane leaded premium was still available for decades may have had that much higher CR in some isolated instances, but not for anything shipped to the US. As one example of hundreds, the 1983 911 SC had a CR of 9.3:1 in US spec, the same year Z28 305 HO's CR was 9.5:1. In general, Quote HistoryQuoted: Negative. Difference was more combustion chamber than anything else, but 2 or more points higher - nope, not true on average. EU-spec cars where 93+ octane leaded premium was still available for decades may have had that much higher CR in some isolated instances, but not for anything shipped to the US. As one example of hundreds, the 1983 911 SC had a CR of 9.3:1 in US spec, the same year Z28 305 HO's CR was 9.5:1. In general, @VVinci FIFY That said, what's your experience on long term durability with more complex engineering solutions? Insights always appreciated Quoted: Reliability at high combustion pressures (ie, high power) is also driven by combustion stability, which in turn is a product of modern CFD modeling of combustion processes informing chamber design, and an onboard ECM that can adapt spark and fuel the microsecond it hears the beginning of a pre-ignition (knock) event instead of adjusting a couple of hundred revs later (1980's state of the art) after several knock events, one of which may have already cracked a piston or the crank. In short, computing power was the real difference, whether its in the ECM doing work in real time, or in CFD of the heads, or in FEA of the Some things I didn't consider on NVH and the connection - cool Curious since you'd likely have a good take - using the last SBF in the '95 Mustang GT as a base, keeping everything stock. If the same engine had this kind of computing management applied, not just the ECU and sensors but in the design and dev it would probably also require, are we looking at '95 Cobra R power? Coyote Power? I figure it's a systems approach, but I'm wondering how much the computing power does, on either side of production, without gross systems like multivalve, VVT, emissions improvements, etc. Just occurred to me, prolly missed each other at the Greenbrier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 9:58:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My 1994 Integra GS-R had 170hp from a 1.8L. My current S2000 makes 240hp from 2.2L. It’s an 06 but it was designed in the 90s. My S2000 does it at 8300 rpm... but my 86.5 Nissan makes 105hp at about 5200 rpm with 2.4 liters and has over 300k miles on it... S2000 has 145k so far but a slight tick has me worried of piston slap, F20c is an amazing engine and I ran the crap out of it, the 6 speed mmmmmh, left me stranded. My '86 Subaru was 1.8 turbo and 134hp (now 1.95l) was a pretty quick 5 speed. My 2005 Duramax 6.6l came with 310 hp but has been slightly modified, probably about 500hp at the moment and 735k miles. I think underrated engines are, well, underrated... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:04:13 AM EDT
[#5]
Laughs in peanut port heads on a 454 with TBI. 230 hp, at best, that maxed out of rpm at 3500.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:11:56 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It wasn't just technology or government regulations. The 80s-90s "Big 3" were inundated with MBA bean counters. That early 90s 5.0 had a shitty HP output because it was the same engine from an 80s Mustang. By the late 90s there was more competition and focus on putting out better products. GM came out with the LT1 Camaro which was a beast and Ford didn't catch up until the 4.6 3V motor came out. They had to be cheap bastards because the American middle class didn’t have the same attitude towards automobiles in the 80’s and 90’s that they do now. But essentially you nailed it. The engineers at Ford and GM knew how to make 400hp 351/350’s but the cost of R&D to overcome EPA restrictions would have resulted in a 15-20k jump in MSRP. And the average mom and dad still saw vehicles as an expense and an appliance then. The reason you could buy vehicles without power accessories and A/C is there were enough buyers that would choose to save 1-2k to go without them. And they were obsessed with mileage numbers not HP numbers. They didn’t want 400 horse v8’s they wanted 20mpg v8’s. What happened is it took 20 years to cheaply compile lessons learned about making efficient horsepower combined with progress in affordable computing performance. Those things combining made it worth the money for GM and Ford to invest in developing the LS and Coyote motors. You know what also happened? Safety standards and a cultural shift towards luxury and features by the same buyers who wouldn’t spend the money on them 10-20 years earlier increasing weight over 1000 lbs. And we’re actually getting the exact same philosophy now. The 6.0 ls is a 700 horse motor. The coyote is a 600 horse motor N/A both over 1,000 horse turbocharged. But be glad they aren’t producing that from the factory because insurance costs for everyone would increase. What would be really nice is if the 300 horse daily commuter motor was still in a 2300lb car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:15:27 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My S2000 does it at 8300 rpm... but my 86.5 Nissan makes 105hp at about 5200 rpm with 2.4 liters and has over 300k miles on it... S2000 has 145k so far but a slight tick has me worried of piston slap, F20c is an amazing engine and I ran the crap out of it, the 6 speed mmmmmh, left me stranded. My '86 Subaru was 1.8 turbo and 134hp (now 1.95l) was a pretty quick 5 speed. My 2005 Duramax 6.6l came with 310 hp but has been slightly modified, probably about 500hp at the moment and 735k miles. I think underrated engines are, well, underrated... All engines torque/hp graphs intersect at 5252 rpm because of the way horsepower is derived. Without boost the torque is just not going to be there on a smaller engine. Europe/japan's answer was perfectly reasonable, put them in smaller cars. Thanks to my dad I spent too many years of my life with the wrong combination of heavy vehicle and gutless small engine. A 2.3l 4 banger in a 91 Ranger Extended Cab. Went on a youtube rabbit hole of watching NASCAR engine tear down videos last night. Seeing 30 years generational changes for Roush/Yates engines while they explained things like later on adding oil squirters for the valve springs(which makes sense if you think about fatigue and heat treat). It very much looks likes things learned their made their way to engines like the new 7.3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:24:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Boomers drool over cars like a '67 All the guys talking about the EPA and emissions are missing the point, this is the gold age of the internal combustion engine, and it isn't close. 7 year old technology. 220 cu in, 465 hp. Bone stock, pump gas, down to the paper air filter.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:31:37 AM EDT
[#9]
This one happened to come across my youtube feed this morning.
Stock rebuild ford 460. Stock guts, and even down to the OEM intake and exhaust manifold. All they changed on it was locking out the distributor, running an aftermarket carb, and not installing any smog crap. These are the EFI heads, which would have been on like 1988-1997 motors. Tuned on the dyno, its hitting 295hp, 460ftlb all below 4500 rpm. Depending on which year you look at, thats about 50hp (+20%) over the advertised number, just by stripping the smog and tuning it. Then with a $500 turbo and 7.5psi of boost, its hitting 494hp, 724ftlb @ 3500rpm.  Turbocharging a Stock 460 Big Block Ford for Massive (And Affordable) Power - Engine Power S10, E5 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:50:42 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We're Honda people, of the 10 or so we've owned all were pretty anemic - until the Odyssey. Maybe 80's & 90's Hondas suffered like other car brands, but 06' Odyssey, 14' Accord, 19' Passport, and 22' Accord (2.0T w/ tune) can freeway merge! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Porsche, BMW and Honda didn’t have the same problem. We're Honda people, of the 10 or so we've owned all were pretty anemic - until the Odyssey. Maybe 80's & 90's Hondas suffered like other car brands, but 06' Odyssey, 14' Accord, 19' Passport, and 22' Accord (2.0T w/ tune) can freeway merge! I was thinking along the lines of the NSX, S2000, Integra type R and stuff like that. Honda has been able to get to that magical 100hp/L from a N/A engine for quite some time |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:52:49 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can't see the forest for the trees. D16A6 - 108HP, 67.5HP/per liter in 1988 B16A1 - 150HP, ~94HP/per liter in 1994 Foxbody 5.0 HO - 225HP, 45HP/per liter in 1987 Vortec 350 - 255HP, ~45HP/per liter in 1996 They WERE/ARE that impressive even 30-35 years later given what was available at the time. Take any mediocre/grocery getter d15/d16 head, put it on a flowbench and measure CFM against ANY Big 3 production v8 head from the same period (80s to early 90s) and the Honda head will beat it. Take a F22A1 head and it'll walk all over any production OE head save the race stuff. I used to own a Superflow 110. We'll see if my numbers match up to yours. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The older Honda engines weren't all that impressive without forced induction though, and the factory block can't handle serious power without extensive mods. IMO it wasn't until the K motor came along did Honda really become impressive from a production motor standpoint. You can't see the forest for the trees. D16A6 - 108HP, 67.5HP/per liter in 1988 B16A1 - 150HP, ~94HP/per liter in 1994 Foxbody 5.0 HO - 225HP, 45HP/per liter in 1987 Vortec 350 - 255HP, ~45HP/per liter in 1996 They WERE/ARE that impressive even 30-35 years later given what was available at the time. Take any mediocre/grocery getter d15/d16 head, put it on a flowbench and measure CFM against ANY Big 3 production v8 head from the same period (80s to early 90s) and the Honda head will beat it. Take a F22A1 head and it'll walk all over any production OE head save the race stuff. I used to own a Superflow 110. We'll see if my numbers match up to yours. I remember when everyone was obsessed with B series in the late 90s/early 2000s and Bisi was putting out the same numbers with D series setups. At one point in the 80s Honda/Mugen was running a 1.6 D series with sidedrafts and putting out over 200hp. Naturally aspirated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:54:51 AM EDT
[#12]
The fuck sticks in DC.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:58:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Boomer checking in, I've been hearing this my whole life except for mid 70s to mid 80s. Funny thing is, it's always been true. It's called progress. 7 year old technology. 220 cu in, 465 hp. Bone stock, pump gas, down to the paper air filter. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/177202/44C41167-C709-4CC8-B4DA-3C4848A9371B_jpe-2927243.JPG |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 10:59:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My buddy says: "Already been done back then when Porsche was an engineering company who used the racetrack to test their technology. Search: Fuhrmann engine. Besides the 550 Spyder and the Carrera, the 4 cam was used in the early 904, but bumped up to 2.0 liters. Some used mechanical fuel injection, similar to a Diesel." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'd dial it back and bring back the porsche 356 . Bump it up about a liter , add an extra gear , maybe some vvt . Carb cheater on dual downdrafts. My buddy says: "Already been done back then when Porsche was an engineering company who used the racetrack to test their technology. Search: Fuhrmann engine. Besides the 550 Spyder and the Carrera, the 4 cam was used in the early 904, but bumped up to 2.0 liters. Some used mechanical fuel injection, similar to a Diesel." Are Porsche air cooled engines not expensive enough already? Holy hell, what does a 4 cam engine cost these days? 1/4 million? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:09:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Using liters instead of cubic inches.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:10:37 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I should have bought a wagon. They're almost more now than when they were new My wife has a (non V) wagon. I can't tell you how many times we've come close to getting a Vagon. Yes, they held their value very well, sedans next, then the coupes. Very good chance I'll be buying a sedan in the next couple of months. I have a friend wanting to put me in his. The car in the pic is an ATS-V coupe. I actually like the ATS coupe better than the sedan, opposite my preference on the CTS. It's my sons, has TT 3.6L V6. Very nice little car. Runs 12.00/117 in shitty air. Wife & son have Cadillacs, I have a Pontiac (GTO) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:23:24 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1990 ford mustang curb weight : ~2,800 pounds 2023 ford mustang curb weight : ~3,700 pounds  plus the 300+ ft/lbs of torque made for fairly dynamic acceleration. yes they weren't rocket ships stock - esp. compared to many modern cars - but they were decently quicker than some statistical comparisons might infer The old Mustangs are so floppy that most modders reinforce the frame to reducing the amount of flexing it did. They were also horribly unsafe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:26:07 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Gen Xer here. The Chevy small block, particularly the 350, was second only to the 5.3L Vortec (non-afm). They are the pinnacle of engine design. LOL. no If the Chevy 350 was "The pinnacle" then why did they stop making it? Nostalgia is a hell of a drug. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:29:31 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Negative. Difference was more combustion chamber than anything else, but 2 or more points higher - nope, not true on average. EU-spec cars where 93+ octane leaded premium was still available for decades may have had that much higher CR in some isolated instances, but not for anything shipped to the US. As one example of hundreds, the 1983 911 SC had a CR of 9.3:1 in US spec, the same year Z28 305 HO's CR was 9.5:1. In general, all of you are also discounting torque. That 1983 911 made just shy of 1 HP per cid, but less than 1 ft-lb of torque per CID, and did so at a not very useful 4200 RPM. The Z28 HO made ~60 ft-lbf more 1000 rpm lower, something you can feel in everyday driving without flogging the car. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Low compression combined with intentionally poor (cheap to manufacture) fuel injection computers. Ignition timing computer controls on Euro built cars of the same era supported their higher compression, often 2 or more points higher than American cars. Negative. Difference was more combustion chamber than anything else, but 2 or more points higher - nope, not true on average. EU-spec cars where 93+ octane leaded premium was still available for decades may have had that much higher CR in some isolated instances, but not for anything shipped to the US. As one example of hundreds, the 1983 911 SC had a CR of 9.3:1 in US spec, the same year Z28 305 HO's CR was 9.5:1. In general, all of you are also discounting torque. That 1983 911 made just shy of 1 HP per cid, but less than 1 ft-lb of torque per CID, and did so at a not very useful 4200 RPM. The Z28 HO made ~60 ft-lbf more 1000 rpm lower, something you can feel in everyday driving without flogging the car. The rest of world SC got 9.8/1 CR and 24 more hp because better gas was available. how isn’t that useful? all the fun driving an old 911 happens when the revs are high. You’re comparing apples to oranges with that Z28, of course peak torque is 1000 rpm lower, max power is at 4800 and I’m sure the redline isn’t much past that. The SC can be reved to 6500+ on every shift. “Flogging the car” is the whole point of having a sports car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:33:28 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @ARHank My wife has a (non V) wagon. I can't tell you how many times we've come close to getting a Vagon. Yes, they held their value very well, sedans next, then the coupes. Very good chance I'll be buying a sedan in the next couple of months. I have a friend wanting to put me in his. The car in the pic is an ATS-V coupe. I actually like the ATS coupe better than the sedan, opposite my preference on the CTS. It's my sons, has TT 3.6L V6. Very nice little car. Runs 12.00/117 in shitty air. Wife & son have Cadillacs, I have a Pontiac (GTO) We'll probably end up with an ATS V. I was a Caddy tech, then inventory manager. So, I have a bias. It's year two of paying for private college and things are starting to normalize again. Soon. As a tech, it's hard to buy new vehicles when your old junk runs fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:34:14 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My buddy says: "Already been done back then when Porsche was an engineering company who used the racetrack to test their technology. Search: Fuhrmann engine. Besides the 550 Spyder and the Carrera, the 4 cam was used in the early 904, but bumped up to 2.0 liters. Some used mechanical fuel injection, similar to a Diesel." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'd dial it back and bring back the porsche 356 . Bump it up about a liter , add an extra gear , maybe some vvt . Carb cheater on dual downdrafts. My buddy says: "Already been done back then when Porsche was an engineering company who used the racetrack to test their technology. Search: Fuhrmann engine. Besides the 550 Spyder and the Carrera, the 4 cam was used in the early 904, but bumped up to 2.0 liters. Some used mechanical fuel injection, similar to a Diesel." @StraightShootinGal Mention to your friend my boss has a real 4 cam Fuhrmann in a Bug (him and his son have roughly 40 air cooled 911s and 356s between the two) Yeah, the 906 and 911R had a twin plug 2.0 putting out over 200hp using IDA carbs. They had almost no power under 6k. 911R is my favorite Porsche....it's the one in my avatar. The later 2.7 RS and 2.8/3.0 RSR used the mechanical fuel injection. Each cylinder had it's own throttle with the 2.8/3.0 RSR using a high butterfly system that made over 300hp naturally aspirated. The crazy thing is that the Bosch mechanical fuel injection appeared on production 911s starting in 1969 with the 911E and 911S (911T still had carbs). In 72/73, all of the models had it. MFI was used on production cars to make the newer tighter emission standards. Porsche didn't offer the 1968 911S in the US because it couldn't pass emissions. Very cool system using high fuel pressure. When you get the pump adjusted correctly, the throttle response and sound is like nothing else. Plus you don't have issues with altitude changes like you do with carbs. My dad had a 72E with mechanical fuel injection and I currently have a 69E with a similar setup (my 69 mechanical fuel injection has slightly simpler Bosch pump and uses metal intake plenums where as later went to plastic). This is the later style MFI with plastic intakes. Bosch pump on the lower left.  Here is the Porsche twin plug 2.0 in the 67 911R and 906 that was making 200hp+ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:36:41 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, power:weight was a serious consideration. 100 horsepower is pretty damn sluggish in a sports car but it would be uncontrollably fast in a motorcycle. A 2023 mustang might smoke a ‘90’s fox body 5.0, but I did plenty of ridiculous 3rd gear burnouts in 90’s fox bodies. The mass machining tolerances and metallurgy at that time just didn’t allow for extra horsepower in a vehicle that ordinary people needed to drive to work every day. If you made more than about 430 HP in a stock 5.0 OHV block, it was going to explode. The engine could be made to produce considerably more power but it was understood that you were building a time bomb. Most V8 blocks now could reasonably withstand 1000 horsepower intermittently, thanks mostly to much better metallurgy. A BMW i4 block designed in the 60’s was handling over 1000hp in the early 80’s  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:38:04 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Using liters instead of cubic inches. Ford's CID numbers were just ballpark anyways. 351 bore and stroke calculates to 352. The 400's bore and stroke calculate to a 402. The ford 427 was actually 425cid, the 428 was 426.5cid. And then if you really want to crush some dreams, double check their conversion from cubic inches to liters. 302 cid is not 5.0L. Its 4.94L. It should round down to 4.9. That applies to the old 5.0 as well as the coyotes. None of them are 5 liters. There's decades of mustang owners out there just living a lie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:39:25 AM EDT
[#24]
As has been said, advancement of computer control, improved design via modeling, and improved manufacturing.
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was only US cars that had such low HP per Litre. It always puzzled me bad in the day. European and jap cars were looking to maximise this. The goal was 100 bhp Per litre Then you had tuners getting 500 bhp out of a 2 litre Ford cosworth Push rods? Or something? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My 1994 Integra GS-R had 170hp from a 1.8L. My current S2000 makes 240hp from 2.2L. It’s an 06 but it was designed in the 90s. It was only US cars that had such low HP per Litre. It always puzzled me bad in the day. European and jap cars were looking to maximise this. The goal was 100 bhp Per litre Then you had tuners getting 500 bhp out of a 2 litre Ford cosworth Push rods? Or something? There's a bit of a fundamental difference between how US vs the rest of the world looked at engine dynamics from a consumer perspective, plus governmental forces that dictated engine sizing. If your government institutes a progressive tax penalty for engines over 2 liters, then you as a manufacturer start looking at ways to maximize output below that threshold. ETA: didn't realize this thread was already 5 pages long when I responded, all this has probably been covered ad nauseum
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:40:59 AM EDT
[#25]
It's because horsepower wasn't invented until 2005.
It then took another 5-7 years before it became cheap enough to mass produce for normal consumer level vehicles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:41:47 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @StraightShootinGal Mention to your friend my boss has a real 4 cam Fuhrmann in a Bug (him and his son have roughly 40 air cooled 911s and 356s between the two) Yeah, the 904 and 911R had a twin plug 2.0 putting out over 200hp using IDA carbs. They had almost no power under 6k. 911R is my favorite Porsche....it's the one in my avatar. The later 2.7 RS and 2.8/3.0 RSR used the mechanical fuel injection. Each cylinder had it's own throttle with the 2.8/3.0 RSR using a high butterfly system that made over 300hp naturally aspirated. The crazy thing is that the Bosche mechanical fuel injection appeared on production 911s starting in 1969 with the 911E and 911S (911T still had carbs). In 72/73, all of the models had it. Very cool system using high fuel pressure. When you get the pump adjusted correctly, the throttle response and sound is like nothing else. Plus you don't have issues with altitude changes like you do with carbs. My dad had a 72E with mechanical fuel injection and I currently have a 69E with a similar setup (my 69 mechanical fuel injection has slightly simpler Bosch bump and uses metal intake plenums where as later went to plastic). This is the later style MFI with plastic intakes. Bosch pump on the lower left. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K6pLDfcXkIs/UH3fLu0KSqI/AAAAAAAAFVQ/wYZFgp75k4s/s1600/Carrera-003.jpg Here is the Porsche twin plug 2.0 in the 67 911R and 906 that was making 200hp+ https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/567812df7086d7c6a3ddcd61/1633075131807-VVQJY4AEWYADVEK883WG/1968-Porsche-911-R-_35.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd dial it back and bring back the porsche 356 . Bump it up about a liter , add an extra gear , maybe some vvt . Carb cheater on dual downdrafts. My buddy says: "Already been done back then when Porsche was an engineering company who used the racetrack to test their technology. Search: Fuhrmann engine. Besides the 550 Spyder and the Carrera, the 4 cam was used in the early 904, but bumped up to 2.0 liters. Some used mechanical fuel injection, similar to a Diesel." @StraightShootinGal Mention to your friend my boss has a real 4 cam Fuhrmann in a Bug (him and his son have roughly 40 air cooled 911s and 356s between the two) Yeah, the 904 and 911R had a twin plug 2.0 putting out over 200hp using IDA carbs. They had almost no power under 6k. 911R is my favorite Porsche....it's the one in my avatar. The later 2.7 RS and 2.8/3.0 RSR used the mechanical fuel injection. Each cylinder had it's own throttle with the 2.8/3.0 RSR using a high butterfly system that made over 300hp naturally aspirated. The crazy thing is that the Bosche mechanical fuel injection appeared on production 911s starting in 1969 with the 911E and 911S (911T still had carbs). In 72/73, all of the models had it. Very cool system using high fuel pressure. When you get the pump adjusted correctly, the throttle response and sound is like nothing else. Plus you don't have issues with altitude changes like you do with carbs. My dad had a 72E with mechanical fuel injection and I currently have a 69E with a similar setup (my 69 mechanical fuel injection has slightly simpler Bosch bump and uses metal intake plenums where as later went to plastic). This is the later style MFI with plastic intakes. Bosch pump on the lower left. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K6pLDfcXkIs/UH3fLu0KSqI/AAAAAAAAFVQ/wYZFgp75k4s/s1600/Carrera-003.jpg Here is the Porsche twin plug 2.0 in the 67 911R and 906 that was making 200hp+ https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/567812df7086d7c6a3ddcd61/1633075131807-VVQJY4AEWYADVEK883WG/1968-Porsche-911-R-_35.jpg 911R is also my all time favorite. I love MFI, too bad I wasn’t into Porsches when everyone was dumping it for carbs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:46:00 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's because horsepower wasn't invented until 2005. It then took another 5-7 years before it became cheap enough to mass produce for normal consumer level vehicles. Its due to the internet. Horsepower was invented by alfred horse, back in the early 1900s. It was always expensive. Then around 2005, somebody uploaded a horsepower to the pirate bay. By then, internet speeds were fast enough and storage was cheap enough, it became feasible to download horsepowers at home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:58:39 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 88-91 (4th gen) civic was available with a 160hp 1.6l B16A and weighed roughly 2000lbs. Mine with a motor swap (JDM DOHC ZC), turbo, full tank of gas, and me in the seat was 2100lbs if I remember correctly. I made zero effort to lighten it up. That's interesting because all of the info I can find says the Integra with the B16A was the powerful variant at 131hp. My 99 Sentra had 115hp when it was new. 15hp when I sold it at 325k miles. That was a 1.6l GA16. My 86.5 3.0 V6 Nissan pickup was 145hp/163ftlbs when stock. With my VG33 swap and mods I'm doing about 180hp/200ftlbs. My 2003 3.0 V6 Audi makes 220hp/229ftlbs. The power numbers seem to change slightly depending on where you look. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 11:58:47 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 911R is also my all time favorite. I love MFI, too bad I wasn’t into Porsches when everyone was dumping it for carbs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd dial it back and bring back the porsche 356 . Bump it up about a liter , add an extra gear , maybe some vvt . Carb cheater on dual downdrafts. My buddy says: "Already been done back then when Porsche was an engineering company who used the racetrack to test their technology. Search: Fuhrmann engine. Besides the 550 Spyder and the Carrera, the 4 cam was used in the early 904, but bumped up to 2.0 liters. Some used mechanical fuel injection, similar to a Diesel." @StraightShootinGal Mention to your friend my boss has a real 4 cam Fuhrmann in a Bug (him and his son have roughly 40 air cooled 911s and 356s between the two) Yeah, the 904 and 911R had a twin plug 2.0 putting out over 200hp using IDA carbs. They had almost no power under 6k. 911R is my favorite Porsche....it's the one in my avatar. The later 2.7 RS and 2.8/3.0 RSR used the mechanical fuel injection. Each cylinder had it's own throttle with the 2.8/3.0 RSR using a high butterfly system that made over 300hp naturally aspirated. The crazy thing is that the Bosche mechanical fuel injection appeared on production 911s starting in 1969 with the 911E and 911S (911T still had carbs). In 72/73, all of the models had it. Very cool system using high fuel pressure. When you get the pump adjusted correctly, the throttle response and sound is like nothing else. Plus you don't have issues with altitude changes like you do with carbs. My dad had a 72E with mechanical fuel injection and I currently have a 69E with a similar setup (my 69 mechanical fuel injection has slightly simpler Bosch bump and uses metal intake plenums where as later went to plastic). This is the later style MFI with plastic intakes. Bosch pump on the lower left. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K6pLDfcXkIs/UH3fLu0KSqI/AAAAAAAAFVQ/wYZFgp75k4s/s1600/Carrera-003.jpg Here is the Porsche twin plug 2.0 in the 67 911R and 906 that was making 200hp+ https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/567812df7086d7c6a3ddcd61/1633075131807-VVQJY4AEWYADVEK883WG/1968-Porsche-911-R-_35.jpg 911R is also my all time favorite. I love MFI, too bad I wasn’t into Porsches when everyone was dumping it for carbs. Yep. Lot of guys started messing with the pumps, couldn't get them to work, and ditched the entire system for carbs. It was a completely new system at the time and a lot of Porsche mechanics don't even like working on them today. When they're bad they're bad but when they're adjusted correctly, there is nothing like them. My dad has his 72 with mechanical fuel injection during the same time I had a 79 SC with CIS. The throttle response between the two was just night and day. The MFI felt like an on/off switch. Almost like driving a race car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:08:54 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are Porsche air cooled engines not expensive enough already? Holy hell, what does a 4 cam engine cost these days? 1/4 million? That's the good thing about the 356 ; the engine was still basic vw type ohv single cam . Bores wear out ? Pop on new jugs . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:09:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the mid '70's didn't manufacturer's go from rating horsepower at the fly wheel to hp ratings at the rear end? A lot of numbers lost through the drive train. Taken from the rear of the transmission with the air conditioner on. Insurance rates were costlier on higher HP engined vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:12:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep. Lot of guys started messing with the pumps, couldn't get them to work, and ditched the entire system for carbs. It was a completely new system at the time and a lot of Porsche mechanics don't even like working on them today. When they're bad they're bad but when they're adjusted correctly, there is nothing like them. My dad has his 72 with mechanical fuel injection during the same time I had a 79 SC with CIS. The throttle response between the two was just night and day. The MFI felt like an on/off switch. Almost like driving a race car. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd dial it back and bring back the porsche 356 . Bump it up about a liter , add an extra gear , maybe some vvt . Carb cheater on dual downdrafts. My buddy says: "Already been done back then when Porsche was an engineering company who used the racetrack to test their technology. Search: Fuhrmann engine. Besides the 550 Spyder and the Carrera, the 4 cam was used in the early 904, but bumped up to 2.0 liters. Some used mechanical fuel injection, similar to a Diesel." @StraightShootinGal Mention to your friend my boss has a real 4 cam Fuhrmann in a Bug (him and his son have roughly 40 air cooled 911s and 356s between the two) Yeah, the 904 and 911R had a twin plug 2.0 putting out over 200hp using IDA carbs. They had almost no power under 6k. 911R is my favorite Porsche....it's the one in my avatar. The later 2.7 RS and 2.8/3.0 RSR used the mechanical fuel injection. Each cylinder had it's own throttle with the 2.8/3.0 RSR using a high butterfly system that made over 300hp naturally aspirated. The crazy thing is that the Bosche mechanical fuel injection appeared on production 911s starting in 1969 with the 911E and 911S (911T still had carbs). In 72/73, all of the models had it. Very cool system using high fuel pressure. When you get the pump adjusted correctly, the throttle response and sound is like nothing else. Plus you don't have issues with altitude changes like you do with carbs. My dad had a 72E with mechanical fuel injection and I currently have a 69E with a similar setup (my 69 mechanical fuel injection has slightly simpler Bosch bump and uses metal intake plenums where as later went to plastic). This is the later style MFI with plastic intakes. Bosch pump on the lower left. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K6pLDfcXkIs/UH3fLu0KSqI/AAAAAAAAFVQ/wYZFgp75k4s/s1600/Carrera-003.jpg Here is the Porsche twin plug 2.0 in the 67 911R and 906 that was making 200hp+ https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/567812df7086d7c6a3ddcd61/1633075131807-VVQJY4AEWYADVEK883WG/1968-Porsche-911-R-_35.jpg 911R is also my all time favorite. I love MFI, too bad I wasn’t into Porsches when everyone was dumping it for carbs. Yep. Lot of guys started messing with the pumps, couldn't get them to work, and ditched the entire system for carbs. It was a completely new system at the time and a lot of Porsche mechanics don't even like working on them today. When they're bad they're bad but when they're adjusted correctly, there is nothing like them. My dad has his 72 with mechanical fuel injection during the same time I had a 79 SC with CIS. The throttle response between the two was just night and day. The MFI felt like an on/off switch. Almost like driving a race car. I need to figure out how to stop being poor. I’d love to convert my CIS equipped SC to MFI but just the pump, velocity stacks and ancillary stuff starts pushing into the 5 figure range. I’ve got a set of slummy Weber IDA 40’s sitting on the bench that will have to hold me over if I ever get the time to track down some missing bits and get them installed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:13:04 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The old Mustangs are so floppy that most modders reinforce the frame to reducing the amount of flexing it did. They were also horribly unsafe. The 94-04 is a good compromise being 50% more rigid than the old foxbody. Just add a panhard bar to get rid of the rear-steer. Drop in a t56 and gm LV1/3 . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:15:46 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is an ATS. I thought it was a CTS. I always loved the wagons. They didn't sell very well new but as soon as you couldn't get them, everyone wanted one. We'll probably end up with an ATS V. I was a Caddy tech, then inventory manager. So, I have a bias. It's year two of paying for private college and things are starting to normalize again. Soon. As a tech, it's hard to buy new vehicles when your old junk runs fine. I'm sure you're more familiar with them than I am. Until my son bought his, I knew they existed but didn't really have my head wrapped around what all they really are. After driving his several times and taking it to the track, I think I'd be just as happy if not more in an ATS V. But the CTS V I'm considering is from a friend, I'm very familiar with the car and I don't think I could get as nice of ATS for the price he's offered it to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:16:42 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can't see the forest for the trees. D16A6 - 108HP, 67.5HP/per liter in 1988 B16A1 - 150HP, ~94HP/per liter in 1994 Foxbody 5.0 HO - 225HP, 45HP/per liter in 1987 Vortec 350 - 255HP, ~45HP/per liter in 1996 They WERE/ARE that impressive even 30-35 years later given what was available at the time. Take any mediocre/grocery getter d15/d16 head, put it on a flowbench and measure CFM against ANY Big 3 production v8 head from the same period (80s to early 90s) and the Honda head will beat it. Take a F22A1 head and it'll walk all over any production OE head save the race stuff. I used to own a Superflow 110. We'll see if my numbers match up to yours. Honda head flow figures may be much better, but the small displacement they're sitting atop means you're still not making real power figures without a power adder or an extreme 10000+ rpm race build if you stay naturally aspirated. Stock, those cars just weren't all that fast for their time, other than the S2000, which cost more than a contemporary Z28 or Cobra did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:17:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Weirdly a guy from my city made a very comprehensive series on the US auto industry. In short, and I don't understand how it's even possible: Some US.gov angency really hates car design and i don't understand why there are not more US politicions that have it as a campaign issue.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UEqiqt46fI |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:20:25 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I need to figure out how to stop being poor. I’d love to convert my CIS equipped SC to MFI but just the pump, velocity stacks and ancillary stuff starts pushing into the 5 figure range. I’ve got a set of slummy Weber IDA 40’s sitting on the bench that will have to hold me over if I ever get the time to track down some missing bits and get them installed. Try that "carb cheater" system on them  Make a SELF-TUNING Holley/Edelbrock Carb! (Carb Cheater: Installation & Setup) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:39:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I need to figure out how to stop being poor. I’d love to convert my CIS equipped SC to MFI but just the pump, velocity stacks and ancillary stuff starts pushing into the 5 figure range. I’ve got a set of slummy Weber IDA 40’s sitting on the bench that will have to hold me over if I ever get the time to track down some missing bits and get them installed. Try that "carb cheater" system on them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNLud6_x3UMIf I was going to add computer controlled components I’d just go EFI but for me part of the charm of an old car is lack of digital anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:42:49 PM EDT
[#39]
This thread made me think about the 1986 Izuzu I mark... a crappy commuter car i bought in 2003 to have a tool around rig for the summer. It was ... under powered with a 3 speed automatic at sealevel. i took it to colorado springs and then over to Alamosa CO. LOL I couldnt maintain 50 MPH going up hills...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:46:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good Question. My 1974 Buick Riviera with a 455 only put out 285 HP or so but at least 350 Torque. My BMW 3.0 puts out 355 HP and 345 Torque When the Buick 455 was introduced in the Riviera in 1970 it made 370 hp and 510 torque. Then the EPA got involved... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:52:04 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I was going to add computer controlled components I’d just go EFI but for me part of the charm of an old car is lack of digital anything. True I suppose . The neat thing here is the carbs can operate independently if the system goes out . And , it tunes on the fly for atmospheric conditions when it is working . A bit of redundancy and increased performance . ..while retaining oem old style parts . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:53:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryCarb cheater's still backordered/pre-order. I have an order number in the 1300s, which should be shipping out in their next big batch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:54:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @VVinci FIFY That said, what's your experience on long term durability with more complex engineering solutions? Insights always appreciated Some things I didn't consider on NVH and the connection - cool Curious since you'd likely have a good take - using the last SBF in the '95 Mustang GT as a base, keeping everything stock. If the same engine had this kind of computing management applied, not just the ECU and sensors but in the design and dev it would probably also require, are we looking at '95 Cobra R power? Coyote Power? I figure it's a systems approach, but I'm wondering how much the computing power does, on either side of production, without gross systems like multivalve, VVT, emissions improvements, etc. Just occurred to me, prolly missed each other at the Greenbrier. WRT to long term durability, anything can be engineered poorly or well. Statiscally, all other things being equal (they NEVER are) the more complex solution will fail earlier. YMMV. I think others in the thread have talked about what the SBF could have been. A trajectory not unlike the SBC to LSx would have been possible, and some of those early Ford Cleveland heads would have made a great platform with modern VVT/variable intake tech. The Ford 4.6 mod motor was originally intended for Lincoln use only, but Ford's near-death experience in the 1980's, followed by the Nasser Disaster of the 1990's, meant that it had to be pressed into service for everything. Worst of all, the early 4.6 just had no headroom for performance. While the SOHC mod motors were great for NVH and durability, they weren't anything special in too many respects. The DOHC version was ahead of its time, and begged to be boosted, similar to Hondas. Duratec V6's and the SHO V6 aside, Ford got way behind for a while on engine tech until the Ecoboost. For all their issues, you can't fault the overall FE/performance/drive-ability compromise that the Ecoboost line brings to the table. It's admittedly an anecdotal analogy, but my wife's drive cycle was very repetitive back when the kids were small, and she went from 14 MPG in a 2005 Odyssey to 16-17 MPG in a KR Supercrew 3.5 EB. I wouldn't have been at the Greenbrier this year. I don't get out of Texas much anymore for shows or events. Got my fill of getting on a airplane six out of every 8 weeks for years, and no interest in moving to SE Michigan to reduce trips, so I'm done with global automotive other than as an observer. Well, at least for now. Got an interesting call from one of the major consultancies last week. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 12:56:31 PM EDT
[#44]
It's because they started measuring engines in liters instead of cubic inches. It's all part of the conversion factor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 1:10:26 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Carb cheater's still backordered/pre-order. I have an order number in the 1300s, which should be shipping out in their next big batch. What's your application? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 1:11:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The rest of world SC got 9.8/1 CR and 24 more hp because better gas was available. how isn’t that useful? all the fun driving an old 911 happens when the revs are high. You’re comparing apples to oranges with that Z28, of course peak torque is 1000 rpm lower, max power is at 4800 and I’m sure the redline isn’t much past that. The SC can be reved to 6500+ on every shift. “Flogging the car” is the whole point of having a sports car. On that last point, Come take a ride in my 66 Mustang with 340 ft/lbs at 4400 rpm and 380whp at 6300 rpm. Put 5k miles on the car last year with it seeing 5500+ rpm regularly. Spent more on suspension/brakes than I did building the Dart based engine. Car is being built for Buttonwillow raceway in hopes I can touch a 2:00 lap time for 13cw. Eventually I hope to get to Willowsprings to really scare the shit out of myself. The knowledge to make them rev has always been there, the willingness for the factory to do anything other than modest efforts died in the 60s. SVT returning in the 90s helped. My 95 Cobra came with roller rockers stock. A 200 dollar cam completely changed behavior under the curve and that engine will rev out to 6k rpm. 3k in parts and I could be 300 whp easily while reving to 6-6500rpm. Hotrodding the older engines could make power just fine as well but nobody wanted a 305 of a 350 was available to start with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 2:01:53 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's your application? First one I get is going in a 1973 mustang with a 351 cleveland and a TKX. Engine is a new rebuild with cam, pistons, intake, 4 barrel carb, exhaust. All the smog stuff is shitcanned. Its making 400ftlb, 350hp. If it works as advertised, I have a bunch of other old american cars from 1969-1982 with V8s and carbs. I'll stick a carb cheater in every single one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 2:27:58 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: First one I get is going in a 1973 mustang with a 351 cleveland and a TKX. Engine is a new rebuild with cam, pistons, intake, 4 barrel carb, exhaust. All the smog stuff is shitcanned. Its making 400ftlb, 350hp. If it works as advertised, I have a bunch of other old american cars from 1969-1982 with V8s and carbs. I'll stick a carb cheater in every single one of them. Excellent. I hope you share here on arf when you get one done . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 2:41:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really. I'm surprised at how many people in this thread are dead wrong about that. I've been a powertrain engineer for an OEM, and a powertrain executive as well, so I have some background on the topic. Steel, iron and aluminum properties haven't meaningfully changed outside of something like HSLA, which will never be used in an engine block. We have gotten much more consistent at casting and grain structure, but that will only get you so far. It was actually NVH that drove the adoption of things like main bearing girdles and cross bolting. The capability to handle more power because of the increased block stiffness, driven mostly by NVH and emissions durability concerns, was a happy coincidence. (For those who don't know, emissions have to be maintained for 100k miles. You can't have bores loosening up and poisoning catcons over that time period, so all OEMs had to start designing stiffer blocks. Even so, NVH was the main driver in block/head stiffening). Reliability at high combustion pressures (ie, high power) is also driven by combustion stability, which in turn is a product of modern CFD modeling of combustion processes informing chamber design, and an onboard ECM that can adapt spark and fuel the microsecond it hears the beginning of a pre-ignition (knock) event instead of adjusting a couple of hundred revs later (1980's state of the art) after several knock events, one of which may have already cracked a piston or the crank. In short, computing power was the real difference, whether its in the ECM doing work in real time, or in CFD of the heads, or in FEA of the block. Fun fact: Circa 1993, Ford Motor Co had about 2x the computing power of the entire US Government, including DOE, DOD, NASA, etc. And they still barely had enough to simulate partial crash tests. Now they probably have 100x that power. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Most V8 blocks now could reasonably withstand 1000 horsepower intermittently, thanks mostly to much better metallurgy. Not really. I'm surprised at how many people in this thread are dead wrong about that. I've been a powertrain engineer for an OEM, and a powertrain executive as well, so I have some background on the topic. Steel, iron and aluminum properties haven't meaningfully changed outside of something like HSLA, which will never be used in an engine block. We have gotten much more consistent at casting and grain structure, but that will only get you so far. It was actually NVH that drove the adoption of things like main bearing girdles and cross bolting. The capability to handle more power because of the increased block stiffness, driven mostly by NVH and emissions durability concerns, was a happy coincidence. (For those who don't know, emissions have to be maintained for 100k miles. You can't have bores loosening up and poisoning catcons over that time period, so all OEMs had to start designing stiffer blocks. Even so, NVH was the main driver in block/head stiffening). Reliability at high combustion pressures (ie, high power) is also driven by combustion stability, which in turn is a product of modern CFD modeling of combustion processes informing chamber design, and an onboard ECM that can adapt spark and fuel the microsecond it hears the beginning of a pre-ignition (knock) event instead of adjusting a couple of hundred revs later (1980's state of the art) after several knock events, one of which may have already cracked a piston or the crank. In short, computing power was the real difference, whether its in the ECM doing work in real time, or in CFD of the heads, or in FEA of the block. Fun fact: Circa 1993, Ford Motor Co had about 2x the computing power of the entire US Government, including DOE, DOD, NASA, etc. And they still barely had enough to simulate partial crash tests. Now they probably have 100x that power. The 4.8 LS can appearantly: https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/hrdp-1109-stock-gm-ls-engine-big-bang-theory/ The rest of the LS line should be good to about 800, the Coyote block is said to be good to almost 1000 and the current gen LT series to over 1000, well over in this particular case: https://frontstreet.media/2020/11/04/the-grubb-worm-jonathan-atkins-1800-rwhp-lt1-chevy-camaro/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2023 2:54:40 PM EDT
[#50]
I always sort of assumed that the lion's share of improvements in the past two decades came from being able to accurately model airflow - and anything else that led to factory cylinder heads and air intakes being so much better than they used to be. I also have to imagine that automakers have more casting and machining capability than they once did, that makes actually manufacturing these things at the sort of scale and price they need, feasible. I have no idea of course (waaaay outside of my field of expertise), but that's always been my guess.
And then marginal improvements from there, with more capable ECU/ECMs. And then there's the brute force approach - they're shoving turbos onto everything now.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
