power : capacity ratio TOP 10

Please correct this list if I'm wrong.

Naturally aspirated production cars only.

01. Honda S2000 120bhp/L
02. Ferrarri 360 CS 118bhp/L
03. McLaren F1 LM 112bhp/L
04. Ferrarri 360 111bhp/L
05. BMW M3 CSL 110bhp/L
06. Ferrarri Enzo 109bhp/L
07. Porsche Carrera GT 106bhp/L
08. BMW M3 104bhp/L
09. McLaren F1 103bhp/L
10. Lamborghini Gallardo 100bhp/L

Notice a four cylinder medium priced Japanese sitting atop a list filled with European exotics.

Why has no one bothered to knock the S2000 off its throne? Is it really that hard?

All the others have more usable HP and torque.

plus its a whole lot more easy to make a small i4 be more efficient than is to make some big V8s or V12s

just look at the honda nsx same displacement as a modena 3.6l but it puts out only 290hp to the italian's 400

Duh...

http://celica.henryvo.com/genengine.html
http://www.invoicedealers.com/cars/Features.asp?model=1377

When's the last time you saw any normal production V8 with 11.5:1 or 11:1 compression? If they use way high compression, it equals higher hp. The way the cylinders in the heads are designed allows them to use just 91 octane fuel without risk of detonation. That kind of power isn't that impressive with those compression numbers.

I thought an NSX is a 3.2 litre and it started as a 3.0.

And 280 bhp is an arbitary power cap set by the japanese government on all cars. You'll find the Japanese production versions of STI, Evo, GTR, Supra all have that as their quoted power output.

I'm not trying to say the NSX has as powerful an engine as the 360. But you can't deny Honda know how to make engines.

It's not fair to write off the S2000's power output as easy to achieve. It's an excellent piece of engineering. And quite frankly if it's easy, somebody would have topped it by now. The car industry is numbers crazy.

It's not fair to write off the S2000's power output as easy to achieve. It's an excellent piece of engineering. And quite frankly if it's easy, somebody would have topped it by now. The car industry is numbers crazy.
No one said it's easy to achieve a reliable 120bhp/l. It is a fantastic engineering achievement. Why hasnt it been beaten? Well, im not so sure so many manufacturers want to achieve the same kind of engine characteristics as the S2k's.

I'll agree... S2000 people when they get beat by v8's are like... "I have 120hp/L... if I had a 5.7...blah blah blah I'd be sooo fast" But I think it is an engineering feet only applicable to small engines and cannot be duplicated and doubled or tripled on a v8. So take it for what it is, the most efficient engine per size... it's not the fastest or the most powerful or the best!

Please correct this list if I'm wrong.

Naturally aspirated production cars only.

01. Honda S2000 120bhp/L
02. Ferrarri 360 CS 118bhp/L
03. McLaren F1 LM 112bhp/L
04. Ferrarri 360 111bhp/L
05. BMW M3 CSL 110bhp/L
06. Ferrarri Enzo 109bhp/L
07. Porsche Carrera GT 106bhp/L
08. BMW M3 104bhp/L
09. McLaren F1 103bhp/L
10. Lamborghini Gallardo 100bhp/L

Notice a four cylinder medium priced Japanese sitting atop a list filled with European exotics.

Why has no one bothered to knock the S2000 off its throne? Is it really that hard?
Hm...have you ever think of the RX-8...1.3L makes 238 hp, which is 183bhp/L...(Well, for 6MT only, the 4AT gets 197 hp from the pretty much alike 1.3L)

I thought an NSX is a 3.2 litre and it started as a 3.0.

And 280 bhp is an arbitary power cap set by the japanese government on all cars. You'll find the Japanese production versions of STI, Evo, GTR, Supra all have that as their quoted power output.

I'm not trying to say the NSX has as powerful an engine as the 360. But you can't deny Honda know how to make engines.



oh yeah my bad, it is a 3.2 and i know about the gentelmans agreement in japan about the 280 hp cap and i know car like the GTR break that easily however i never heard anything about the nsx being way above that


anyway my point was, since you asked why exotics don't put out as much hp/l, that it becomes much harder with bigger displacement and cylinders as in the case of the nsx plus as jay pinted out they care often more about the powerband than just peak numbers

of course this does not mean that the s2000 engine is unremarcable


Hm...have you ever think of the RX-8...1.3L makes 238 hp, which is 183bhp/L...(Well, for 6MT only, the 4AT gets 197 hp from the pretty much alike 1.3L)


they are technically 2.6L engines and from a thermodynamic point of view they are quite inefficient

I thought the 1.3L was 2 rotors together, not 1.3 each rotor.(It's on http://www.rx-8.mazda.co.jp/spec07.html )
And if the NSX couldn't make more than 280...What is the deal of Acura's NSX having 290hp...

S2000's are pretty fast and can beat some V8s. A stang GT and an S2000 goin at it, the S2k has a slight slight advantage. It's by no means the fastest car out there but it has a very efficient engine at a good price. Its inline 4 engine is deceiving, it's fast, but it doesn't save gas like an inline 4 engine. My sis has one, it eats up gas like a motherfucker. My only guess why people won't try to top the S2000's efficiency is because there really isn't anything to gain from it, why work so hard to make a really technological fast inline 4 engine when you can just work with less technicalities with a V6 or V8??? Or a turboed inline 4/6.

I think the Nissan 350z is amazing, a V6 3.5 l engine putting out 287 hp naturally aspirated. That's engineering right there, and at a price of only $26k, a great bargain. The VQ engine series are also known for it's bulletproof design. You can easily make the VQ35 410 hp with a twin turbo kit.

Well I'm not really a S2000 fan. It's just an interesting fact. My favourite Japanese engine is the RB26 in the R33 and R34's. Following closely by the 2JZ. Although the behaviour of the twin turbos in the 2JZ is a little eratic and scary.

Another fact I noticed about the list is that only two car companies, Ferrarri and BMW account for seven of ten cars.

What is the deal w/ the RX-7/RX-8... it should be up there

I thought the 1.3L was 2 rotors together, not 1.3 each rotor.(It's on http://www.rx-8.mazda.co.jp/spec07.html )
And if the NSX couldn't make more than 280...What is the deal of Acura's NSX having 290hp...

well I'm not sure what the link contains since I do not know japanese but the 1.3L designation is incorrect for sure. It is trully a 2.6L engine.

beside the "International Engine of the Year 2003" it also won the "Best New Engine of 2003" and "Best 2.5-liter to 3.0-liter."

so its clear that among engineers its considered a 2.6L

Another fact I noticed about the list is that only two car companies, Ferrarri and BMW account for seven of ten cars.
You left out the 911 GT3 - 104bhp/L

well I'm not sure what the link contains since I do not know japanese but the 1.3L designation is incorrect for sure. It is trully a 2.6L engine.

beside the "International Engine of the Year 2003" it also won the "Best New Engine of 2003" and "Best 2.5-liter to 3.0-liter."

so its clear that among engineers its considered a 2.6L

I guess you can read there is a line says cc...Which means Displacement.
it says 654 x 2

What about the Integra Type-R(DC2 and DC5)? One is 195hp/1.8L the other is 220hp/2.0L.

yup the rx8 is 1.3 not 2.6 because each rotor has like .654 liter or something it even says on the link so stop trying to make yourself sound correct

Why dont you idiots read up about rotaries and how you measure their displacement before telling someone else he's wrong?

Oh for crying out loud stop believing in PR claims. Mazda tries to advertise it as a 1.3 to amaze everyone how much power they can get from such a small displacement

But in truth it is a 2.6 liter engine. what do you guys think that all the engineers that placed it in the 2.5 to 3L category were stupid when it won "Best 2.5-liter to 3.0-liter."

http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/RE101pages/1-anatomy101.html

A basic 13B (1.3 liter) engine is approximately the size of a beer keg and can be lifted by one fit person. At the same time, it has a volumetric capacity twice that of a conventional piston engine of identical rated displacement.

And Jay you are right that new GT3 is just insane. And an amazing performance bairgain (if you're rich that is;))

And Jay you are right that new GT3 is just insane. And an amazing performance bairgain (if you're rich that is;))
Why do you think i work so hard? :D

Why do you think i work so hard? :D


Just join MI-6 from what i hear they just give away Astons and the ocasional Lotus or BMW. Fully loaded i might add.;)

Civic Type-R 2.0L = 215hp
1L = 107.5hp
http://www.honda.co.jp/auto-lineup/civic-r/grade-data/index.html

Accord Euro-R 2.0L = 220hp
1L = 110hp
http://www.honda.co.jp/auto-lineup/accordeuro-r/grade-data/index.html

Both better than 7-10th rank

Oh for crying out loud stop believing in PR claims. Mazda tries to advertise it as a 1.3 to amaze everyone how much power they can get from such a small displacement

But in truth it is a 2.6 liter engine. what do you guys think that all the engineers that placed it in the 2.5 to 3L category were stupid when it won "Best 2.5-liter to 3.0-liter."

http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/RE101pages/1-anatomy101.html



And Jay you are right that new GT3 is just insane. And an amazing performance bairgain (if you're rich that is;))


It says how it works will be talk about in the following link...
http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/RE101.html
But, it's under construction...
Well, I'm not trying to say you are wrong, but you know, if you are trying to proof us something, it got to be able to see... :uhoh:

Well, I'm not trying to say you are wrong, but you know, if you are trying to proof us something, it got to be able to see... :uhoh:


Are you kidding me.


You have to be able to see what? the two facts that I posted evidence that the rx8 engine is in fact 2.6


lets review the facts:

1. It won best engine of the year in the 2.5-liter to 3.0-liter category
2. As i quoted (using bolds I might add) from the rotary ilustrated site is has "a volumetric capacity twice that of a conventional piston engine of identical rated displacement."....read TWICE

here are some more details:


"First things first. the new renesis engine in the rx8 is a 2.6L. the older versions of the 13b were 2.6L to. the 12A in the 1st gen rx7 was a 2.3L and the three-rotor 20b is a monstrous 3.9l. if you've been told a 13b was 1.3l, you've been lied to.

on a four stroke there's only one intake stroke for every two revolutions, so from a breathing standpoint, displacement is how much combustion chamber volume gets sucked in over two revolutions. for a rotary, with one intake stroke per revolution, that means measuring two combustion chambers per rotor, not one, like mazda says. each chamber in a 13b displaces 654cc, so by mazda's two-stroke method, a 13b is 1308cc. by my four stroke, its a 2616cc"


And if this is not enough read Coleman's who is engineering editor for SCC take on the rotary.

Ok i fould some extracts out of that article:


"first, its not a 2-stroke engine, it has separate intake, compression, power, and exhaust strokes. second, this is a four-stroke world. all the engine's ancillaries--air-flow meters, exhausts, turbochargers, fuel injectors, and such--are all shared with four-stroke engine. functionally, displacement isnt some arcane measurement of internal dimensions, its a measure of how much air the engine breathes, and a guide to sizing these ancillary parts."

So aznthugie you should give Coleman a call telling him how to measure displacement

I still don't understand how to measure it. And don't need to be like so mad because I'm too dumb.

dont quote me on this cause i read it in the summary of the s2000 in gran turismo 2, but there's a United States law saying a n/a car can't have more thna 120hp a liter

The new list is as follows.

(bhp/L)
01. Honda s2000 120.2
02. Ferrari 360 CS 118.5
03. McLaren F1 LM 112.1
04. BMW M3 CSL 110.9
05. Ferrari Enzo 110
06. TVR Tuscan R 107.1
07 Porsche Carrera GT 106.8
08. Porsche 911 GT3 105.8
09. Lotus Exige 105.2
10. TVR Speed 12 103.5



I couldn't find the numbers for the new type R and euro R.

I still don't understand how to measure it. And don't need to be like so mad because I'm too dumb.


I was not so mad as much as a bit irritated especially by aznthuggie. He does seem to like to correct people whithout even bothering to do some reseach firts.

His attitude is getting quite bothersome. His comments about the superchargers in another thread are again another axample of his knowledge vs his attitude.

I was not so mad as much as a bit irritated especially by aznthuggie. He does seem to like to correct people whithout even bothering to do some reseach firts.

Damned straight

u want me to do what? tell u guys im wrong? at first i was agreeing with yukihime because it even said on that link .654 x 2.. but now what? you want me to follow in yukihimes steps n say im wrong? hell no

i haven't even posted in the last 10 posts and u guys are bagging on me? how old are u guys? run out of ideas or what? stop being lil kids.. i like to stick to my ideas and if i think they are right then I THINK they are right im not telling you to believe me.. we all post our opinions/facts on this forum.. are u telling me if i post the rx8 has 1.3 liter when its on mazdas website that its wrong? NO it is correct to me if its on the manufacturers website, so you dont need to start being a lil kid and talking crap about me.. learn to grow up

dam i guess u guys are right...

i can't really argue with this

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4021951&src=windowshopping

So let's get this straight.

You were the one talking out of your ass. You accused us of lying. You questioned our maturity, and when you realised that you were of course wrong, you didnt even give an apology.

And you wonder why we question your attitude :rolleyes:

Think hard of what you want to say before you reply to this, as im sure you're going to.

yup the rx8 is 1.3 not 2.6 because each rotor has like .654 liter or something it even says on the link so stop trying to make yourself sound correct

you attack me without even bothering to do some proper research and you post your opinion as fact to make me look bad



the rally cars in the WRC are limited to a 2.0 liter 4 cylinder engine at 300hp not 350 get ur facts straight

in this case you were actually correct but you jump down the throat of another user for being wrong(like you were never wrong before)

now you understand why i posted my comment. i saw a trend in your posts so it was a hint. Feel free to disagree but try to be nicer when you do it and do try and put a minimum of effort to do some basic research when you are not sure about something.


Edit: second quote was from a different user and it has been removed. My mistake

you attack me without even bothering to do some proper research and you post your opinion as fact to make me look bad



again you post your opinionn as fact debite being blatantly wrong



in this case you were actually correct but you jump down the throat of another user for being wrong(like you were never wrong before)

now you understand why i posted my comment. i saw a trend in your posts so it was a hint. Feel free to disagree but try to be nicer when you do it and do try and put a minimum of effort to do some basic research when you are not sure about something.

well for one thing the azn3000gt isnt' me, for another thing look at my other post on that same forum.. yes i said sorry to the guy i was talkin to

look:
sorry flylwsi.. i had to make sure that u knew the real limits.. ima wrc fan.. =D

yes thats an apology so stop assuming because i have azn in my screenname that all screen names that start with azn are me, second i base what i said about the rotary engine on the information that mazda puts on their website, third i wasn't attacking you, if i did i would probably use your name, i was talking to everyone because it said .654 x 2.. now what is .654 x 2? well im guna guess its 1.3, and thats also what it says on the website, and crazy jay how did u get in this? i was never talkign to you, it seems to me your jus talking to yourself, im talkin to neutrino

well for one thing the azn3000gt isnt' me, for another thing look at my other post on that same forum.. yes i said sorry to the guy i was talkin to

Opps my bad...i feel stupid about that one....i did not ever realise till now that it was a different screen name. So sorry about that.




yes thats an apology so stop assuming because i have azn in my screenname that all screen names that start with azn are me, second i base what i said about the rotary engine on the information that mazda puts on their website, third i wasn't attacking you, if i did i would probably use your name, i was talking to everyone because it said .654 x 2.. now what is .654 x 2? well im guna guess its 1.3, and thats also what it says on the website, and crazy jay how did u get in this? i was never talkign to you, it seems to me your jus talking to yourself, im talkin to neutrino


in you post you were very clearly refering to me since I was the only one talking about the rx8 being a 2.6. And the sentence:"stop trying to make yourself sound correct" its very clearly pointed at me and its quite dismisive I might add.

Bottom line you've dismissed all my arguments that i researched as nothing.


And jay got in this since he is in charge of this section of the froums and he noticed your attitude too.


So all we ask is to be nicer to your fellow members and not dismiss them so easily especially when they bring proper arguments.

Opps my bad...i feel stupid about that one....i did not ever realise till now that it was a different screen name. So sorry about that.






in you post you were very clearly refering to me since I was the only one talking about the rx8 being a 2.6. And the sentence:"stop trying to make yourself sound correct" its very clearly pointed at me and its quite dismisive I might add.

Bottom line you've dismissed all my arguments that i researched as nothing.


And jay got in this since he is in charge of this section of the froums and he noticed your attitude too.


So all we ask is to be nicer to your fellow members and not dismiss them so easily especially when they bring proper arguments.

well sorry bout that, but when i get information from the car company itself im assuming its correct and i'll stand by it til i find out for myself, i also said "dam i guess u guys are right" doesn't that mean.. im wrong and your right? o well sorry bout that

Hey guys...Would you please stop arguing and give me some simple answers???

Why has no one bothered to knock the S2000 off its throne? Is it really that hard?

Think of it as a function of revs. As soon as other automakers make an engine which revs to 9000K you might get another car that makes 120hp/L. Until then, probably not. However, if any company could do it...it would be BMW. They definitely have the best TQ/L generation of any car maker and could convievably hit the 9000RPM mark......then again all the engines are getting bigger and therefore harder to make rev to 9000.

A lot of companies could easily "knock the s2000 of its throne" but detune their engines for reliablity. The S2000 hasnt been out long enough to see how reliable it is.

There are 900 hp N/A rotaries out there, 1.3 or 2.6 L, thats still crazy.

the way I see it rotaries achieve amazing power levels in very small overall packages. therfore alowing small engines that can be placed in optimum spots for handling.

However their specific output is rather low due to their low thermodynamic efficiency.

Hey guys...Would you please stop arguing and give me some simple answers???


could you be more specific about what exactly your questions are :)

the way I see it rotaries achieve amazing power levels in very small overall packages. therfore alowing small engines that can be placed in optimum spots for handling.

However their specific output is rather low due to their low thermodynamic efficiency.




could you be more specific about what exactly your questions are :)
I just still don't understand how they measure 1.3L and 2.6L
is the 1.3 just measuring one side of each rotor?

In a rotary engine one complete combustion cycle is completed for every single full rotation of the crankshaft. In a conventional piston engine one full cycle is completed in 2 full rotations of the crankshaft. So although measuring the size of the combustion chamber is 1.3 liters, the fact that it completes two full cycles for every one cycle of a reciprocating piston engine makes it behave as a conventional engine twice it's size. Therefore, it is considered to be twice it's measured size, or 2.6 liters.

In a rotary engine one complete combustion cycle is completed for every single full rotation of the crankshaft. In a conventional piston engine one full cycle is completed in 2 full rotations of the crankshaft. So although measuring the size of the combustion chamber is 1.3 liters, the fact that it completes two full cycles for every one cycle of a reciprocating piston engine makes it behave as a conventional engine twice it's size. Therefore, it is considered to be twice it's measured size, or 2.6 liters.


Excellent explanation

Definately helped me. I am learning alot from this forum. One of the best things I have done with my free time. :)

Definately helped me. I am learning alot from this forum. One of the best things I have done with my free time. :)


Fell free to ask anything. We love to help. :)

In a rotary engine one complete combustion cycle is completed for every single full rotation of the crankshaft. In a conventional piston engine one full cycle is completed in 2 full rotations of the crankshaft. So although measuring the size of the combustion chamber is 1.3 liters, the fact that it completes two full cycles for every one cycle of a reciprocating piston engine makes it behave as a conventional engine twice it's size. Therefore, it is considered to be twice it's measured size, or 2.6 liters.


excellent explanation.

But WRONG.

all your explanation does is mention the 2-cycle inherents of a rotary.

so is an 80cc or 125cc 2cyc dirt bike now a 160 or 250?

it isn't fair for all you ignorant asses to be hating on the rotary out of jeolousy.

there are som many factors here you guys aren't thinking of. VE,

have any of you tried sizing a turbo on a rotary? Like an aftermarket to4, T78 etc..

Those of you who THINK you are car guys, go ahead and try to figure out the best turbo for a 13B.... post your replies and I'll tell you when you are wrong..

So break out the compressor maps (if any of you know what one is, or how to use one...) and prove that the rotary is indeed a 2.6litre.

it isn't fair for all you ignorant asses to be hating on the rotary out of jeolousy.

Dayna, that comment is a pretty stupid thing to throw at everyone and is totally uncalled for. CHILL THE HELL OUT. Thank you.

If we're ignorant, educate us.

excellent explanation.

But WRONG.

all your explanation does is mention the 2-cycle inherents of a rotary.

so is an 80cc or 125cc 2cyc dirt bike now a 160 or 250?

it isn't fair for all you ignorant asses to be hating on the rotary out of jeolousy.

there are som many factors here you guys aren't thinking of. VE,

have any of you tried sizing a turbo on a rotary? Like an aftermarket to4, T78 etc..

Those of you who THINK you are car guys, go ahead and try to figure out the best turbo for a 13B.... post your replies and I'll tell you when you are wrong..

So break out the compressor maps (if any of you know what one is, or how to use one...) and prove that the rotary is indeed a 2.6litre.


The rotary is not a two stroke engine:

and most engineers do consider a 2.6L 4 stroke Including Coleman from SCC and the Comitee that placed it the 2.5 to 3l category when it won the best engine award.

So don't take this personal but this is not just me an Idelaysionl having a vendetta againt the rotaries. Its a common thing amond the engineering comunity.


"First things first. the new renesis engine in the rx8 is a 2.6L. the older versions of the 13b were 2.6L to. the 12A in the 1st gen rx7 was a 2.3L and the three-rotor 20b is a monstrous 3.9l. if you've been told a 13b was 1.3l, you've been lied to.

on a four stroke there's only one intake stroke for every two revolutions, so from a breathing standpoint, displacement is how much combustion chamber volume gets sucked in over two revolutions. for a rotary, with one intake stroke per revolution, that means measuring two combustion chambers per rotor, not one, like mazda says. each chamber in a 13b displaces 654cc, so by mazda's two-stroke method, a 13b is 1308cc. by my four stroke, its a 2616cc"


"first, its not a 2-stroke engine, it has separate intake, compression, power, and exhaust strokes. second, this is a four-stroke world. all the engine's ancillaries--air-flow meters, exhausts, turbochargers, fuel injectors, and such--are all shared with four-stroke engine. functionally, displacement isnt some arcane measurement of internal dimensions, its a measure of how much air the engine breathes, and a guide to sizing these ancillary parts."

and yes in theory the compressor map of a 13B should roughly match the aiflow properties along the rpm band of a 2.6L engine

If you have evidence proving otherwise feel free to contradict us.

ok lets take some standard numbers:

20 psi
Atm pressure 14.7 psi
130 degrees farenheit post IC temp
all this will lead to an Air density of 9.19*10^-5 lb/in^3 after the intercooler - I'll post my calculations to reach that number if you would like
6000RPM
80% volumetric efficiency
IC pressure drop will be 1.0 psi


so using the variables posted above for a 2.6 (converted to 158.6 CI) litter engine we have a mass airflow of:


Mf =(9.19*10^-5 lb/in^3 *158.6 in^3 *6000rpm)/2*.80

Mf = 54.657

and now for a 1.3L engine using the same variables

Mf =(9.19*10^-5 lb/in^3 *79.3 in^3 *6000rpm)/2*.80

mf= 27.329

our pression ratio will be:

Pr=(20 psi +14.7 psi + 1.0 psi)/14.7 psi

Pr=2.42

Ok so we have the uncorected mass aiflow for 1.3 and 2.6 l engines
and the presure ratio for 20 psi sea level with 1 spi drop in the IC

I'll post the corrected MF shortly(i have to run now) so we can plot both engines on the compressor map.

If you would like feel free to check up on my calculations. Plus it would be nice if you could provide the exact volumetric eficiency of a 13B. I've just assumed 80%

So as soon as you provide us with a compresor map designed from a turbo designed for a 13B we can see who is right. Math doesn't lie.

^ thank you, because all I was going to say was "a rotary is not a 2 stroke" :lol:

I have nothing against rotaries. In fact I think it's an incredible, amazing design.

neutrino,

You are on the right track.. once you wrap this up you'll have the correct end-all answer..

Did i say that the rotary is a 2 stroke? no I did not! It has inherant QUALITIES like a 2-stroke..

I seriously have no idea why this is such a big deal.. after Neutrino posts his answer you'll see why I have always sided where i do on the whole rotary displacement debate.

After years of working on, designing parts, and working out port-timing issues on these niche engines it bugs the shit out of me for people to trash talk them w/o understanding or even trying to understand them..

let me give you all some other bits of info incase you want to try to get through this yourself.

the rotor revolves at 1/3 the speed of the e-shaft. so it has the overlap closer to a 6cyl than the 4cl you are trying to compare it to.. so simply doubling the displacement isn't the best route.. so neutrino, try calculating for a 2.0 litre and see what happens.

Since I love 2 stroke power, I'll make mention of the Minica GSS again, after calculating, (it's engine is has a capacity of 0.359 liters) it seems that it produces 105hp per liter. I generally go by hp per cubic inch since it's easier to figure for such small engines.
I'm guessing that this list is only supposed to be current production, or recent vehicles. But still, the little Mitsubishi produces more power per liter than the McLaren F1, or the Lamborghini - neat stuff.

In a rotary engine one complete combustion cycle is completed for every single full rotation of the crankshaft. In a conventional piston engine one full cycle is completed in 2 full rotations of the crankshaft. So although measuring the size of the combustion chamber is 1.3 liters, the fact that it completes two full cycles for every one cycle of a reciprocating piston engine makes it behave as a conventional engine twice it's size. Therefore, it is considered to be twice it's measured size, or 2.6 liters.
But that's kinda unfair, isn't it? Because they can do the work faster, so they got to do it 2 times while the others can do it just once? :uhoh:

But that's kinda unfair, isn't it? Because they can do the work faster, so they got to do it 2 times while the others can do it just once? :uhoh:
Saying this would be like saying it's unfair that smart students get A grades, and average students get Cs.
However, you have to keep in mind that just because a 2-stroke engine fires twice as often as a four stroke, that doesn't mean it will create twice as much power, because of the low volumetric efficiency of most (crankcase compression) 2-strokes, it means that a a two cylinder, 2 stroke engine would be more equal to a three cylinder four stroke, than to a four cylinder four stroke. It's greatest strength over a comparable 4-stroker would it's smoothness of torque, lightness, and mechanical simplicity, not it's higher power. So the power advantage is not as great as one would think.
If you keep the frame of mind that the amount an engine fires gives it an advantage over others, you should also consider that the Minica GSS power peak comes in at lower revs than many of the other cars on the list! :)

Just found another better power:capacity ratio
Toyota Celica, Voltz(Japanese Spec): 1.8L=190hp

To be on topic, I must say that I could care less HP to displacement ratio. It is quite meaningless. Not to mention the fact that the S2000 is so high strung to get that number that it doesn't take well to mods at all and you can't get a hell of a lot more power out of it.

What matters is your power to weight ratio. People need to get over useless marketing numbers and focus on real performance.

You could also use a 3.9L 6cylinder reving at 6000rpms for the 1.3L rotatry reving at 9000rpms. It should be more accurate in a greater number of scenarios

HP to displacement doesnt matter when it comes to high revving high compression NA's. Because it robs them of power potential, and boost potential.

All that truely matters is power to weight, braking, handling, asthetics, luxuries and most important, power POTENTIAL.