It is sweet, and been around for a few years now. 2002ish, if I remeber correctly.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
Wow, just wow. How much fun would this be in an Atom?
This would be a perfect next generation V8 engine to put in future cars if they're gonna remove the bigger V8's. This would be fun in a Mustang/Camaro/Challenger or whatever else we could stick this in.
245 ft lbs. of torque???? NO Thank You.
Whalesac wrote:http://www.hartleyenterprises.citymax.com/page/page/4550396.htm
That is one sexy flat torque curve.... I want.
Yeah and then look how much lower it is vs. the horsepower.
Quote:
Yeah and then look how much lower it is vs. the horsepower.
i'm sorry, but that comment was the dumbest thing i've ever heard. It's strong throughout the entire powerband. what more could you ask for? it's got a bitchin' high end! and i don't doubt that the car that the V8 was in was heavy either. so why on earth would it need so much more torque? just so it can spin the tires and look really cool while doing nothing for traction?...
deftonesfan817(martin edmonds) wrote:Whalesac wrote:http://www.hartleyenterprises.citymax.com/page/page/4550396.htm
That is one sexy flat torque curve.... I want.
Yeah and then look how much lower it is vs. the horsepower.
If you know much about a NA engine, you wouldn't be surprised by that. The torque is proportional to it's displacement (granted it
COULD be a little higher), and horsepower is just [torque*rpm]. I hate to sound like a broken record, but a 2.4L v8 formula 1 engine only makes a little over 200 ft-lbs of torque. This is also why small displacement Hondas can make so much horsepower with so little torque.
Thrice . wrote:Quote:
Yeah and then look how much lower it is vs. the horsepower.
i'm sorry, but that comment was the dumbest thing i've ever heard. It's strong throughout the entire powerband. what more could you ask for? it's got a bitchin' high end! and i don't doubt that the car that the V8 was in was heavy either. so why on earth would it need so much more torque? just so it can spin the tires and look really cool while doing nothing for traction?...
I wish Caterham's were street legal in the US.
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
I think they have it in the perfect car already... I can only imagine what that would do on a track. When i think about how efficient that is for a 2.6 liter with street cams, it blows my mind! Good cams should see it well past 350 to the ground. For a little engine, in a little car, that is a lot of power.
Whalesac wrote:deftonesfan817(martin edmonds) wrote:Whalesac wrote:http://www.hartleyenterprises.citymax.com/page/page/4550396.htm
That is one sexy flat torque curve.... I want.
Yeah and then look how much lower it is vs. the horsepower.
If you know much about a NA engine, you wouldn't be surprised by that. The torque is proportional to it's displacement (granted it COULD be a little higher), and horsepower is just [torque*rpm]. I hate to sound like a broken record, but a 2.4L v8 formula 1 engine only makes a little over 200 ft-lbs of torque. This is also why small displacement Hondas can make so much horsepower with so little torque.
Thrice . wrote:Quote:
Yeah and then look how much lower it is vs. the horsepower.
I'm sorry, but that comment was the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's strong throughout the entire powerband. what more could you ask for? it's got a bitchin' high end! and i don't doubt that the car that the V8 was in was heavy either. so why on earth would it need so much more torque? just so it can spin the tires and look really cool while doing nothing for traction?...
I wish Caterham's were street legal in the US.
Haven riden in an S2000 I can tell you how much your comment made me laugh. That car did NOT feel fast at all. Using honda when talking about V8's? TFF.
^^^^^^ First of all, no one said anything about if a car "feels" fast or not. Butt dynos are worth @!#$. Also, Honda engines certainly don't have a flat torque curve. I was just showing why a Honda can claim to have so much peak horsepower with so little peak torque. Driving in an electric car like a tesla (where torque is almost perfectly flat and horsepower increases linearly) would be about the same feeling as driving with this engine, minus the obvious vibrations.
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
Show me another NA sub-3.0L car engine with over 250 lb-ft at the wheels and I'll - wait, nevermind, there aren't any.
A broad torque curve with a lower peak power and a huge top-end rush is so much better than a big low-rev stump-pulling lump anyway.
deftonesfan817(martin edmonds) wrote:Whalesac wrote:http://www.hartleyenterprises.citymax.com/page/page/4550396.htm
That is one sexy flat torque curve.... I want.
Yeah and then look how much lower it is vs. the horsepower.
Spoken like a true n00b....
I guess we should just scrap all of Formula 1 racing too, because nevermind the fact that they make 700-780hp, they don't make the same amount of torque as they do horsepower, therefore, they must suck.
Do people like you even THINK before you post things like that?
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Torque is pulling power. It's what makes you sink back into the seat when you accelerate. It's just brute strenght. Horsepower is top end. It's what makes the car feel like it has no top speed. It's stamina. Both are important, but torque is less important. Especially in a light car where you just don't need a massive amount. I'll give an example. I used to own a 1975 Mercury Meteor. Big sumbitch that weighed like 4200lbs. But it's engine made 145hp and 325-350lbs/ft of torque. So when I floored it, I felt like I was momentarily strapped on a rocket, but then I'd look out the window and see a guy jogging past me. Torque is fun and gives the illusion of speed, but it's not really speed.
Anyway, I bet this engine must be a blast. I can totally imagine how it is. You floor it and for the first few moments you don't feel much speed, but then it goes and goes and goes and the higher it revs the faster it goes. Man, why can't regular car companies make one like this. It'd be great.
^^^ TQ is not less important, they are both equally important. As you said tho, you just need less w/ a lighter car.
And regular car companies can't because of things like safety regulations. It would be kind of hard to get a car that light legalized.
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.523@111.30
that engine is bad ass... now someone stuff one in a j... QUICK!
I have known about this engine for a while & the guy that built his own car with it as the engine.....his car is kewl, the body only weighs 41 lbs...made his own drive system, his little car is ALL wheel drive with a 5 speed tranny. I mean 450 hp & a 10,500 redline....& it's small enough to put in a gen 2 car in place of the V-6 engine.... can you imagine with a 5 speed & OMG....talk about making some honda's & all those guys feel like they got a limp noodle when a gen 2 sunbird sleeper with this engine in it blows them away...... with that 10,500 redline... can you imagine what top speed would be... 160... 190... 210...would a sunbird hold up to 210 mph?
I am so designing this now in my head.... come on winning lottery numbers...
luck be my baby tonight
LOL
MikeC!
91 sunbird Convertible
3.1 with an automatic
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3038464
That dp1 sounds amazing, but I wonder how the chain drive is for response, like is there any slack in those chains that would lead to a sort of snap-and-jerk reaction to throttle? what about the inboard brakes? any amount of free play in the axles would lead to a small amount of jerk when stepping on the brakes on the track. Obviously, the advantages are in weight: the chains probably weigh less than shafts, and having the brake rotors mounted on either side of the diffs rather than out inside the wheels reduces unsprung weight, and there would be less brake fluid and hose between the brake MC and the calipers (but we're talking ounces now). I'm just curious if there's a sacrifice in response and if it really justifies the small amount of weight savings.
I suppose I'm picking at nits... that car, and that engine, are awesome.
well the dp1 guy had some videos on his website & i watched them & he has one of him on the track... & man that car seems fricken responsive & fast
he did have some initial issues with brakes i think.... showed in like his first 1 or 2 test runs with no body.... seems he would hit the brakes to hard at rolling speed (ie couple of mphs) & the car would die & he commented on it in the video that he had to tweek the brakes..
but his chain drive design seems to work really well
i spent a day or 2 reading all his website & i know he designed a race car I couldn't design so me hat is off to him
MikeC!
91 sunbird Convertible
3.1 with an automatic
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3038464
I was watching the video with him racing that 911, and I was unimpressed. Seriously, that car is 30 years old and he had a hard time keeping up? Unless he wasn't trying, I don't know
