This should defiantly get good. i cant wait to build up my shell, but on the other hand, its gunna be occasional driving only, gas is climbing, tolls are climbing…what isn’t nowadays. and this tax refund in may… ya bush borrowed 80mil form china just todo this.
Back OT. sure a turbo 4cyl can make 700+. but i’d rather be listening to the music of a ls1/LT1 supercharged > Turbo 4cyl.
And the only reason why im not putting on all my turbo parts on my 4cyl (have everything to make 250 in the stock form) is b/c i hate that ricer sound. it comes from every 4cyl.
Exactly.
Agreed, you can get (most of the time) that sound of a V8, power with mild bolt ons/mods. while having the gas mpg.
The statement “There’s no replacement for displacment” is, technically, true.
Most people take it out of context though. Saying a Honda 4cyl vs a 350SBC is just a ludacris statement.
Now say you have the Honda K20 w/ 100% volumetric efficiency. Flows perfectly, is rev happy, etc… Now attach two more cylinders to it, still with the same bore and stroke with just more ports in the head, making it a 3.0L with 100% volumetric efficiency. The 3.0L will make more power, and have the room for more. Not to mention the dyno curves. Say you get the 2.0L out to the same power level as the 3.0L, the 3.0L will be doing a lot less work to keep it at that power range, so therefore it is more efficient.So therefore, there is no replacement for displacement.
But to use the “No replacement for displacement” argument with two completely different engines that have two completely different heads is just dumb. Especially if it’s like a stock Honda K20 and stock 350SBC. The Honda heads flow amazingly well, where the century old pushrod technology in the SBC flows like dog crap.
People always say omg the LS1 is SUCH A GREAT MOTOR OMG…
when in actuality, it’s truly horrible out of the box. terrible. that’s why bolt ons give so much power, because they flow like such shit stock that any monkey with a die grinder or dremel can free up literally tens of horsepower. :rofl
very true, but bolts on can be expensive for domestic, if you want the good stuff, kooks headers are around a grand, a gmmg exhaust for my car is around a grand, its all in terms of what you buy that makes it expensive, when you make take a stock ls1 and dyno it, it usually puts down around 300rwhp give or take, but a full bolt on car, meaning intake, lid, headers and exhaust usually puts down around 340-350rwhp, like benny said, that motor is so restricted that it makes the bolt ons look awesome. I would take technology over displacement IMO. An old 396 makes less power and gets about half the gas mileage as my 346 ls1
definitely, its all relative, and simply because your aftermarket is so well founded and so HUGE generic parts are cheaper, but the good stuff is still right on par with everyone else’s mods price wise, until you start getting into exotics and the like…
First of all let me say there is no right answer here, it really depends what you want from a car. If you want to go straight line fast on the cheap, a domestic with a “big ole” motor is the obvious cheap way to do it. If you want a car for autoX then that same 1/4 mile racing, light to light monster will get its ass handed to it by a small car with half as much power, in particular due to the class it would be in.
I’ve been to a few drag strips and its just not my thing, the same goes for “street racing” so a big motored car with a good 0-60 and 1/4 mile time isn’t a big factor for me, yes a car has to be quick enough to be fun, but I don’t need or want a 12 second car. I like a car that is fun to go for a spirited drive on a back road, enjoy the scenery. From my experience driving literally every type of car on the road a light vehicle is paramount for me to prevent getting bored with it.
To say there is an answer for everyone is foolish, we all have a different agenda of what we expect from a vehicle, to say someone else is wrong is just being shortsighted and narrow minded.
remember also though in the late 70s into the early 80s the oil embargo was still present and no one bought big hp cars, i mean even the vettes were in the low 200hp frame.
I somewhat disagree. This thread sort of took a wierd turn but overall, I think a very sophisticated motor with little displacement can be much more useful then any big old block.
It can have the right weight, power, curve, traction, milage and potential to be superior.
I look at Variable turbo 911 for the perfect specimen.
But I hands down agree that less weight > power. I <3 light vehicles.
totally agreed, but now a days, my ls1 weighs less then some 6 cylinders. But weight is the biggest setback for a car, for every 100 pounds that is a tenth of a second in the 1/4
There is no replacement for displacement but there are some great substitutes. If you make it flow and rev high, a 2.5L at 10k is like a 5.0L at 5k. Or boost is another good one, 200hp NA will be 400hp at 15psi or 2x atmoshperic pressure. Dont take this out of context, these are very simple and generalized statements leaving out alot of varibles.
For all out power the displacement will always win cause you can always go bigger.
Those engines were terrible but once upon a time electronic fuel injection was still fairly new technology and wasnt always cost effective for mass production cars. They downsized the engines and ran shitty feedback carburetors to meet the growing emissions regulations. The Buick GN was the gem of this era and proved to be what things were to come. It was one of very few cars in the 80s to have sequential port electronic fuel injection, DIS wasted spark ignition system, and all of which was computer controlled not to mention intercooled turbo. Most of which would not be standard equipment until 96 obdII.
I call bullshit. There is no way a 700 hp 4 cyl will get 25 cruising around. Taint happenin
But i know i would rather have a rev happy 300hp from a 300 lb four banger than 500 hp from a 600 lb 8 cyl. It all sits on the front axle and it aint good.
