Import drivers often say

"******s think v8's are faster than our cars, our cars our going to push v-8's into the past"

here is a little piece of data..

The engine of a Top Fuel-dragster is derived from Chryslers legendary 426 Hemi even though now parts remain from the original one. That means it’s a 90° V8-engine with low mounted camshaft, push rods and two valves per cylinder. The volume is limited by the rules to a maximum of 500 cubic-inches, that is 8.19 liters, The power output is about 6000 horsepower, or more, if needed!

I would like to see 6,000 horsepower acchieved in a Honda Civic.

 

well you're probably preaching to the converted on this board. I saw on tv though that some guy was trying to make a top fuel dragster with a 4 cyl engine. i cant rememeber the numbers, but it made impressive horsepower, but its torque was pathetic; as to be expected.

Also he was claiming that drag racing associations wouldnt let him race because they were afraid he would win....but the real reason was he had numerous technology violations on his vehicle.

He didnt seem to understand that drag racing limits its technology because they dont want the cars to go TOO fast, they're dangerous enough as it is now. Just about everything on the car was completly computer controlled....image if they computer controlled everything on one of those top fuel hemi monsters....?

So last i heard he was trying to start his own 4 cyl drag racing series...

 

I saw that show too, it was a very big 4 cyl, it had a billet block machined from a solid block of aluminum, it had 2 turbos and ran on a mixture of nitro & alcohol, the computer controlled the mixture of the 2 fuels, it think the engine made about 4000 hp. It was in some kind of miniature Japanese bodied funny car and I think it ran the 1/4 mile in the 6's .

 

Is it true that a Rotory motor is kinda unlimited in the power you can create......Why cant they be used?

 

what was that guys torq though? 100 ft. :-) I mean you have to compare apples to apples too. if GM,ford or dodge put as much tehcnology in the motors and say honda,mitsubishi,etc did. we would have 1000hp vettes that run 7's from the factory. they haven'treally tried anything "NEW" in how long? I mean I'm not complaining, but if we had the technology the ricers did, we blow em away (even more than we do now) :-)

 

Bahahahhahahahah

So all of that work, using Nitromethane and everything else to acchieve 6's in the 1/4, which is what the PROSTOCK cars run all day long!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

 

rotory engines are very inefficient. they have so much area space that the heat can be lost to its not even funny.

 

That's pretty much what I was thinking too, but I was just passing on some information, you would have thought it would have run a lot faster but I think they were still working out the bugs in it. You put that technology into a 426 Hemi and then you would have something KOOL.

 

I saw that show too, pretty sure it was high 7s low 8s... The wave of the future, slow dragsters!! I don't think I ever saw an uglier car either...

 

It's called the TT Lingenfelter Vette. Sure it's a bit pricey, but emissions legal 9.90 1/4 0-60 1.97 . That's just amazing.

 

"they haven'treally tried anything NEW"

If it aint broke dont fix it.

 

Toyota has a top fuel funny car that runs 4s. It's got the same hemi that all of the domestic cars run. What's that tell you?

 

I saw that same show also, Horsepower TV I think? It was funny seeing the T/F sticker on the car. I'm not for sure, but I think it was an older model civic hatch back, the box on wheels looking one. I think the motor that was in it was "NEW", they blew up the other one. Upgraded from the huge 1.6L to even bigger 1.8L.

Also, I think they converted it to RWD, I'm not sure.

 

I saw the same show. I'm pretty sure it was Horsepower TV. Sure the guy used a 4 cylinder engine but it was something like a 4.8 litre which just proves there is no replacement for displacment. 4.8 is far less than 8.19 but just shows he couldnt do it using a ricers 1.8. He had so much technology and money rapped up in that thing its not even funny. He made it fast but had to break many rules to make it that fast. If he ever lined up with Worsham, Force, or Yates he would find out what it really takes to be a drag racer. Sounds to me like this is just another guy that saw F&F too many times. Maybe he could be called the ultimate *****.

 

BINGO! I've seen that "Toyota" funny car. It's about as much "Toyota" as the Cavaliers F/Cs are FWD four-bangers. Look at that impressive "Toyota" (Brodix) block under the Toyota sticker on the body shell. Best Toyota Chevy ever designed, yup.

Is it just me, or isn't this what I've been saying all along? When I see a multi-turboed, sixteen camshaft, variable valve, fart canned, two liter inline four running with the top fuelers, I'll start looking more seriously. Anything you can do to your weenie little engine, I can do better with more cubes. Just look at the 4-second cars and see what they're running. Most of them DO have good computers running the hardware, however.

Then again, it makes about as much sense as running a Taurus or Monte Carlo body in NASCAR. Might as well be a Camry or Q45. At least the Infinity comes as a RWD car, so it's a little more realistic.

I guess Toyota couldn't make their V-8 produce engouh "Zoom-Zoom-Zoom" to be compettitive. Or did I get the wrong slogan for the wrong *****?

And it doesn't just apply to cars. Even domestic rice is better. If you understand the reality of what the Japanese markets are like, you'll realize that the Japanese government has placed import quotas and tarrifs on Lousiana rice. Not because there is anything wrong with it. It is far superior in quality, flavor, size, and nutritional value than most eastern rice, and it is far less expensive. And consumers want all they can get their hands on. Without protection, even the Japanese rice industry wouldn't be able to compete. And you think the U.S. is screwy sometimes?

 

Little Bomb= little bang
Big Bomb= Big bang..Re: C.I's ,,, seems pretty simple to me.

 

I don't quite recall the show (I know it was on tnn or speedvision) but how about a Bad **** TOYota Supra dragster... running in what else,,, Super Chevy. Now you all know what one must do first and for-most to run in this class right? (cough hemf herr eeech ahh chevy block cough) Needless to say lotta lotta frame and suspension mods on that thing to handle the uh uh power of the uh twin turbos???

 

The trailblazer's I6 is dohc and uses variable valve timing. They are also experiencing many problems with those motors, but it's a brand new motor, so some problems will arise. Anyway, I'm just saying that GM has done something "new."

Oh, and the C6's motor is rumored to be a dual underhead cam (seperate intake and exhaust cams), push rod V8 of ??? displacement.

 

http://www.ssrrs.com/engines.html

 

well its interesting, all those new technologies in that engine arent really there to increase power...they just help out emmissions and gas economy.

If that is going into the corvette, then its a significant reduce in performance. its a tiny engine, i mean a 4.3 v-8...?

Imagine if they had a 5.7 v-8 with all that stuff....

 

i hate rice, let's force these 4 bangers off the planet!

 

That is the type of engine that is rumored to be in the C6. The displacement will be somewhere around 6 liters. Search www.ls1.com, maybe for C6 or something. Anyway, the C6 will be quicker/faster than the C5. I haven't heard anything about whether the Z06 will be continued or not and how the C6 will fare in comparison to the Z06.

 

The LS1 wasn't without a couple of startup "hiccups" in its first year, but we all know that most of those bugs are ironed out. At least you can bore then to .010" oversize now without going too thin on the sleeves, instead of the original .005".

 

ok heres my take on it......take or leave it i dont care......my friend drives and 98 dodge neon r/t (mitsubishi motor) he has a lot of mods on it and runs supposed high13's (never saw it myself, the one time we went to the track together he broke his axle on his first run........he told me that four bangers are going to take over the racing/performance world.......i simply said to him......look you take your stock 4 banger and ill take a stock 8.......we do the same mods(if he goes .030 over so do i and if he adds super charger.....so do i........and we will see what motor puts out more.....i think the 8 will win .....he refuses to believe......but until he beats me(he has a hard time with my stock 91 buick much less the camaro......) i wont believe it......i have plenty of respect for anyone out there who wants to build up a four banger......as long as they respect me back.....the people i dont care for are the "ricers" that dont know jack **** and have mommy and daddys credit cards to order everything from jc whitney and aisle eight at autozone to make their cars "faster" .....hey *****.....how much hp does that "NOS" sticker add.......lol.............

 

You know for all that extra technology and R&D they're cramming into that concept 4.3 V8, the returns aka power don't seem to be all that. Now those DOHC LT5 V-8's in the ZR1's were bad-@$$ motors but we see GM putting that kind of power in their Z06's with less cost, better fuel economy, with a much simpler design.

Long live the pushrod 2-valves-per-cylinder sbc (and bbc )

 

C-C-C-Can't we all just get along?

 

You've got to remember that because of their small displacement,the "rice burners" have to have more tech to have any power.Put the same tech. in a V8 and the hp would be proportional,but the cost would go up.You don't get dual cams,multi valves etc. for free and with more moving parts the chance of a mech. failure is more likely.The "*****" engines have to be in relatively light vehicles because of low torque,so are limited to there useage. Look at motorcycles,great perf. with small displacement but do you really want one[no offense to you cycleheads]? Who knows what the future holds for V8's? The determing factor will most likely be demand for more tech. advanced engines[read: if you're willing to pay]and environmental restrictions[read:who you vote for]. Me, I like the feel of a torquey V8 as oppose to a ultra high revving 4 banger, to each his own!

 

Im with johndo1707, but if they dont put a fart can on it and drive it normal without limo tint and 64 bootleg radios, its all good i guess

Aj

 

I just know I am gonna get flamed here...thats ok I got my asbestos undies

Anyway..I can't pick on the cars too bad....I had a rice rocket like 10 yrs ago before all the bolt ons and fart cans...81 Honda Civic 1488cc's 3 Barrel Carb FWD 5speed....only mods were I tweeked the carb within an inch of its life and had a 2" exhaust from the cat back...no muffler It moved...no top end...barely broke triple digits, but it got there very fast. Dump the clutch in first gear and you had to yank the wheel over 30* to compensate for the torque steer...biggest problem I had with the little monster was keeping tires and brakes on it...those lil 13"ers just werent made for burnouts it was a fun car, like a street legal sprinter hehe...but give me my domestic gas hog any day...I like weight and brute force

 

Why not the best of both worlds...build a 327csb..

 

were some earlier post re: rotary engines, inefficient yes, but a 13B can make about 200-250 HP at about 10,000 rpm, out of 1.3 liters, really neat little engines and in a 2200 pd Rx2 awsome, had a Rx7, next was a Rx2 with the above specs but cost is high $5,000 would about do it. There are tripple rotors out there, the 20B that are good for 350 hp but they are about $10,000, add on a turbo on any of there and make the ports a little smaller and less rpms lots of power, just alot of $$$$$$$.

 

I checked out rotory engines at www.howstuffworks.com kinda interesting. here is the link...http://www.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine4.htm

 

All I gotta say is "I Eat Rice Rockets"

 

the Lingenfelter TT 427 corvette package is $49,995 or somehting like that and makes a Auto LS1 Vette run 9.2 was the fastest they got out of it. The hp was 770 and 600-something #/ft tq. Check out the site they have some other packages as well.

 

i love the rotary engine. it is different and very unique. But it never caught on. Thats my whole perspective. BE DIFFERENT. and nowadays that consists of being 15 with a domestic V8 instead of a import VTEC. like me.

 

i have a rotary engine in my 72 arctic cat and i must say it is a nifty dependable little engine :-)

 

I hate rice as much as the next guy but I must bow down to the power of my boss's 2002 Acura TL Type S. Its a six, it hauls ***, and that freakin VTEC chews *** on my IROC. I can get a car length in front of him, then comes the loud whine of VTEC as I watch him quickly catch up and pass me. This Acura is not stock by any means though.. comptech headers, and a comptech exhaust.. thats pretty much it. Fairly, I would say that its putting out close to 300 hp. Will take a while before I can beat this thing, but it is my intent to be able to beat or atleast hang with this thing without power adders. I don't think I can fairly call this car Rice honestly...

 

not to defend the ricers but just some factual information
my girlfriend put a integra gsr motor (japanese spec) in her
civic now that makes an advertised 220hp (my butt) its in an 1800# car
ok lets see I drive a 79 camaro that I have never dynoed but would assume 330-350 hp 3600# car (fiberglass weight savings for you nit pickers) Now she blows me away every time (not that close) here's why (she paid to much)becuse of the hp to weight ratio of 8.1 : 1 in the chevy mine is something like 10 :1 clearly the advantage is the honda (bad gearing though)for me to get the same ratio I would need almost 450 hp.(coming soon)

so uh think about it

 

power to wieght ratio means everything. thats what ppl my age (15) dont think about. "oh my car has so and so hp i can blow u away" all that bull **** pisses me off. the wieght of the imports are all that they have going for them. If u get in a wreck ur ****ed. but oh well juss my opinion. and they dont need torque b/c they gear it low enough that the gearing makes up for what the engine lacks.

 

Also, on the Type-S the intake manifold is designed to create a vaccuum and a supercharger-like effect. Pretty nifftty stuff...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by streetrunner
[B]i love the rotary engine. it is different and very unique.

A old friend of mine had a RX-7 and it hauled *SS!! As I remember, the engine "revved" really quick. By using Rotors instead of Pistons, it's a straight "Rotary motion to rotory motion" which I've heard means no power loss occurs like that of your typical V-8.

But it never caught on. Thats my whole perspective. BE DIFFERENT.

It caught on well. Mazda had serious problems with APEX seals on all the rotorys (which take the place of rings in a normal engine) and many were failing U.S. Emissions tests. I believe Mazda took them off the market for a few years so they could come up with a better material to use.

 

Let try this again.. I EAT RICE ROCKETS

 

i dont know about all that but what i do know is that The rotary can produce outstanding power numbers. And since the 7 is fairly light is gets up and flat out moves. esp. with that twin turbo 93-95. And did i mention how sweet looking it is.

 

I think they have a drag integra in th eworks with it's 4 banger pushing out about 4000hp

not sure just hearing stuff at the moment but I am hearing it is in the works

 

hehe
already talked about

 

they can make a lot of power but still the most I have seen one of them put out is about 1200-1400hp that will push the car into mid to low either 6 or t range