Viper vs. 911 GT3

[Thepeug]

Originally Posted by flylwsi

my notation on the viper being reliable with that power/displacement had nothing to do with revs.

the more hp/L you start packing, the less reliable a motor becomes. that's just a fact of life.

there's no issues with the viper's construction, and they're reliable.

the price tag issue for used vipers...
there are FAR MORE vipers in the country than there are NSX's.
supply/demand. less NSX's means you can get more for them. therefore...
a used viper is less expensive b/c they made more.

The response I just gave wasn't in reference to your statement about power/displacement; I was responding to Mr. Payne's argument that high revs=poor reliability.

The idea that more hp/L means poor reliabilty is not a "fact of life." When is comes to performance tuning and people are trying to force 500 hp out of two liters with 20 lbs of boost or ridiculous bore/stroke figures, then yes, that rule applies. There are plenty of engines out there, however, that have high hp/liter numbers and yet define reliability. Integra Type R: 108.5 hp/L. Ferrari F355: 107.5. Civic Type R: 115.6. And, of course, the S2000: 120 hp/L. All low-displacement, naturally aspirated, and reliable (not to mention high-revving). The fact that most of them are Hondas is simply a testament to quality engineering.

I never said the Viper is unreliable or poorly-constructed. I didn't comment on its reliability becuase I don't know much about it.

I agree with the idea that the high price-tag of NSX's has a lot to do with their rarity. Don't get me wrong; the NSX is a great car, but it's way overpriced, considering the performance you get in relation to other similarly-priced cars.

[flylwsi]

i know you weren't replying to mine, i was replying to the same that you were...

once you start making more than 1hp/cubic inch, you start losing the longevity of a motor...

that's a pretty common "fact" (" " b/c it's not always true) as far as horsepower goes...

[Mr Payne]

Originally Posted by Thepeug

I diagree; reliability is not determined by the rev-limit. If an engine is factory-built to rev high, it's not going to be any less reliable than a factory-built torque monster. Cars like the S2000 and the 99-00 Civic Si soar into the 8's and 9's daily and virtually never have problems. Reliability comes into question when the redline is raised beyond factory specs for the sake of performance. Like 3000ways said, reliability corresponds more directly with the overall quality of construction, both of the engine and the chassis.

For any specific engine, revving higher will make it less reliable. This is a very basic concept. If one has an S2K and shifts at 9K on every gear shift, it will be less reliable than an S2K that shifts at 7K on every gear shift. There is simply more wear and tear as higher inertial loads are carried by the pistons/rods/crank, etc. I'm not comparing two different engines. I'm comparing a single engine with two different rev limits. The one with the lower rev limit will almost surely be more reliable than the higher rev limit. If not within 100K miles, then within 200K, or 300K, or 400K......but YES, it still will be more reliable. This is simply physics.

[Thepeug]

Originally Posted by Mr Payne

For any specific engine, revving higher will make it less reliable. This is a very basic concept. If one has an S2K and shifts at 9K on every gear shift, it will be less reliable than an S2K that shifts at 7K on every gear shift. There is simply more wear and tear as higher inertial loads are carried by the pistons/rods/crank, etc. I'm not comparing two different engines. I'm comparing a single engine with two different rev limits. The one with the lower rev limit will almost surely be more reliable than the higher rev limit. If not within 100k miles, then within 200K, or 300K, or 400K......but YES, it still will be more reliable. This is simply physics.

Ok, I understand what you're saying. I misread your previous statement as "an engine with a high rev-limit is going to be less reliable than an engine with a low rev-limit." I agree, however, that for any single hypothetical engine, constantly shifting near redline is going to put more wear on the engine than shifting at lower rpms.

[3000ways]

Originally Posted by Thepeug

I agree, however, that for any single hypothetical engine, constantly shifting near redline is going to put more wear on the engine than shifting at lower rpms.

Well said, your 100% correct.