how about breant rau's 2.0 eclipse 700 hp per litre.

Top fuel car....

8500hp...8.1L...

1,049hp/L



Who gives a flying fuck about hp/L... It really, really, doesn't account for shit.

i think it does

It doesn't effectively measure anything. Not potential, not efficiency, not speed, nothing. Why would you want XXXhp/L for its own sake? Why not HP/$, HP/size, HP/engine weight, etc. This has been debated to death over and over. HP/L isn't what most import guys think it is either. You can have an engine that produces 300hp at 9k rpm out of 2L of displacement (150hp/L) that is a gutless wonder to drive because the average power across the driven RPM range is complete crap. Once you reach the maximum VE (Volumetric Efficiency) of an engine the only way to increase horsepower is by turning more RPM. Horsepower is a function of torque and RPM. The higher you rev an engine the more power it will make. When you tune an engine to make that high peak number at a high RPM it generally has crap average power because it makes peak torque at 7k RPM.


It makes sense to want more power

It makes sense to want more power/size

It makes sense to want more power/$

It makes sense to want more power/engine weight

It makes NO sense to want more power/liter

Why measure by displacement? Displacement means nothing. There is no reason to have less of it when you can add more. The only reason to squeeze more HP/L out of an engine is when something LIMITS the size of the engine. Who did that? Europe and parts of Asia. European countries tried to tax people on the amount of power their engine made because oil was at a premium. Manufacturers lied about power output. They decided to tax based on displacement since it can be easily measured. What does this lead to? A smaller displacement engine being pushed and developed over a larger one because a restriction was imposed. This, and class specific racing restrictions are what fuel HP/L.


This shit can go on for days. Basically, get it out of your head. It doesn't mean anything.

okay dont qq cus america cant hit the coveted 100hp/liter benchmark

/facepalm

WOOSH!!

Wow you are one dense ass mother fucker. The fact is we don't NEED to. Less specific output but more total power. GM could have kept the LSX displacement at 5.7L like the LS1 and made 100hp/l to make 570hp. Instead, they added more displacement. It is cheaper, and makes more sense. The only difference is the stroke on the crankshaft and the size of the piston.

it's still not 100hp/liter man

e:

here's an example of the war going on in germany:

audi rs4 = 4.2l v8 420hp

bmw m3 = 4.0l v8 420hp

audi and bmw have been 1up'ing each other for decades.

that's the shit i care about

This post was edited by Audicted on Nov 9 2009 02:41am

cool story bro

for 13 grand you can get a ls7 crate engine that pushes 505

game over