Integra Type-R VS Silvia Spec-R

[thearabian]

Ok guys, she's all yours, opinions?

Lets try not to start a net-brawl http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum/images/icons/smile.gif

[Nismo]

Too easy... the Integra wins because it's the only one you can actually buy here in North America.

In Japan it'd be a much closer battle. The stock Silvia is obviously faster but since it's turboed, you'd want to even things up by turboing the Integra too. A turboed Integra would win on speed.

If Nissan brought the Silvia over, sales would come down to real-world issues like price, reliability (many Americans disdain turbos in a production car), gas mileage (CAFE requirements), and so on.

I think Nissan's on track with the new Z re-design. Now that's the car that should have people lusting for a Nissan.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hmmm..tough choice here.Lets see,a RWD sports car versus a FWD wannabe Civic (with neato spoilers and a Acura badge).Not a good comparo in my opinion.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I don't think this is a fair comparo, a 7 year old fwd honda design vs. a new nissan spec r.

The spec r comes out on top in every performance catagory. Yes you can turbo the integra but with the same money you could make the spec r even faster.

Nismo, I disagree with your comment about price and reliability. Nissan sells the spec r in other markets for around 19k, so I think it would be reasonable to assume that they could bring it over for around 25k.(the same price as the typeR)And as far as reliability goes Honda's are no better than Nissan's(If they were they would offer better standard warranties)

I think, if Nissan brought the silvia spec r over it would sell just as much if not more than the integra typeR. Imho not putting the sr20det engine in the 240sx was one of nissan's biggest mistakes ever.

[dfw_alan]

The problem with bringing the spec-R over hear is not the Turbo, but the insurance premiums that come with it.

More and more Americans are rejecting the "there is no replacement for displacement" fallacy. HP/L + Turbo's = bragging rights, and no other society on earth likes to brag more about their cars than the American public....

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nismo:


If Nissan brought the Silvia over, sales would come down to real-world issues like price, reliability (many Americans disdain turbos in a production car)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually a lot more cars sold in the states these days are on forced induction; Merecedes C230K, SLK230, Audi A4 1.8T, and VW's Passat 1.8T and Jetta 1.8T. Granted most of them are German... http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum/images/icons/smile.gif

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dacman:

More and more Americans are rejecting the "there is no replacement for displacement" fallacy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fallacy? Boy you are dead wrong there... Think of ANY enging modification that increases horsepower and you will find that it all boils down to a change in displacement or simulated displacement. All a turbo does is compress the air, hence, SIMULATING LARGER DISPLACEMENT. Same goes for anything else...Variable lift cams? More diplacement. Intercooler/Cold air intake? More displacement.

There are some modifications that don't create more diplacement, but they generally don't increase performance so much, either. A lighter flywheel, for instance, reduces rotating inertia, which gives back some HP to the car. More efficient ignition systems create a fuller combustion. And the list goes on..

[Slack00]

As for my opinon, Spec-R HANDS DOWN.

Three words: Rear Wheel Drive.

Does anybody really understand why that is better?

Two reasons:

1) For drag applicaions: In a launch, the nose always lurches upwards, sending more weight to the rear of a vehicle (both FR and FF cars). This increases contact pressure on the rear (drive) wheels of a FR car and, therefore, traction, which means more horespower can be put to the ground, which means faster straight-line times.

2) For cornering applications: You see, the tracion on a tire is limited to four directions: Front/Back and Left/Right. You can see that Front/Back traction is devoted to acceleration/deceleration whereas left/right is devoted to cornering. If a car loses traction in either of these two groupings, than it obviously loses grip in the other as well. For instance, in a turn on a FF car, if the car turns too sharply and loses cornering grip (left/right)than it cannot decelerate into the turn or accelerate out of the turn, not to mention he's already skidding on the track! Vice-Versa if he's accelerating/decelerating on a slow curve....if he has a hopped up car with lots of horspower and he loses traction while accelerating or decelerating, he cannot corner effectively.

In other words, a FR car can dedicate its wheels to what they do best, while A FF car puts ALL of its funcions into just two wheels. A FR car can use its front wheels to turn without fear of losing grip due to acceleration, and rear tires can accelerate or decelerate to thier hearts content without bearing the loads of a turning wheel.

If you've ever noticed, that is why modern all wheel drive systems are variable: They have SO much horsepower that even the rear wheels cannot handle all the traction requirements, so all four wheels are used in the launch....but when the car gets up to speed, the bias slowly shifts back to the rear of a vehicle. This is the same system the Skyline GTR first used and the system Porsches now use, and others like Lamborghini are starting to use.

Okay, now that THAT has been handled, lets look at some more subjective reasons: The Spec-R is cheap, it already comes with a turbo (as stated above) it already outperforms the Type-R, regardless of engine, and it looks WAY WAY better....

IT looks like Infiniti has an opening for an enry level coupe....lets hope they use the Sylvia to fill the shoes....... http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum/images/icons/grin.gif

[This message has been edited by Slack00 (edited 06-28-2000).]

[Nismo]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zbeast:
Nismo, I disagree with your comment about...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Keep in mind that having just bought an Integra GS-R (and loving it) I'm more than a little predjudiced here. http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum/images/icons/smile.gif

One thing though; I'd never buy an Integra Type R as a daily driver because the car's wound a little too tight for my tastes. The suspension is a little too unforgiving and the engine sacrifices the ultra-flat torque curve [found in the GS-R] for the extra 25hp in the top end.

The Integra is great for mid-level pocket rocket excitement--and is absolutely one of the best FF cars you can buy--but if you're looking for a top-level rocket car, you've got to start with a RWD [or AWD] platform. Once again... c'mon Z car!

[dfw_alan]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slack00:
Fallacy? Boy you are dead wrong there... Think of ANY enging modification that increases horsepower and you will find that it all boils down to a change in displacement or simulated displacement. All a turbo does is compress the air, hence, SIMULATING LARGER DISPLACEMENT. Same goes for anything else...Variable lift cams? More diplacement. Intercooler/Cold air intake? More displacement.

There are some modifications that don't create more diplacement, but they generally don't increase performance so much, either. A lighter flywheel, for instance, reduces rotating inertia, which gives back some HP to the car. More efficient ignition systems create a fuller combustion. And the list goes on..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you imply the scientific definition, than no arguments here http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum/images/icons/wink.gif

well the common saying and general public understanding does not apply to turbo's, variable lift cams.... Just a larger NA displacement engine. Like another line being used by import drag racers these days.... "Technology is the replacement for displacement"


[This message has been edited by dacman (edited 06-26-2000).]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I have to disagree with you slack00. Displacement is just that. Turbo's and variable timing aren't displacement. And I think American's are giving up that notion, otherwise we would all be driving around with big block's under the hood. A new saying should be there is no replacement for efficiency. Take the mustang for instance a few years ago they were using 5.0 liter engines that only produced a weak 215hp now they've gone to the 4.6 liter and reworked it some to produce around 260hp. A better example would be Honda's S2000 with 240hp or Ferrari's 3.5 v8 that produces around 400hp.(I know these engines lack torque, but there's no way you can argue that a corvette's engine is better than a Ferrari's because of it's larger displacement)

[This message has been edited by zbeast (edited 06-27-2000).]

[Nismo]

I really like the Corvette, but one of the worst things about that car is it's engine. Other than being large (great for drag-strip tuning) the engine has very few redeeming qualities. Of course dragsters will love it because it's already so low-tech that almost any aftermarket part added will be an improvement. But it's too loud and unrefined (not to mention unreliable) for my tastes. Also, you'll never be able to tune a pushrod engine as well as you can tune an equivalent DOHC design.

As far as choice of cars, it really comes down to how you drive the vehicle. Personally, I'd rather take a near-1G turn in Honda's S2000 with the engine fast approaching 9000 RPM. That's an amazing engine, producing more power N/A than most tuners can get out of a turboed 2.0L.

It's not as simple as this, but imagine an LS1 with that much power/liter... 5.7L * 120hp/l = 684HP! Normally aspirated!

[RPS13]

I agree with Slack00 about why the Silvia beats the Type-R. Stock vs stock the Silvia wins and given the same budget to modify both cars, the outcome would still be the same IMHO.

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zbeast:
I have to disagree with you slack00. Displacement is just that. Turbo's and variable timing aren't displacement. And I think American's are giving up that notion, otherwise we would all be driving around with big block's under the hood. A new saying should be there is no replacement for efficiency. Take the mustang for instance a few years ago they were using 5.0 liter engines that only produced a weak 215hp now they've gone to the 4.6 liter and reworked it some to produce around 260hp. A better example would be Honda's S2000 with 240hp or Ferrari's 3.5 v8 that produces around 400hp.(I know these engines lack torque, but there's no way you can argue that a corvette's engine is better than a Ferrari's because of it's larger displacement)

[This message has been edited by zbeast (edited 06-27-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you about efficiency being a BETTER indicator of what is being used in cars today; they are ligher, more fuel efficient, and more dependable. But for SHEER POWER, it all boils down to displacement or simulated displacement. The 4.6L engine in the new mustang benefits from many technological improvements that make more horsepower per liter...but if the same modifications were made to the 5.0, it would have more horespower and more torque. (Any Mustang gearhead will tell you he'd take the old 5.0 over the newer 4.6 anyday. You ever the notice the magazine "5.0?" Yeah, well, there's no "4.6" magazine.) In other words, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (SOHC/DOHC 2/3/4/5 valves per cylinder, VTEC, Superchargers, turbochargers, etc etc) displacement rules.

This is not rocket science. What does the power of a vehicle come from? The engine? WRONG...trick question....it comes from the GASOLINE in the tank POWERING the engine. Per unit of fuel/air mixture, there is only so much energy to be harnessed. The power of the vehicle, therfore, is how much energy can be extracted from this unit of fuel, OR...how much raw fuel it can burn...or both! While engines have slowly become more fuel efficent and have less irreversible losses (due to things like heat and friction) there is a limit to the efficiency of an internal combustion engine. Believe it or not, the IDEAL thermal efficiency of an Otto-cycle ICE is less than, like, 65%. In other words, only 65% of the total energy per unit of gasoline ACTUALLY gets transformed into mechanical energy to move the car, the rest gets transformed into the irreversible losses mentioned above (heat, friction, etc). Most cars have LESS than that. Again, as engines have become more modern, they approach that ideal number of 65%(?), but they will never quite reach it.

Now, with this information at our fingertips,...lets ask a simple question: What is going to gain us more power....an engine that is 2% more efficient per unit of gasoline?...or an engine that just CRAMS IN TEN TIMES AS MUCH fuel/air mixture into the combustion chamber?

So...its not an old wives tale, gentelmen....its a scientific fact THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. More diplacement (or simulated displacement) means more fuel, which means more power. End of story.

How is the turbo added displacement? Because gases are a compressible substance, and when you flick a turbo on, its like putting 3.0 liters of displacement into a 1.0 liter engine.

The variable valve technology is a little harder to see and explain. Higher lift valves (or larger valves or more valves) means more clearance area in which intake air can get past the valves, which means...yup, more displacement. As for exhaust valves, its not so much displacement as efficiency....there is less resistance to the pistons as they discharge combusted air (reducing parasitic losses), and it allows for a cleaner intake charge when the valve duration is extended.

Sure, the Ferrari and the Honda have better horespower per liter ratings.....but you forget to add the fact that these cars have DOHC, VTEC technology, and have four to five valves per cylinder! And you know what? They get just as bad gas mileage as the Corvette (or worse!) Which makes sense, considering their displacements (actual or simulated) are nearly the same. And to tell you the truth, that makes the LS1 a better engine in my book: its got tremendous potential, its cheaper, its easier to work on, and its got gobs and gobs of low-end torque, which, IMHO, is more desireable than a 7000 rpm redline!

Again, the modern technology that wows everybody so much is just simulated displacement, changing the characterisitics of how the power is used, or reduces parisitic losses to the engine.

If you really want to read about how I rant on and on about this, check out my other posts in the Z-Car forum under "NDI vs. Nissan Japan"

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nismo:
I really like the Corvette, but one of the worst things about that car is it's engine. Other than being large (great for drag-strip tuning) the engine has very few redeeming qualities. Of course dragsters will love it because it's already so low-tech that almost any aftermarket part added will be an improvement. But it's too loud and unrefined (not to mention unreliable) for my tastes. Also, you'll never be able to tune a pushrod engine as well as you can tune an equivalent DOHC design.

As far as choice of cars, it really comes down to how you drive the vehicle. Personally, I'd rather take a near-1G turn in Honda's S2000 with the engine fast approaching 9000 RPM. That's an amazing engine, producing more power N/A than most tuners can get out of a turboed 2.0L.

It's not as simple as this, but imagine an LS1 with that much power/liter... 5.7L * 120hp/l = 684HP! Normally aspirated!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corvette isn't a great car wrapped around a crummy engine, the Camaro is a crummy car wrapped around a wonderful engine, and the Corvette is a wonderful car wrapped around a wonderful engine. Have you ever sat inside a new one....the comfort level is AMAZING. I don't think ANY part of the Corvette is bad (well, except that it may have some reliability issues.) You see, different strokes for different folks. The large engine makes possible for gobs of torque which can't be had by a smaller engine, no matter what the horespower rating or redline. This allows for a car with instant throttle response. Could they make it 684 hp, naturally aspirated? Sure they could, but that would be overkill...345 horsepower is enough! They still have to make a profit on this car, you know...if they made it 600+ horsepower, the gas mileage would suck, and they would have to sell it for $80,000+

On a business note, there is a psychological idea that must be investigated: the basic premise of any consumer that "You get what you pay for." There is a maximum profitability for all products, and an optimum price. If you sell a car that is much lower than it is actually worth, people will be very suspicious....."If its too good to be true, it probably is..." But they can't charge twice as much as the car is worth, because, obviously, if the car isn't worth that, it will show, the car will get bad reviews, and sales will plummet.

As far as the LS1 goes, I attended an SAE meeting in Ft. Worth a few years ago where the head designer came and explained the engineering behind the LS1, and, although I can't remember very much, I came away VERY impressed. To slap on a "Well, its only a PUSHROD engine" is a gross slandering of this engine. The TPI system is still one of the best fuel injection systems today. And the original 350, which this engine is a descendant of, is probably the most successful tuner enigne in the history of the biz.

But, as far as opinions go...everybody's got em. I personally think the low pur of the Corvette LS1 V8 is one of the best sounds in the automotive industry. Its somehow....very ominous.... very MENACING. Personally, I can't STAND the sound of those bumblebee rice burners with the coffee-can exhaust as they "bzzzzz!!" on by...I keep looking for the mosquito to swat on my arm...

And as for driving, I like two things: the solid rocket booster-like g-forces of a car that makes you think it kicked you in the chest from a standstill launch off the line (instant throttle response; ie TORQUE!), and the bullet sidestepping handling of a car in the turns...

FYI....I hear the next Corvette may finally make the change to a DOHC design......


[This message has been edited by Slack00 (edited 06-28-2000).]

[Nismo]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slack00:
Could they make it 684 hp, naturally aspirated? Sure they could, but that would be overkill...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is very hard to believe. The C5-R Corvette that GM races only puts out 620hp and even that is only achieved after an increase in displacement to well over 7 Liters. It also uses a higher compression ratio, runs racing fuel, would not pass emissions testing, much less stand up to the reliability required of a daily driver.

I like the Corvette but to say it has a great engine is a sign of bias. The engine is really not that great, just big. I know it's easy to overlook the technological achievements of others [like Honda]--and even easier to blow it off by saying, "we could that too if we wanted too but we just don't want to." Unfortunately, it just isn't so. If GM can't do it with a racing engine, how in the world can they do it in a production car.

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doctor Tae:
Like I stated once before... it is much easier to make a smaller displacement engine more powerful than on a big displacement engine... the bigger the space, the more energy you would have to apply... so given a certain amount of energy spent, smaller displacement is easier...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure you would have to supply more energy...but you'd get more power, too!

If you add 50% more air into a small-displacement engine (say, 1.0 liters), you'd add .5 liters of air and power. Lets say a 50hp engine now makes 75hp (now at the equivalent of 1.5 liters, at 50hp/l).

.5*50=75

Sure, if you add 50% more air to a large displacement (say, 5.0 liters, and, at 50hp/l =250hp ), that 50% would be MORE than .5 liters...it would be 2.5 liters! and you'd have a 7.5 liter engine producing 375hp!

.5*250=375

But I'm not arguing with you Doctor Tae: "For a certain amount of energy" you would not feel as big of a gain (percentage wise) as a small displacement engine. You are right, a jump from 150hp to 170hp is a bigger real world gain than 350 to 370.......But....if you add 20hp worth of energy to a small engine, its still 20hp worth of energy to a large one.

Ladies and gentlemen, the concept is very simple, the equation is simple. Power obtained (well, potential power) is a function of MASS FUEL ONLY! The only function of an internal combusion engine is to transform chemical energy into mechanical energy. Therefore, more fuel, and also therefore, more displacement, equals more power! End of story!

This is to say NOTHING about how successfully that power is used, but it is very clear that a small displacement engine at its very very best can not even approach the power of what a very crudely built large-dsiplacement engine can.

[This message has been edited by Slack00 (edited 06-28-2000).]

[Nismo]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slack00:
...a very crudely built large-dsiplacement engine...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very eloquent. It would be hard to imagine a better definition for the LS1 engine than this.

On displacement: of course more displacement = more possible power. Any comments I've made regard the low-tech LS1 engine specifically. The LS1 link from an above post sums it up pretty well; I'll paraphrase: although GM won't officially respond it is assumed that the main reason behind the LS1's low-tech design is to keep costs low.

Anyway, I just think it's funny that anyone would brag about the technological achievement(s) of such a low-tech engine. For brute force, well, it's big so of course it's gonna be powerful. But to make a technology argument, that engine (the finest GM offers) does not stand a chance against the finest offered by some other engine manufacturers.

[RPS13]

Well, this is way off topic. But, I remember the ZR-1 corvettes having s DOHC engine. Don't remember the specs or anything like that though.

[Nismo]

I think it was the LT5 engine in the ZR-1 that was DOHC. GM dropped it due to high costs associated with it.

It's a bit long-winded and divergent at times, but the article Slack00 mentioned earlier does a decent job of explaining it. Here's the link again: The C5's LS1 Engine (http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls1c.html)

[TitaniusMaximus]

Like I stated once before... it is much easier to make a smaller displacement engine more powerful than on a big displacement engine... the bigger the space, the more energy you would have to apply... so given a certain amount of energy spent, smaller displacement is easier...

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nismo:
Originally posted by Slack00:
Could they make it 684 hp, naturally aspirated? Sure they could, but that would be overkill...

This is very hard to believe. The C5-R Corvette that GM races only puts out 620hp and even that is only achieved after an increase in displacement to well over 7 Liters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Hard to beleive," very true.... but impossible? No. And, to say that the engine "only" makes 620 hp would be to say that more horsepower = better race car, which isn't true. And, remember, this is still very impressive for a naturally aspirated, pushrod, two valve per cylinder engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR> It also uses a higher compression ratio, runs racing fuel, would not pass emissions testing, much less stand up to the reliability required of a daily driver.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither does any other race bred engine, or most garage-modified cars. Exactly what did you expect? But...if they can race it around the track at 180mph for two or three hours without stopping.....don't you think that's a good sign of endurance?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>I like the Corvette but to say it has a great engine is a sign of bias. The engine is really not that great, just big. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think the Corvette has a well placed engine and I think the generial disposition of this forum is biased against large-displacement vehicles. And there are some good reasons for that. But there also some good resons FOR a large displacement engine and so me good reasons AGAINST a small displacement engine. It depends on what kind of characteristics you want.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>I know it's easy to overlook the technological achievements of others [like Honda]--and even easier to blow it off by saying, "we could that too if we wanted too but we just don't want to." Unfortunately, it just isn't so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's EXACTLY what GM said. This techonology isn't patened. Its not like these are trade secrets or any red wax to keep anybody from opening up an engine and seeing what is inside. Besides, they didn't need to. Remember, GM is also in business to make money, just like every other auto manufacturer. If they can get the job done cheaper, why spend all the money on development costs? Again, I think they built the engine for the characteristics the car needed. Also, horsepower is not the only indicator of race-worthiness. Having the most horsepower in the engine bay doesn't necessarily mean anything but bragging rights. There is a limit to the usable horsepower in a race...and, coincidentally, its around 600-700hp. Ever notice the million dollar, gold-foil wrapped engines of a McLaren F1 "only" make less than 700HP? Its all you need? The rest is excess and slows you down, or uses up more gasoline. Even Indy engines hover around 700-900hp. Do you know what the biggest variable in a Race is? The pit stops. The car doesn't need to be stopping every five minutes for a new tank of gas...he'd finsih dead last. People will have gone home by the time he's still finishing the race. These are all racing considerations that are VERY carefully calculated for, and there is an optimum balance between power, fuel efficiency, driver techniques, etc. etc.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>If GM can't do it with a racing engine, how in the world can they do it in a production car.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who says they can't? Like I said above, it is as simple as "we could that too if we wanted too but we just don't want to." Somebody please tell me, other than the obvious answers of price considerations and application, what *physically* prevents ANYONE from building a high-revving, DOHC, VTEC, five valve per cylinder, hemi, variable compression, 50 cylinder engines the size of a water tower?

And as for the techonology assosiated with the LS1, why they made it pushrod, and why its "only" 345 hp, look at this website under the heading "Pushrods and Why".

http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls1c.html


[This message has been edited by Slack00 (edited 07-03-2000).]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think the ZR1 was designed by Lotus.
And I think the finest engine GM makes would be the northstar v8's.

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zbeast:
I think the ZR1 was designed by Lotus.
And I think the finest engine GM makes would be the northstar v8's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you zbeast... the Northstar is an excellent engine design by GM....... DOHC, less than 4L displacement, four valves per cylinder, 300 hp.....but there is another engine or two that is on the Ten Best Engines list put out by Ward's auto for this year.

Speaking of Wards Automotive, believe it or not, the LS1 was on Ward Automotive's 10 Best Engines list for two years in a row, from 1998-1999. If you don't believe me, here's the link:
http://www.wardsauto.com/best10/99info/engine_intro.htm

So, to wrap up, he LS1 is simple... effective... efficient... and powerful...and its a significant improvement over the previous LT1....but I would never go so far as to say it was crude. It is an all aluminum construction, has an electronic throttle control, long intake runners producing a perfect shot into the cylinders, Sequential port Fuel Injection (SFI), very strong connecting rods, and a complex thermoplastic itake manifold. It gets over 20 miles per gallon in the city and 30 on the highway (which is just about as good or better as the vaunted VQ series engine, even with more displacement, power and torque). They brought great performance at a cheap pricetag, which is something nobody else has bragging rights to.

On a side note, Lotus had nothing to do with the ZR-1. The ZR-1 suffered the same fate as every other technology driven sports car of the early nineties: death by inflated pricetag. GM learned its lesson well and has had a full recovery after the abysmal sucess of the ZR1 by creating a pushrod engine which is cheaper to build with nearly the same (and in some cases, better performance) than the high tech LT4? And in this respect, they have outdone their import rivals.

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nismo:
Anyway, I just think it's funny that anyone would brag about the technological achievement(s) of such a low-tech engine. For brute force, well, it's big so of course it's gonna be powerful. But to make a technology argument, that engine (the finest GM offers) does not stand a chance against the finest offered by some other engine manufacturers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't stand a chance? That "low tech" engine still spanks every car the imports can throw at it, and embarrasses cars that cost anywhere from two to five times as much! The corvette engine takes a "damn the torpedos" approach to the other cars. What it says is "You don't have to pay a billion dollars for a car that will perform to near-exotic levels of performance."

Sure, its not as complex, but it gets the job done, at a cheaper price, with a better sounding exhaust note, and a body to die for. The engine is just BEGGING to be modified. Its completely ripe for aftermarket add-ons. You can sneeze on the LS1 and it will produce 500 hp, whereas you have to add costly and complex turbo systems to get a smaller, more complex engine up to those levels. There is more room to work with.

C'mon, look at it...there are few other cars in the world that scream "Sports Car!" as loud as the Corvette. It is the standard by which most other cars compare themselves to. Even without the engine, the Corvette has an amazing chassis and suspension system. And where most high tech sports cars weigh in at 3500 lbs+ (Even teh newest Skyline GTR weighs a hefty 3600lbs) the Corvette is a lightweight at 3200 lbs.

I'm a big fan of technology just as much as anyone else here...otherwise I wouldn't be hanging out here at FA, but, really, what does it matter HOW you get your power or HOW complex the car is? Its RESULTS that speak volumes. That is the final indicator of a true sports car, not engineering wizardry.

[This message has been edited by Slack00 (edited 06-29-2000).]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Im almost positive that lotus helped design the LT1 engine. And The vette cant spank every import car, it would have a hard time trying to beat a skyline gtr or a J spec rx7. Ferrari,lambo's and porsche's are also considered import's.

The vette isn't a bad car for the money, but GM is shooting themselfs in the foot by using the same engine in the F body twins. Sure the vette looks and handles better than the Camaro but not enough to pay almost double the price of one. If the vette was to go to a dohc v8 with around 400-450hp it would gain much more respect.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Lotus did helped GM design the LT5 engine found in the Corvette ZR1, a DOHC 32-valve 5.7 engine that put out 385hp (bumped to 405hp when the viper came out). The ZR1 was dropped because of poor sales... so much for the "a DOHC Vette would be so great" theory.

Now, take a look at the upcoming Vette engine: the LS6. Still pushrod, still 5.7l, yet 385hp, 385lbs of torque, redline at 6600RPM (up from 6200RPM).

I still prefer a DOHC 16-valves configuration in my Sentra SE, but people who buy Vettes want pushrods! Let them have pushrods!

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zbeast:
Im almost positive that lotus helped design the LT1 engine. And The vette cant spank every import car, it would have a hard time trying to beat a skyline gtr or a J spec rx7. Ferrari,lambo's and porsche's are also considered import's.

The vette isn't a bad car for the money, but GM is shooting themselfs in the foot by using the same engine in the F body twins. Sure the vette looks and handles better than the Camaro but not enough to pay almost double the price of one. If the vette was to go to a dohc v8 with around 400-450hp it would gain much more respect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps Lotus did help design a Corvette engine...I confess I don't really know...actually, now it would seem to make sense, considering Lotus was working with GM on some other products (the suspension for the 88 Fiero GT, for instance) during that timeframe.

Yes, but you forget the obvious...Ferrari's Lambos and Porsches are all at least two to five times as much in price. The Skyline GTR is also around $80k+ if I'm not mistaken.
And, like you said "it would have a hard time" but the fact is, it can do it. "Spank" was probably too hard of a word; It regularly keeps up wht the Ferrari and NA Porsche, and even the older Lambos. The category I was putting it into was the 300ZXTT/SupraTT/RX7TT trio, which it does beat by more than just a margin. And if you are giving the RX7TT the J Spec advantage then why don't we make it a Corvette Gran Sport? And if you REALLY want to get silly, spend Porsche prices ($80-$155k) on a Lingenfelter twin turbo Vette, and spank everything shy of a McLaren F1! And still get 30mpg highway! And still have a daily driver! Complete with two (three?) year warranty!

I don't necessarily think it was a bad move to put the V8 the Camaro...its always had a V6 or V8, and sales of the Corvette didn't seem to suffer so much for it. The fact of the matter is, either way you look at it, you are getting more bang for your buck than any car on this planet. What GM can't figure out is how come the Camaro isn't selling so well as the Mustang, even though it beats it out in every performance category.

But I must agree with you about making the Corvette an OHC design. Unlike the early nineties, technology is starting to become a selling point in a car engine (thanks to Honda's VTEC and other engine improvements). Perhaps the 'trickle up' will work better than the 'tricle down' theory. In any case, I hear a DOHC Vette is currently in the works.

On a side note, note how other automanufacturers realize they can't do it in a V6 anymore: Acura's NSX is going to a V8, the Skyline GTR is probably going to a V8, I think probably the next Supra is going to shift to a V8.....the next Z is sticking to a V6, but its also staying sub $30k...(thank heavens!)

[Mel E Bog]

I think Busybeetoys has it on their site that the next gen NSX is actually going to be a V10... but then again thats busybeetoys... dunno how reliable they are... and the rumored Lexus 4000GT is supposed to have a 400hp V8... so I guess it would make sense that the next GTR has a V8 too... that would be sweet... I dunno about the next Supra though... but probably a six like the new Z...

Mel

[**DONOTDELETE**]

You want RESULTS, slack00? just pick up a june road&track and you'll see them. a Guldstrand LSI vette tricked out with a total cost of $52,000 ran a 12.99 1/4 mile @110mph. Bergenholtz's gs-r crx ran a 9.83@152mph with the cost around $25,000. The new big displacement engines are killing everything the buzzing ricerockets are throwing at you?!!!! thats a fantasy. while the old V-8's that don't have to pass smog any more and have received every performance trick tried the last 50 years can still beat the japanese drag cars, the new vettes CANNOT! just go to the track once in a while and you will see that there is a replacement for displacement, and dont give me this argument that a turbo is actually boosting the displacement or that VTEC is actually making a 1.8 liter a 2.0. What that does is get more air into the 1.8 liter engine to make more power. displacement stays the SAME!!! Back when F1 engines where allowed to run turbo, those cars were 3.5 liter with twin turbos running 4.0 bar making over 1000hp. After they outlawed the turbos, diplacement went up(to over 6 i think), and power dropped to under 800hp.
if i had the choice of a new vette with no top end horsepower or a twin turbo supra, rx-7, or fairlady, i'd take the japanses car with its high redline and boost anyday.

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nismo4ever:
You want RESULTS, slack00? just pick up a june road&track and you'll see them. a Guldstrand LSI vette tricked out with a total cost of $52,000 ran a 12.99 1/4 mile @110mph. Bergenholtz's gs-r crx ran a 9.83@152mph with the cost around $25,000. The new big displacement engines are killing everything the buzzing ricerockets are throwing at you?!!!! thats a fantasy. while the old V-8's that don't have to pass smog any more and have received every performance trick tried the last 50 years can still beat the japanese drag cars, the new vettes CANNOT! just go to the track once in a while and you will see that there is a replacement for displacement, and dont give me this argument that a turbo is actually boosting the displacement or that VTEC is actually making a 1.8 liter a 2.0. What that does is get more air into the 1.8 liter engine to make more power. displacement stays the SAME!!! Back when F1 engines where allowed to run turbo, those cars were 3.5 liter with twin turbos running 4.0 bar making over 1000hp. After they outlawed the turbos, diplacement went up(to over 6 i think), and power dropped to under 800hp.
if i had the choice of a new vette with no top end horsepower or a twin turbo supra, rx-7, or fairlady, i'd take the japanses car with its high redline and boost anyday.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, well you don't see many I4 powered top-fuel dragsters, now do you? ALMOST ALL DRAGSTERS USE A HUGE V8 and produce around 3,000 HP!!! They turn quarter mile times that dip into the 4's (!!!!) and trap speeds of 300+ MPH. So don't tell me about fast CRX's.

Speaking of your comparison, you forget a thing or two. I don't even have that issue, but just based upon the information offered, I can tell you a thing or two. First of all, subtract the cost of the cars involved. Hmmmm a couple of thousand for a CRX...and you get $23,000 worth of modifications...Hell, assuming he bought the car when it was new, and that's still approximately $13,000 or so... ...subtract $40,000 from the Vette, and you get.... Hmmmmmm.... $12,000 worth of modifications.....Looks like to me the real bargain modification wise is the Corvette.

Tricked out? Buddy, that Corvette must have barely had any engine modifications on it at all, because picking up another magazine right here I find that a STOCK Corvette runs 13's at 108 MPH....What exactly did Guldstrand spend his money on? a new airbox? SUSPENSION mods?.....

But there is another thing you also must consider....money doesn't equal horsepower....or even a good car..you can spend some pretty high-tech dollars on a modification whose only purpose is to enhance engine life, not produce power....money doesn't show up on a dyno. There could have been a billion things he spent his money on that had NOTHING to do with horsepower....a stiffer chassis...better suspension, brakes.....Heck, even a snazzy paintjob. But I confess, I don't have the magazine at hand.

Also, stock for stock, don't even TRY to tell me the CRX handles better....spend some MORE money trying to get the CRX to handle as well as the Corvette, and maybe you might start approaching the sophistication of the Corvette. ...but of course, you couldn't, becase then you'd just have a $50,000 car that handles like a Corvette....which looks like a a CRX! If you are going to spend some serious money on some serious modifications, why not spend it on a serious car?

The only reason I'd ever modify a CRX or the like would be if I had a bunch of money and I was thinking something along the lines of "Hey, wouldn't it be really funny if I tuned up this little civic so I could embarrass some people at the track? Boy that'd be a hoot!" But boy, I could never take a CRX seriously, 10,000hp or not. Respect factor = low.

On a side note, speaking of modifications and money, I will bet every last dollar I have that the Corvette has more of an aftermarket presence than any Civic ever dreamed of....

And lastly, while more appropriate for single men than married (but not altogether non-applicable), which car has more sex appeal?...A Corvette (one of the world's most lusty cars) or a CRX (one of the world's most annoying-teenage-driver cars)?

And yes (if POWER is your only indicator of performance), big displacement engines rule....just go to the strip (and NOT one of these IMPORT ONLY wars or amateur Saturday night specials....I'm talking pro-competition) and check it out for yourself...

If you feel you can swallow your pride for about five minutes, go and pick yourself up a copy of GM High-Tech Performance or Pontiac High-Tech Performance and you will see some high tech domestic cars that will amaze and astound you. Modern v8's (even domestics!) aren't the dinosaurs everybody at this forum seem to think they are....

Speaking of neat turbo cars, you may even find it interesting that some of the most beloved cars in that magazine is a total sleeper...Has anyone here ever heard of a Buick Grand National?...Thought so....These were boxy, ugly, black-only V6 turbo Buick Regals(!!) from the late eighties. So if you ever pull up to a a frumpy black coupe with a strange red/orange/yellow striped curly-que looking thing on its hood or fender at a stoplight..... don't take the bait...you might get embarrassed. These cars command $30k+ today if properly restored. I hope this destroys the notion that Americans are big V8 displacement freaks and that is it.

But, I can tell you are not real big into understanding WHY engines make power.....did you even READ my posts above?....I thought it made everything very clear. Unless you bore or stroke your engine (do you even know what that is?) than your physical dipslacement is going to be stock....but if you add engine modifications, they will increase the amount of air in the enigne, in effect, simulating displacement....I never said your engine's actual displacement changed......(sigh.....I have a feeling my arguements are in vain....) I am perplexed because you seem to understand my arguement, but are unwilling to accede that it is correct:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR> What that does is get more air into the 1.8 liter engine to make more power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>THUS SIMULATING DISPLACEMENT!!! Its all about air and fuel, and the term I use for that is displacement!

And that's great with your little history lesson about Indy engines, but that needs a little more investigation. Firstly, they banned turbos TO KEEP SPEEDS DOWN on the track....and, believe it or not, there is actually a limit on displacement and configuration in current Indy rules (becase too much DISPLACEMENT makes too much power, and causes unsafe speeds): 3.5 liters, and a V8 configuration. Today's Indy engines never get much further than a thousand horespower. If it does, they'll just ban something else, to keep the power in check, and the tracks safer. Secondly, your arguement itself seems to prove my point about displacement.....it seems to me they offered to increase displacement to counteract the loss of forced induction!

And if I had my choice of a car with real-world low-end torque and a screamer that can only be appreciated at a track, I'd choose the former. You also failed to see that I was speaking of the stock versions of the import cars, not their modified versions. By the way, to straighten matters out, a Corvette has more top-end horsepower than any of those cars you mentioned.


[This message has been edited by Slack00 (edited 07-05-2000).]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Some of us have to much time on are hands, I Think this is getting to far off the topic. I do know what a grand national is, it came with a 3.8 liter turbo engine that made around 280hp (I think) Wasn't this same engine used in the GMC typhoon,cyclone and the 89 TA? Thats still a big engine. Slack00 I understand what your trying to say when you say a turbo or cams add displacement, but here's where I get confused, Example my brother use to own a 79 caddy, it had a 8.0 v8 and only made 200hp(not sure on torque) now if I was to put a turbo or a different cam on it would it make an effect like a 10. liter engine?

Back to the main topic, the two main reasons I would pick the spec R over the Type R, are its looks (best looking car this side of a ferrari) and the fact it is RWD ( which all true sports car's should be)

[Slack00]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zbeast:
Some of us have to much time on are hands, I Think this is getting to far off the topic. I do know what a grand national is, it came with a 3.8 liter turbo engine that made around 280hp (I think) Wasn't this same engine used in the GMC typhoon,cyclone and the 89 TA? Thats still a big engine. Slack00 I understand what your trying to say when you say a turbo or cams add displacement, but here's where I get confused, Example my brother use to own a 79 caddy, it had a 8.0 v8 and only made 200hp(not sure on torque) now if I was to put a turbo or a different cam on it would it make an effect like a 10. liter engine? )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I will try to quit my rambling....so many things just remind me of other points of interest that I tend to wander a lot.....

I don't know about what kind of effective displacements various engine modifications would add, by my point is simple: Most significant modifications change the amount of air and fuel coming into the engine. In the case of the 79 Caddy, no doubt the enigne was seriously detuned or seriously inefficient. But, I don't doubt that it had a lot of torque, which is a hallmark of big-cube engines.

I'm not sure what other platforms the 3.8 liter engine was used in back then, but I know the 3800 v6 has been a staple of GM for a long time. It is a great V6 (I think they raced it) and is still used in the base Camaro and Regal/Grand Prix/Intrique trio, and a bunch of other GM cars. I think the 3.0-3.9L segment of engines is considered medium displacement, not large.

I will consider this to be the last of my ramblings away from topic....(at least for this thread... http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum/images/icons/grin.gif )

[The_Chosen_One]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nismo:
Too easy... the Integra wins because it's the only one you can actually buy here in North America.

In Japan it'd be a much closer battle. The stock Silvia is obviously faster but since it's turboed, you'd want to even things up by turboing the Integra too. A turboed Integra would win on speed.

If Nissan brought the Silvia over, sales would come down to real-world issues like price, reliability (many Americans disdain turbos in a production car), gas mileage (CAFE requirements), and so on.

I think Nissan's on track with the new Z re-design. Now that's the car that should have people lusting for a Nissan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok which siliva? Cause if it's the S15 (BTW that is 1 bad mofo) the integra is way out...eVERYTHING!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Integra Type-R VS Silvia S15.. What a joke, I'd take the s15 turbo and I would readily pay $6000 more for it too. I've been in a type-r and I can say that I would probably derive much more pleasure in driving a turbo'd s15. It's turbo! its RWD! its got more power over all, it may be slightly longer but I cant say the type-r looks as good as the silvia. The silvia has some class to it, the type-r looks like a regular integra with a spoiler and some 5 bolt wheels. I think you should ask someone in Japan who has driven both cars and has heard what others have to say. Obviously since the type-r is not turbo, many japanese drivers will pick the silvia just for its shear value. Granted the type-r handles extremely well on the auto-x course.

[Nismo]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nismo4ever:
Back when F1 engines where allowed to run turbo, those cars were 3.5 liter with twin turbos running 4.0 bar making over 1000hp. After they outlawed the turbos, diplacement went up(to over 6 i think), and power dropped to under 800hp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Most current Formula 1 engines put out between 750-800hp. Honda's current F1 engine--a 3.0 liter V-12--produces over 800 hp normally aspirated.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Z32Rocket:
Integra Type-R VS Silvia S15.. What a joke, I'd take the s15 turbo and I would readily pay $6000 more for it too. I've been in a type-r and I can say that I would probably derive much more pleasure in driving a turbo'd s15. It's turbo! its RWD! its got more power over all, it may be slightly longer but I cant say the type-r looks as good as the silvia. The silvia has some class to it, the type-r looks like a regular integra with a spoiler and some 5 bolt wheels. I think you should ask someone in Japan who has driven both cars and has heard what others have to say. Obviously since the type-r is not turbo, many japanese drivers will pick the silvia just for its shear value. Granted the type-r handles extremely well on the auto-x course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep yep. The S15 is much more popular for the younger crowd in Japan because they're relatively inexpensive. For roughly $20-22k you get a car that can run 0-60 in about 5 seconds with a good driver, low 14s in the quarter.. impressive!! A used S13 sells for $3-4,000 US dollars; with a few grand in mods, these kids have them running faster than stock R34s.. not bad... Even with ~ 200 hp stock, an S13 is still fairly peppy.

The Honda Type R is nothing special in Japan. It's just another car in the crowd. I still don't see any *really* special about the ones in the states. wow.. 100 hp per liter. yeah, it's a nice feat considering it's all motor, but give me some torque that I can actually use.... I see stock Type Rs (US Spec) struggling to get mid 15s at the track. Slap on a few grand in mods and they're only running mid 14s (with a good driver). They do great at the autoX, though.. gotta give them props there.

http://www.cyberhosts.net/~gotrice/ecza/july1_00/20.jpg

Everything else has been commented on already.. so no need for me to jump in and repeat it all.

http://www.cyberhosts.net/~gotrice/ecza/jun4_00/01t.jpg

[This message has been edited by got rice? (edited 08-02-2000).]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The last of the S13 Silvia's actually pumped out 153kw from the Sr20DET

[**DONOTDELETE**]

A clarification perhaps - I think that the point that slack00 is trying to get across is that turbos, more valves, etc. are the effective equivalent of increasing displacement.
One point that seems to have been overlooked in this whole arguement is flexibility, and that is the forte of large, normally aspirated multi-cylinder engines. This is where an LS1 is an improvement over the peaky, high revving power curve of the 2.0 four in the S2000. In overall volumetric efficiency, the Honda cleans the Chevy's clock, but each have their own benefits and drawbacks. If you ever watch a series like the Speedvision Cup where you have Acura Integra Type Rs and Corvettes on the track at the same time, you'll quickly see how a fat power curve makes up for a low redline (not that the Acuras aren't astonishingly fast though!).

This is a major reason why NA market S cars got the larger KA over the SR - it was predicted that most buyers would opt for automatics, which was better matched to the power characteristics of the KA, and it was felt that the KA's low-end torque would better fulfill NA market preferences. Additionally, remember that in the late eighties/early nineties the word "Turbo" spelled out high insurance rates and predicted reliability troubles.

Type R vs. Spec R (what is it with this "R" thing anyhow?!? Enough "R's" already!) - The S15 is RWD, so I right away would choose it over the FWD Integra, even if I didn't find the Silvia to be the more attractive car anyway. A Type R plus though: it's a hatchback, and I far prefer it to the semi-useless trunk in the S cars (sorry, but that's what decided me on my '93 - it's the last year for the hatchback). Besides, who says that a sports car has to be impractical? I blew a guy's doors off while hauling my three seater sofa in my old '86 200SX - he's the one who wanted to race - talk about humiliation! (So what if it was a hurtin' four-banger Corsica? &lt;g&gt; )

[JonCarson]

Integra Type-R vs Silvia Spec-R?
If you really want an idea, you can watch videos with the S14 K's at the following link. http://www.superhonda.com/audio_video.html

They take awhile to load, but they'll give you an idea of the Type-R's abilities.