6.LIROC-Z

I go to our local hang out to watch some racing and as I pull in I see a Civic with a huge front mount intercooler and a roll cage inside, I turn around to park and see his license plate reads I8URV8 so I kind of chuckle and get out of my car. The kid says it puts down 300 whp. One thing lead to another and here is what happened.
P.S. I am not a fan of roll racing but i didnt want to give this guy any excuses so I let him pick the race 20-25 mph, go on the third honk.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/1...5e0039ff9b.htm

dark_daku89

Nice!!

steeljab

iTrader: (3)

hehe nice one

irocz2889

awesome i think he lied tho silly rice

kuulkatdadieo

iTrader: (1)

Wasn't this posted on Ls1Tech?? Great race nonetheless.

6.LIROC-Z

Yeah I posted it on tech awhile back been meaning to post it on here but Im just now getting to it

fly89gta

iTrader: (1)

Nice

kuulkatdadieo

iTrader: (1)

That's cool man. It just looked familiar. I loved the build thread on your car. Are you going to do anything to it this winter?

83Chevy__Camaro

super cool man, soon as race starts sounds like you hit knight rider turbo boost its not even close, doesnt get any better then that.

studdmstr

Can you say spanky spanky

supercharged383

Thats the way it should be

brodyscamaro

6.0L FTW

Why did you carb that motor?

MidnightBlue07

Thats was awesome, love your car, you have just inspired me!

84RIceEater

good kill... even tho i think it would have been a diffrenet outcome if he didn't stay in 1st gear and lost traction. racing is racing good kill.

TPI-Formula350-

that was great, what kinda times u run in the 1/4

dayton's Z

you car sounds like ****! nice kill

Firebird_dave7

that was ****ing awesome!!!!

show them tuners up

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

at a boy. i hate hondas, why would anyone waste time in a civic, i mean yeah they're light but they're so gay. and ugly. ppl on that site were talking about a 60 roll or w.e but you know, the third generation F-Body cars were actually some of the most aerodynamic of the time? also, its been proven that the V8 engine layout is the most efficient to date so this guy definetly doesnt eat V8's. regardless, way to make me proud big guy.

Demon355

iTrader: (1)

Still a cool plate. I would have laughed to myself too if I saw that, regardless of what car it was on.

Cool vid. That dude didn't have a chance. Was there much smack talk before the race?

brodyscamaro

Really?

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

yeah, there was a whole article on it, i'd have to go find it. but a 2 liter V8, if it was practical to make one seeing as the parts may become too small to handle the stresses applied to them would theoretically be more fuel efficient, produce more hp and torque than an inline 4. they're inherently balanced as well (but only at a certain angle i think, not sure) so they waste less energy in vibration. ppl may say that a V10 or V12 would be better because there are more power-strokes / revolution but apperantly it become redundant after 8 cylinders and a V10 isnt as balanced. the added weight also doesnt help much, just make a bigger displacement V8. then you have cars like the Bugatti Veyron. they use W16's. but those are basically 2 V8's stuck together. so the world fastest production car uses a V8 (or two), the fastest internal combustion drag cars use V8's, Nascar uses V8's, Formula-1 cars use like 3.5 liter V8's or something, Europeans are starting to make smaller and smaller V8's in their cars. every wonder why? IMO the V6 has to be the worst layout period. if you want 6 cylinders go I6, like the supra. also i'm not sure but i believe that because it has such a long crankshaft (the I6 that is) is the reason supras can handle such massive amounts of power on a stock bottom end. more crank bearings so the load is distributed more. ever wonder why theres no 5.7 liter 4 bangers?

6.LIROC-Z

It went 10.89 @ 125 set up similar to night of the race

4playta

That made me hungry watching you eat rice

Blakcamaro

TOTAL DOMINATION

vwdave

Or due to the fact that the stock 2jz uses the same quality of parts as most of our "built" engines. Their "built" engines are the same as our super high end built engines.

izcain

Good kill! Gotta love LSx sound!

ROADBLOCK

me want LSx motor!

rx7speed

fairly aerodynamic yes but I wouldn't say the most aerodynamic car.

and what do you mean by most efficient?


first thing I want to address is those who use V8's. a lot of that is rules which are not always dictated by whats best. ie nascar uses restrictor plates does that mean we should also? also with nascar since they are "based" (VERY loose use of that word) off a stock engine it would be hard to get a v10-v12 in there as not many do and 4 and 6 cylinders have always been viewed as weak. plus with the way americans see cars and have had cars it's always been v8 so it makes sense to use a v8 for that reason.
F1 cars are also limited to a v8 yes but that is due to the rules I'm sure and not by choice. just like generally cars are more efficient using a turbo yet neither F1, nascar, or any of them use them either.
as far as drag racing same thing rules. just like in drag racing they are also displacement limited as well do to rules.

inline 4 cylinders might have vibration inherent in them but it can be dampened fairly well. flat crank v8's are subject to that same vibration as well though.

and remember a v8 is nothing more then 2 v4's stuck together

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

You're right about nascar and fomula 1 and all those rules, mind you (i dont follow nascar) but i think they use turbo's at least i thought i saw one in a picture of it. whatever. in the case of two I4's stuck together to make the V8, well, i suppose it becomes more than the sum of its parts. at the crank there are similar vibrations which are dampened by the harmonic balance but theres more to it than that, the way the engine shakes/rolls about its axis or whatnot is supposed to be less (net) theoretically. if you were to use equal displacement engines and used the different setups, the V8 would be the most efficient. again, theoretically. unfortunately the American V8's are really lacking in technology. i don't know why they still haven't converted to using 4 valves/ cylinder. going back to the whole rules thing, i believe F1 used to use v10's and they switched over, not sure why though.

joshh44

they have a V16, V12, V10, V8, V6. do they make a V4?? would it be possible??
i think that would be pretty rad if they did. but thats jsut me haha

vwdave

Saab did.

The boxer engine is quite mechanically efficient too.

rx7speed

hey man I never said I4 I said V4
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...lanceshaft.jpg
or here
http://users.breathe.com/prhooper/spv580lc14.jpg

efficiency is more then just vibrations. those engine harmonics are easily taken care of by balance shafts or adjusting crank to play with when the mixture goes boom.. sure little more rotating weight but still less rotating weight then 2-4 extra cylinders and the friction that comes with it. if I remember right about one of the most vibration free motor is the rotary but it is by far the most efficient, just like I doubt the v8 is the most efficient design also. Also just because it is a V8 doesn't mean smooth firing. a flat planed v8 has quite a bit of vibration to it and it is still a v8.
not much of a nascar fan myself. I believe life has can take two turns. F1 cars are N/A but I believe indy or cart oepn wheeled racers are turbo charged.


they did and I think it might of been ford. also bikes have some v4's

ROADBLOCK

that crap is fast

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, well, i'm just starting my 4 years of automotive engineering so i cant thoroughly explain WHY its more efficient. but the firing of the cylinders, or the firing order rather, the way its set up is such that they sort of cancel the vibrations out if you know what i mean. think of a lever you push down 5lbs on one side, then the "firing order" pushes down 5lbs on the exact opposite side. as for rotarys, well. I'm sort of impressed by them i mean, they must save so much energy since the rotors never have to stop completely and change direction, unlike pistons. I always wonder why they don't make a bigger rotary (wankel) engine. I think it would have tremendous potential. but i've read several articles explaining that the V8 is the most efficient (at least a certain form of the V8) it definetly has its drawbacks in terms of friction and whatnot since there are more pieces but theres something in the design, the way it works that makes up for it in other areas. maybe some sort of physics phenomenon?

rx7speed

there is more to an engine and efficiency though then just vibration. a v8 sadly just isn't the most efficient.
rotary engines also have a lot of wasted energy. sure thats one plus with them never really having to come to a full stop but just like the whole vibration thing that is just one side of the matter. they also have a lot of leakage of combustion gasses, high surface area to volume ratio in the combustion chamber, good amount of rotating weight for their size, and internal 3:1 gearing, as well as a few other things that contibute to it's lower power output and mileage

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

You guys have to remember though, that the way i'm looking at it is also entirely theoretical. like, if each engine was constructed perfectly or whatever and ran 100% efficient. alot of todays V8's don't stack up especially since most of the technology in them is a good 40+ years old.

DBLTKE

iTrader: (1)

-NO engine is 100% efficient. The average internal combustion engine runs at about 20% efficiency and at the absolute very most, about 37%.

-The rotary actually isn't that efficient. It consumes more fuel, and produces more pollution in comparison to other engines of similar power output. However, Mazda's newer Renesis engine has mostly solved those issues becuase of some design changes. BTW they did make a larger rotary engine; the 20B (3 rotor). It was available in the Eunos Cosmo. There was also a 26B (4 rotor) that had a much more efficient design due to having 3 spark plugs but it was produced specifically for racing in the 787B race car.

-The quasi turbine seems very interesting with it's new Photo detonation.

-Now I would really like to see someone mass produce a 6 stroke engine. they have amazing efficiency at about 40% greater than typical 4 strokes engines yet can get better fuel economy, better cooling, and higher power output, less friction, and lower emissions. sounds like a win/win combination to me.

-Ford did also make a V4. I can't remember if it was Ford but one company produced a V4 that was perfectly balanced.

-Engines do not become redundant after 8 cylinders. a boxer, rotary, inline 6 and V12 are the only engines that have a natural dynamic balance.

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

No, in terms of smoothness and whatnot, anything past V8 is redundant, its also inherently balanced, i don't know about the V12. the boxer isn't entirely balanced it actually vibrates quite a bit(even though the cylinders are completely opposed, theres still "z" axis it shakes on). and the rotary, well, if they could make an even number of rotors, half spinning clockwise and half spinning counter clockwise then it would be perfectly balanced, but at the moment it isn't. i know that no engine runs 100% efficient, hence why my argument is theoretical.

I looked up some info on that Quasiturbine Engine, i didn't even know it existed. its interesting, especially the idea of continuous combustion. That motor has Alot of advantages. Photo-detonation is nothing new, but its just ridiculously hard to controll, especially since alot of the variables changes as the engine runs, such as temperature, which consequently changes combustion chamber size (expansion of materials) and so on-so forth.

Regardless, the V8 being the most efficient, is believable and besides, I've only read about it in a couple articles and they're pretty convincing, granted there were no quasiturbines involved. and a V8 can accommodate diesel. besides, i figured this being a muscle car site, it would make a couple people happy.

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

What about a Scuderi Split-cycle engine? seems a little retarded to me but apparently its supposed to be the most efficient in terms of %efficiency. something like 42%?

Benny K

iTrader: (1)

Sorry if my technical english is not perfect but I can contribute to that discussion too:
The Wankel is very expensive to build and its fuel consumption is not the best as well. Mazda builds it just because it's tradition and exclusive now to them (remember NSU RO80)
To the best engine design:
If you take an Inline 4 cylinder with two counter-balance shafts that are offset you eliminate all the oscillating vibrations. (example Mitsubishi Evo)

One of the smoothest engine designs is the Inline 6cylinder. BMW is now making a V8 for the M3...but not because a V8 is such a better design...they simply thrashed out on the 6 cylinder theme and needed something new for the customers.

A 90 degree V8 is an excellent design (no need for counter shafts). So is a 60° V6. You cant really say a V8 is perfect...it all matters on firing order, spark interval (dunno if this is the correct word) and rotating masses...
per example an Audi V8 has a completly different Crankshaft than a Chevy V8, just because they use another firing order (not because they number the cylinders differently..they actually fire their cylinders in another sequence). You can hear that...the typical american rumble from our V8 comes from that firing order GM uses...an Audi V8 (or ferrari) sounds completely different just because of this.

But I have to agree the V8 is an excellent design because it does not need any counter balance shafts...it eliminates most of the "vibrations" from the masses by itself.


btw Ford built a V4 engine in the seventies in europe...

Fyrstorm

iTrader: (1)

Hee hee!

stroker_SS

Awesome kill man.

In terms of engine efficiency, i think everyone would agree that the v8 is one of the most space efficient engines.

Plus IMO it is the best sounding also.

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

I know the V8 isnt "perfect" nothing is perfect, in fact to make any type of connection, no automobile engine in production is even half perfect in tersms of efficiency. none of them make 50% efficiency.

I was looking around the internet while i was bored one day. And I ended up looking at these "mini-V8's" they were like, 12 inches long and fully functional and stuff. as I continued to read, information kept popping up about Formula-1 and how they were making turbochargers 1.5liter V8's which ended up making over 1000 hp! its pretty unbelievable if you ask me but if anyone know anything on this subject.... also, honda was making a X-32 engine (32 cylinders, oriented like 2 V's horizontally opposed) and it only made like 1.5 liters are well, meaning the entire cylinder in that engine was a little bigger than half the combustion chamber in our V8's. some pretty radical stuff out there.

The V4 is pretty random, sort of like the U4 (square motor). i found it pretty impressive that there were straight 16's out there, with about 25 000 liters of displacement, weighing 2300 tonnes, stretching nearly 100 feet long and 45 feet high which made somewhere around 230 000 hp and an incredible 5,608,312 ft lbs of torque, or 1 710 km lbs of torque, thats like hanging a 1 lb weight off the end of a wrench that was as long as a small country.

SnkSknrZ28

iTrader: (2)

Great kill man love the car

rx7speed

some problems I see though with a V8 being the most efficient design. high volume to surface area ratio. this would cause problems with the combustion phase being that for the total displacement it has a higher amount of surface area with it that will take the heat from the combustion. this will make it harder for the fuel to ignite as generally the fuel against the cylinder walls doesn't ignite. it's one of the same problems that causes inefficiency with the rotary also.
more rotating mass which I think is fairly self explanitory as to how that would cause problems. the same with greater amount of friction. and just about anything can be run diesel. even a rotary


the rotary itself is very well balanced. doesn't require the use of a harmonic balancer. between the eccentric shaft, and counter weights attached to the eccentric shaft it is very naturally balanced. try revving one up to 8000-9000rpms and you will see.

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, but again my argument assumes that all the fuel ignites whether it be on the walls or wherever. as for the rotating mass, well, V8 crankshafts have counterweights on them, but there are no separate balance shafts like in other engines, its actually not that much when you break it down, especially if you compare engines with the same displacement. The reason rotary's rev to such high rpm's is because the parts dont stop and change direction, unlike in a piston engine where the pistons stop, change direction and so on. the pistons also have a theoretical "top speed" hence why long stroke engines rev lower, there are V8's with short strokes that go just as high as rotary's. the balance was never a limiting factor to RPM's since most engines are balanced well enough to hit 10k.

rx7speed

shorter stroke can play a factor I agree but usually be it a 302vs a 383 for a street driven car the rev limit would be the same. you will get valve train problems well before you get problems with the crank, rods and so forth.
balance shafts do not weigh as much I would think as the extra mass inside a v8. also those balance shafts do remove the second order vibration from the motor though so both a v8 and a I4 lack vibration. granted though yes a uncountershafte 4 cylinder vs a v8 the v8 will have less vibration. either way though there is still a lot more to efficiency then just harmonic balance.

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

But if you make a 2 liter V8, then the mass isnt as much. I'm not comparing a 2.0 I4 with a balance to a 5.0 V8 without, the V8 will weigh more obviously even without the balance. but a 2.0 V8 will have less rotating mass than a 2.0 with a balance shaft extra. there is more to efficiency, but at the same time i'm considering combustion to always be complete in each case to exclude it as a variable. I'm still including thermal efficiency and noise and all that as well.

rx7speed

well sure if you want to start to exclude variables then you can have any situation you want.
weight wise I doubt a 2.0 V8 would have less rotating mass then a I4 even with the balance shaft. the balance shaft shouldn't be that heavy, most it's weight is close to the rotation axis except for one little nub. the v8 will have extra weight due to the connecting rods, extra crank material to hold those connecting rods, extra weight due to the pistons. even though they are smaller pistons having 8 pistons is going to be more then 4 pistons due to a lot of duplicate mass that isn't just going to the displacement of the motor, still the friction will be there due to 4 extra connecting rod journals, and 4 extra pistons as well as all the resistance of the valve train itself. the onl thing the v8 really has going in it's favor is the fact that it has less time between combustions.

F-Body_Fetish

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, i don't know about the mass, I'm guessing the V8 will be a little less, the con rods will be twice as many, but half as heavy the only thing is the fiction. with twice the bearings, piston rings, stuff like that. also, more surface area perhaps? but i think the V8 may have better head dispersion abilities, since each cylinder bank produces less heat and the engine has more surface area to disperse it. Mind you the I4 will be lighter in valvetrain weight, as a V8 either needs pushrods or twice as many camshafts (and coincidentally timing belts/chains) but the V8 will also produce more power and torque, more so that it produces a better power:weight ratio. Its hard, there are so many factors. I suppose it heavily relies on the amount of refinement in the engine but then this argument wouldn't be valid because anyone can say "mine is more refines" so we half to take a theoretical perfect model, only limited by its physical properties. Interesting, i wonder how the people who wrote those articles came to their conclusions.