Search | Car Forums | Gallery | Articles | Helper | AF 350Z | IgorSushko.com | Corporate |
| Latest | 0 Rplys |
07-03-2003, 12:48 PM | #106 | ||
AF Enthusiast
|
Quote:
the ls bottom is as good simply because the internals can hold more boost and you dont have to rev the motor high to get power. bigger is better 99.9% of the time
__________________
6.7 @ 211mph whooping kubo's ass all over the track |
||
07-03-2003, 12:49 PM | #107 | ||
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
|
||
07-03-2003, 12:57 PM | #108 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
ok, i can see where your comin from with that, now heres my last arguement.
Im gonna do a little math here to hopefully prove what im trying to say, if it doesnt, then good for everyone cuz i learned somethign and you guys are right. Here goes. Think about the extra torque an Ls is gonna make compared to the b16. Its about 12.6% (when comparing displacements). Now lets set some torque standards, do we all agree that it doesnt matter where the torque comes from? aslong as the numbers are consistent with each other? Lets say this particular ls has 250lb/ft of torque. That would mean the b16 under the same conditions would have 218.25lb/ft of torque. The ls is going to rev 7000, and make its peak horsepower at 6300? Because of a lack of a dyno, we will put the torque numbers we currently have at the peak hp. Lets also say, that the b16 im describing with a 9k redline will peak at a meek 8200? By means of TxR/5252=hp :: The ls will make 299.8 hp. The B16 will make 340.7hp. I suppose thats the only thing left to be proven wrong and im an ls believer again. Thanks.
__________________
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. |
|
07-03-2003, 01:58 PM | #109 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Peak torque is almost never made at the same RPM as the peak HP.
And displacement isn't the only thing that makes more torque, a longer stroke gives more torque also. |
|
07-03-2003, 02:07 PM | #110 | ||
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. |
||
07-03-2003, 02:57 PM | #111 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Since the B18 makes it power at lower RPMs you can't really compare them the way you did. Because the B16 makes it's peak torque closer to it's peak HP. So my only answer can be just because it revs higher doesn't mean it makes more power.
When you said 12.6%, it's 13.1% actually. Because the B18B1 is 1834 cc and the B16A is 1595 cc. But that doesn't make much difference anyway, come out to 217.25 instead of 218.25. But anyway, this still doesn't take into consideration the stroke difference. So i really don't know what to say anymore, oh well. VTEC must also screw with some things too, when those secondary lobes kick in thats when the B16 finally begins to make some serious power, and of course the LS doesn't have this. So like I said there is just too many factors about this. I could plug everything into my desktop dyno, but of course that doesn't take into account the VTEC so screwed again. |
|
07-03-2003, 03:07 PM | #112 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
If you want to compare it something with VTEC like the B18C1, thats peak torque is at 6200. Peak torque on a B16A is 7000. So take into account that it is only 1797 CC instead, thats 11.3% difference. So 250 Lbs for the B18 makes the B16 have 221.75. Take into account the RPM's and and you get 295 HP for the B18 and 295 for the B16. But the B18 will be faster cuz of the more torque.
I don't think rod/stroke ratio has much to do with how much power an engine makes, unless it's VTEC which allows huge cams to be run which gives you superior top end. So the fact that the B16 is VTEC totally messes up any calculations you or I may make to be able to compare it to any non-VTEC. |
|
07-03-2003, 04:18 PM | #113 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
And in actuality, that comparison gives more hp to the ls than it would have, since it is non-vtec. It would have a little bit less torque up high like that. Thats as close as you can come in this forum on deciding which motor is better, but i honestly think if (_burn_) had put as much time and money and tuning efforts into a b16, he would be faster.
The b16 makes equal hp as the ls with much, much less boost. And that is not really even considering my original arguement, that it can in fact handle more boost than the ls.
__________________
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. |
|
07-03-2003, 04:24 PM | #114 | ||
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
And why do people think boosting a VTEC makes it better? NO it does NOT. VTEC causes so much valve overlap that at high RPM's it's hard to make boost. |
||
07-03-2003, 04:26 PM | #115 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I dont think however that the calculations i made on the previous post are very inaccurate. VTEC or not, any number of torque can theoretically be at any rpm with mods. So i put that 250lbft pretty lofty for the ls. but even then, you could just figure the hp at the peak torque rpm, which will be less than the peak hp rpm, and the b16 still is faster.
And im not getting into the arguement about how important hp really is. It just is, not peak hp, but hp in a grand scale. Torque needs to happen as fast as possible, and thats what hp is. Im sorry, i do not see it the B16 is stronger all the way.
__________________
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. |
|
07-03-2003, 04:28 PM | #116 | ||
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. |
||
07-03-2003, 04:30 PM | #117 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
By SOME were tlaking the difference between 130% VE and 133% VE, gimme a break, the torque up in the high revs made possible by VTEC blows away any loss you might have from high overlap.
__________________
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. |
|
07-03-2003, 04:32 PM | #118 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Oh and i understand that the compression on the LS is much more friendly to turbo, when talking stocker, but we arent, were talking hard boost, were talking tuning, drag racing. Compression can be changed...
__________________
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. |
|
07-03-2003, 04:32 PM | #119 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
There's no replacement for displacement
LOL |
|
07-03-2003, 04:38 PM | #120 | |
AF Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Enola, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,883
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
How is it that it say's you're offline but you are still replying?
|
|
|
POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD |
|
|