"American" vs. "Import"

[drunken monkey]

in terms of the original thread starter i mean.
does the domestic/import situation apply to countries other than the US and if it does, to what extent?
part of the original post was generalising that most cars are of mixed parentage and, mixed production and mixed manufacture BUT that was speaking of cars mainly sold in the US market.
in the UK though, as well as other palces i'm sure, there are cars that are still 100% of their country of origin, just as here are still going to be cars of mixed origins.
and even if the car is of mixed origins, so what?
are you really going to argue that the honda civic isn't a japanese car?
or that the new toyota yaris is actually french?
or perhaps that TVR is actually russian?

hmm... i fail to see my question as well.
nevermind.
that's what happens when i think too much.

[Vettribution87]

Sorry for the late reply as I have been busy hammering out the details of getting my car re-painted.
That and the internet was playing up for the past couple of days (Bloody Government computers! ) , but I have been watching.

Originally Posted by Nayr747

As for the powerband; V8's generally can't rev over 5-6k, while I4's routinely go 8.5-10k. Power increases as you go higher in the rpm range which is why high reving Hondas with no torque whatsoever can still run 10s, and why F1 cars rev to 18,000.
Look what happens when this 601AWHP Evo races a 644RWHP Z06: http://srvidz.vidiac.com/video/wm/15...F9B35F6368.htm
They stay almost exactly side by side, and the Evo is even 100+ lbs heavier than the Z06.
Here the same Evo races two 600+RWHP Cobras: http://srvidz.vidiac.com/video/wm/FC...E2C57E2AA9.htm
And here it races a 667RWHP Cobra: http://srvidz.vidiac.com/video/1BF87...CF61D2EB57.htm

Unfortunately, the clips won’t play on this computer.

Still there is a great deal of arbitration when comparing modified cars anyway. Nevertheless, assuming these vids were of straight-line acceleration (similar to the ¼ mile), I would put it down to AWD traction launch and closer ratio gears.

Originally Posted by pimprolla112

ok vettribution There are hardly and and i know this for a fact tooling cost in manufacturing an engine. You can use the same tools to fabrticate a v8, v6, i-4,i-5, i-6 whatever engine. Everything is cast, then it uses simple tools to machine the deck, hone the cylinders, and polish any parts that need to be smooth. The only cost that gets put out of wack is the cost for casting, mitsu has a good thing they have been using the block in most of there high performance cars since the early 90's. Once a cast is made its easy to remake a new one. Gm has it easy too the ls block has been used since the mid 90's and all the different variatins have little block change its usually all inn the heads.

I understand that once the dies have been made the only real costs in engine manufacturer would be materials and labour. At least from a materials point a view manufacturing an LS1 block should be surprisingly cheap when you consider its displacement and dimensional size.
Basically, if an engine has a large displacement and yet is fairly compact then it should theoretically be composed of less material (if you follow me). This is my reasoning behind the US OHV V8s being fairly cheap to produce.

I find it hard to believe that the dies used on a V8 can be used to create any other variation let alone a 4cyl. A V8 isn’t merely a couple of I-4 joined together at a 45deg angle, so how can that same die be used to make other engine blocks?

Originally Posted by pimprolla112

What about and intercooler you say, i thing the corvettes mirrors put more air resistance on a vehicle than an intercooler would. And intercooler is pretty much a radiator, its just used to cool air and not fluid, and an intercooler is made to a much higher quality than a radiator. The stock radiator has more resistance.

No wing mirrors in the world would generate as much drag as a large rectangular object (such as a high volume aftermarket intercooler) mounted perpendicular to the direction of air flow.
As you don’t want to impede the function of the radiator, you have to mount the intercooler somewhere outside of the radiators air flow. This is usually below the radiator. The resistance posed by air at high speeds creates an exponential demand for power.
For example lets say it might require 100hp to raise a given car’s top speed from 150 to 175mph, but to get from 175 to 200mph will require more then 100hp.
Lets say it takes 125hp to get this car from 175 to 200mph (that’s 125hp on top of the 100hp already added the car) as you go faster you start paying more in power for every mph gained. The equation of this is not linear but exponential.
As the importance of a low profile at high speeds cannot be stressed, enough it might be too much of a compromise to fit a large intercooler as it limits the amount of ride clearance you can play around with and presents a larger, flatter surface area to the direction of airflow.
On the other hand, the more air that gets forced into the intercooler the greater the power so in some circumstances the trade-off might work depending on the turbos ability to compress the air. As Nayr747 mentioned earlier it may only be an issue at very high speeds.

However, I think it might have a notable affect on fuel mileage at trafficable speeds. Ignoring other vehicular functions such as gearing and all other environmental dynamics, a cars drag coefficient will dictate how hard it has to work in the face of air resistance. Some cars will have to work harder to stay steady at 80km/h then others, even if they might deliver identical engine output. With a large intercooler, you are adding more resistance to the air but (because you’re trying to cruise at 80km/h) aren’t really using the added charge gathered by it.

Originally Posted by pimprolla112

You go spend 50k on a vette, you can get a honda into the 10's for less than 10k. Including the cost of the car. Your average domestic goes for between 5k-25k depending on year, make, model. I will do a cost break down if needed.

Firstly comparing modified cars to stock ones is an invalid argument. There are far too many variables to consider and cost can vary considerably from place to place.
The total cost of modifications can also be affected greatly depending on who you know and wether or not you tune the vehicle yourself.
Also I think that if each of us were given $50k to spend on a car, few of us are gonna be thinking “mmmm. 1995 Honda Accord!”
What about handling, style, and prestige? This is what the Vette can offer that an old, under $10k, 2nd-hand Honda can not. If this didn’t matter and performance was the be-all & end-all, we would all be using motorbikes. 9 times out of 10, a motorcycle will surpass a car’s performance for a fraction of the price.

Also, judging from the price of the Honda in question would I be right in assuming its front-wheel-drive? If so what was done to allow it a 10sec 1/4mile with only 400hp on tap?
Common knowledge tells me that front-wheel-drive is a bit of a handicap for a drag race but I have heard of highly tuned civics achieving such times and wonder what was done to mitigate the disadvantages.
Also would this 10sec Honda be street legal?

Originally Posted by Nayr747

Even though people really don't want to believe this, torque does nothing to actually move a car foreward.

I think it does. (See quote below)

Originally Posted by Jimster

The FQ400 is almost unusable in any urban setting, just watching Jeremy Clarkson struggle to drive it normally on the air strip (The car kept stalling and the clutch was extremely heavy) pretty much sold me on that fact....

A car with loads of torque but insufficient power will move very slowly.
A car with loads of power but insufficient torque wont move at all.

An engines torque will dictate how it handles environmental dynamics that try to slow the engine (like a hill for example) and how well it can tackle the extra inertia loads caused by acceleration, deceleration and changes in direction.
Torque can contribute to the exiting speed of a car coming out of a turn or corner provided traction is available. As you turn a corner the cars inertia is trying to make the car carry on in a straight line. As the engine is trying to push the car in a different direction the inertia slows the engine so that when you past the apex your engine is still labouring this lateral force. Upon the exit of a corner, the car now has to work against not only the longitudinal load of acceleration from low speed but also any remaining lateral inertia. As revs are usually low at this point, torque will dictate how quickly you can accelerate though these loads.
The negative effects from low level of torque can be largely mitigated if the weight is kept down. Prime example of this would be a Lotus Elise.

I hope you get the jist of what I’m talking about as I finding it bloody hard to explain what I’m thinking in a coherent way.
Trying to get the physics out of my head and on to the screen is something I’m not good at sadly. (Id make a lousy teacher)

[Nayr747]

Ok, to reply to your post Vettribution. Firstly let me say that you sound like a nice guy and I thank you for your respectful post. Anyway, here's what I have to say.

1) An intercooler does NOT have to be mounted outside of the radiator's airflow. Every DSMer in the world mounts front mount intercoolers DIRECTLY in front of the rad. Depending on how large, the temps don't usually increase too much if at all. If they do, installing fans or al. rad. works.

2) For the ic impeding acceleration at high speeds; For one thing almost all cars have a huge opening with a large square metal thing at a 90 deg. angle to airflow. It's called a radiator. For another thing, cars without IC's are still not very aerodynamic to begin with. And none of this even really matters unless you're going very fast. And if you are the one person who's trapping 190 mph+, you'll probably be using a liquid-to-air IC and blocking off the front end.

3) If you look at a V8 compared to an I4, they are obviously completely different in size. It's not just the block, what about the pistons, rods, heads, etc.

4) For the torque thing, I am still struggling to understand the roles of HP and torque myself. But from what I understand torque and hp and linked mathmatically, the difference being that there is nothing in the equation for torque to give you any work. Whereas horsepower gives you work done, time, and distance. So you could have 1,000,000 ft-lbs of torque and not go anywhere (like applying 60 ft-lbs to a lug nut that required 90 to turn), but the minute that torque actually moves you (or you actually turn the lug nut) it has to be expressed in hp since torque has nothing in its formula for work done. Apparently the reason high-reving, high-hp, low torque Hondas can achieve the same 1/4's as low-reving, high-hp, high torque "domestics" is because they spread the work done over a wider range. The V8 is doing the same amount of work as the I4, it's just doing it at quick instances, concentrating the acceleration into short bursts, which gives you that slammed back in your seat fealing. Both cars will run the same time, but the Honda won't "feel" as fast.

[blakscorpion21]

hp and tq are both important but id rather have 300hp and 250tq than 250hp and 300 tq.

[Muscletang]

Speaking of torque and horsepower, I found this article interesting. I didn't read all of it and skipped parts but I saw it as a good read for everybody.

Torque and Horsepower

[6000ft/lbs]

hey anyone be explaned the "per capita theory" well take a hundred cars of one brand vs a hundred of another and the compare
most people say that american cars brake down more-not true when did you see a company make 699,000 of one type of car in three years and you say theres alot of old broken down cars well in Australia-where i come from the a 1940 chev truck still going street registered in victoria still doing it's job on the farm and to and from the city so there an execption to the rule-
hey in Australia the toyota hilux is as some say the best ute/pick up truck out there but the old saying the engines that are the most reliable for work and that are abused are caterpilla and detriot diesel and the ones in the road trian the biggest road going vehicle in the world -up wards of 150tone-yep 150 tone all use american stuff and the old saying hp/litre-well little rule of thumb for ya all

14.2 psi of boost equals 2 and bit times-(changes on revs) the engine size race breed ie-13.5 to 1 comp with lighten parts

so a 2 litre with 14.2 psi might make 300hp but a 4 litre running 100 octane fuel(13.5 to 1 comp) will make at lest with lighten parts 450-550 hp
hey hemis from the factory where know for chyrlser H.P.-usely 50-100hp under the advitised rateing-just hope to solve the whole hp/litre issue.

when people say my engine can take 600 hp bottom end -that can be true but when it revs above 5252- its the formula making up the rest ie-
600ft/lbs @ 4000rpm divided by 5252= 456.96hp
but
350ft/lbs @ 7000rpm divided by 5252= 466.96
but..

if bouth where same shap and weight-the faster you go the resitance is squred so to think-a diesle with 600ft/lbs@1600 can go as fast as 30ft/lbs@7000rpms its about power use
to explian got to top fuel notice times done with out gear box-they slip clutches-six of them
so 7000hp times 5252 then divide by 8500=4325ft/lbs of tourqe so its the tourqe at revs not hp knows as creen theroy of acceleration.
just a fact for ya-peek tourqe is at 5300prm 6000ft/lbs

[k3smostwanted]

eh...this thread is old and has been beaten to death for 8 pages in this thread alone.

closed.