The Greatest Tuner of all Time Vs. The Rest

[Lizard King]

Originally posted by zak
With all due respect guys, you aren't thinking like engineers. Here are just a few examples of why engine efficiency (of which just one measurement is bhp/litre) is a really impoirtant factor:
- smaller-displacent engines are likely to be lighter, meaning essential weight savings
- smaller-displacement engines will be able to rev more freely (generally speaking)
- smaller-displacement engines would be smaller in size - more compact (again, generally speaking), meaning better design options, especially in terms of engine position and overall size (affects balance and therefore handling)
- generally speaking, more fuel-efficient
- some countries impose tax penalties on higher-displacement engines

jsut to think of a few reasons why it can be an important measurement.

I just typed up a response but got an error when posting and it disappeared.
The general gist of the post was thus:

Smaller displacement engines are often no more smaller in size than a 'large' small block V8, once they have their forced induction equipment fitted. They are also no longer, and the V8 can be set far back enough to give good balance. (Thats not including the FWD mechanicals that also add weight to most 4 cylinder powered cars) Cars with I6 engines like the Supra are more likely to be inbalanced due to the extra cylinders added to the length. The Supra engine is no more compact (and I'm pretty sure its heavier) than, say,a 4.6 Mustang V8. With the V8 having the advantage of less length.

Many cars that have V8s donated often end up handling better than when they started.

Compare the Honda S2000 engine to that of the Corvette. They get similar fuel economy. If you want to get HP out of a small engine you have to rev, and that drinks fuel.

I wish Chris V from CF was here. He has explained this stuff in great detail many times. He'd also tell you that many of the larger dicplacement engines are in fact very efficient.

[zak]

Hi all

Just thought I'd not let this one slide ;-)

Yes, torque is important. No arguments there. However, this thread was about the best tuner. For my money, that is/waas Carlo Abarth. For him to have extracted the power he did from the engines he started from was incredible. His cars won their index of performance in just about every race they entered, often beating cars with higher displacement engines. They could drive rings around just about any other car on the road at the time. In 1964, a 1600 cc (that's 97 cu in!) was producing 154 bhp, and reached speeds of 220 km/h (137 mph). Most of these cars were homologated for raod use too, so they weren't just stripped-out pared-down racers. He didn't only tweak the engine though, he improved just about every aspect of those cars.

And, fwiw, the Viper redlines at 6000 rpm. Not particularly high ;-)
Remember too that all high-performance cars, especially racing cars, have the characteristics of high-revving, high power and relatively low torque engines.

In closing, this is a fairly decent article on why both torque and horsepower are useful:
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Ciao

Zak ;-)

[Jay!]

Originally posted by BRABUS
...world's fastest SUV...

What a crappy thing to be. As soon as you turn, you're rollin'...

[JD@af]

Good stuff, zak. I'll be sure to check out that article later. As for your point about the Viper V10 (redline equals 6,000 rpm), I was thinking it, but I didn't want to say it.

[flylwsi]

thanks on the tq number....

on the the worlds fastest suv thing... hell... if you are gonna go fast, you are gonna be low... i dont think that it is gonna roll... take the bmw x5 le mans... the one that has the v12 lmp motor in it.. the one that just set a new record at the nurburgring...

that shiet aint rollin over...
if you are gonna go fst in an suv, you arent gonna roll... that all has to do with suspension there... fat sway bars, stiff springs... bigggg tires...
as long as the center of gravity is low and the body roll is minimal.. hell, i wouldnt worry too much about that...

since i just thought of this, i dont know if he really counts as a tuner, but john moss from chevy is a guy i admire...
he does all the wild ass over the top concept cars and the insanely built street cars they have out... kinda like svt at ford...
he has done alot of conceptual imaging for chevy, giving ideas as to what is coming up...

also... corvette related, i dont know if it is a full on greatest tuner position, but if you have heard of skunkwerkes, they are slicin tops off of vettes and making speedsters out of em... that is gutsy... so i respect them also... and hell, they just started doin zo6s... and they actually make em stiffer than stock... damn...

and one more vette crew...
mallett motorsports, which is in my hood... some of the most amazing all around bad c5 vettes around... and they are not inexpensive... and they have been on the cover of some serious mags...
hell, anyone that has a warehouse full of customer vettes waiting to be atuned... damn... and they have a white tile floor that is clean. that says alot...

that should be enuff fodder for the cannon here... serious tq monsters mentioned above...
i guess the only reason i am a tq fan is b/c i am so jealous of the way a vette in sixth can just step on it and disappear... whereas my lude has to rev up some more to find the power... but once i get up there... lookout...

[flylwsi]

i just looked at that, and damn, its long... sorry

[zak]

Originally posted by Lizard King


I just typed up a response but got an error when posting and it disappeared.
The general gist of the post was thus:

Smaller displacement engines are often no more smaller in size than a 'large' small block V8, once they have their forced induction equipment fitted. They are also no longer, and the V8 can be set far back enough to give good balance. (Thats not including the FWD mechanicals that also add weight to most 4 cylinder powered cars) Cars with I6 engines like the Supra are more likely to be inbalanced due to the extra cylinders added to the length. The Supra engine is no more compact (and I'm pretty sure its heavier) than, say,a 4.6 Mustang V8. With the V8 having the advantage of less length.

Many cars that have V8s donated often end up handling better than when they started.

Compare the Honda S2000 engine to that of the Corvette. They get similar fuel economy. If you want to get HP out of a small engine you have to rev, and that drinks fuel.

I wish Chris V from CF was here. He has explained this stuff in great detail many times. He'd also tell you that many of the larger dicplacement engines are in fact very efficient.

Firstly, it's not a forced-induction car we're talking about here, it's a naturally aspirated engine, from 1963, giving 103.9 bhp/litre. Feel free to be unimpressed by that if you like, but for me it's hugely impressive. The engine in question is also a 4 cylinder, so no length disadvantage to a V8. A key factor when considering engine efficiency is bhp/litre, no two ways about that.

[Lizard King]

Yeah, that car you're talking about sounds sweet, and yes, I'm impressed. But I was talking about small engines in general

About the Viper, high redlines don't mean better cars/engines. Remember how much ass the Viper kicks in competition. High revs just cause more wear on an engine. Not that I don't like an engine to rev high. My favourite engine would be a Chevy or Ford 302 that revs to 9000rpm. The same engines as in the Boss and Z28 cars from the 60s. I get shivers thinking about how great they sound.

[flylwsi]

true on the hp/liter thing, but hey...
the viper, vette, camaro and mustang have something that little motors dont have... tq out the ass...
think about it... the hp doesnt matter till high end... what gets you off the line.. and flyin to the high end...

and i m not saying hp is not important,, but tq is it for accel runs and 1/4 mi etc...
just a thought there... that is what i was trying to say...

this discussion was had somewhere else...

it compared the hp/liter and the tq/liter of the s2k and the m3 and the ferrari 360... the highest hp was s2k, but highest tq was m3...
same thing i am trying to say

[PookJP]

BMW Motorsport gets my vote.

- Reliable
- Handling upgrades are unparalleled
- Engine modifications
- External bodywork is always artfully executed


Are you kidding about the whole Brabus thing?

[G-Forces]

My vote is for the Japanese tuner Top Secret. They built a 1000+hp Skyline GT-R and a 1000+hp Toyota Supra with a Skyline RB26DETT engine swap! I packed away the mag they were featured in but if I remember correctly those cars went to 150mph faster than most cars went to 60mph. Fuel ecomony wasn't that great though.

[Thunda Downunda]

Hmm .. Greatest 'Tuner' eh? Brabus SUVs, huh?

Let's start with Fred Duesenberg, who's cars won a string of Indy victories, Grand Prix, hillclimb, you name it - what other manufacturer can claim to use Indy to pre-test their ROAD cars before delivery? Park any current tuner-car next to the mighty J model and see where the admiration falls.

Speaking of Indy, how about Ak Miller, who along with Offenhauser later owned Indy for decades. His cars were so beautifully engineered even noted Mr E Bugatti paid Miller 'the ultimate compliment' by stealing his concepts.

Enzo Ferrari was so successful tuning pre-war Alfas that for 50 years his prancing-horse emblem has adorned some of the worlds most stunning and desirable cars, and one of that genesis leads the now corrupt F1 quest as I write.

Shelby turned appealing yet dud British vehicles (AC Ace & Ford GT 40) into such effective and beautiful racers they were either banned as being too dominant - GT 40 - or still copied today - Cobra.

As zak astutely pointed out, Arbarth was incredibly gifted, turning out winning machines with little resources. Then there's Matra, Cosworth, Porche, Alpine; all tuners of such talent their desirable products made it on to the street.

Not many will have heard of Australia's Phil Irving, who among his achievements engineered the lowly 1960s alloy Buick 215 V8 into the Repco Brabham engine, the last stock-block powerplant to win F1 (consecutive victories), authored the highly respected tuners-bible "Tuning for Speed" and also designed and engineered what was for many years the fastest production machine on 2 or 4 wheels, the fabulous Vincent Black Shadow.

[Lizard King]

The 215 Buick was a great engine, very light, far from being 'lowly'.

I also think you over simplified things with the GT40. It was made by Ford and based on a Lola. To say it was a British car, tuned by Shelby wouldn't be right, IMHO.

Good points though. Dusenburgs are just stunning. I'd like to know more about these Miller/Offenhauser cars though.

[flylwsi]

the other thing to note, since everyone has indirectly brought it up...
the greatest tuner of all time means alltime. i think BRABUS forgot that...
some of these tuners are older than all of us combined, and should be respected, if not seen as superior for what they did with such inferior technology... i love the new supertuners, but i also love the old stuff... that has been expressed in the doozy post... kudos on that... not many people even know what one of those beasts is... or has seen the sheer mass of one up close... amazing toys they were...

[MaxRX7]

any pics of some work of the respective tuners ?