The automobile Dodge Viper was first introduced over fifteen years
ago
in 1992. Since then the Dodge Viper has changed, improved and faced
many obstacles as well. But its popularity has never gone down. Many
people still love Dodge Vipers. The new 2006 Viper model has also
changed; it has been introduced as a coupe. Many people have been
waiting to see what Dodge had up their sleeves, now the wait is over.
Read on and see the many changes that have been made to the
DodgeViper.


The most apparent change of the Viper would have to be that the model
has a double bubble roof. Double bubble roof you say? Yes I'm not
kidding; the roof has a unique shape. For those who do not know,
double bubble is a material that consists of two outer layers of
aluminum foil. This helps reflect radiant energy. But the roof also
allows for more space and flexibility. Many other changes that were
made to the Viper would be the door glass, integrated rear spoiler,
rear quarter panels and a wraparound tail light. Though it still is
the same as the older models, it just has a touch more flair to it.


The 2006 Dodge Viper has an 8.3 litre all-aluminium motor that works
with ten cylinders. The engine has the power to produce 500
horsepower's and about 525 pounds of torque. It also has a six speed
manual transmission. Wow, talk about being packed with a punch. Now
there is no more need to convince you about how great this car is.


The new Dodge Viper SRT10 is nothing short of style, luxury,
performance and safety. You will feel like a new person once you test
drive it. So go and check the 2006 Viper out today and see what all
the fuss is about. Once you've driven it, make the decision for
yourself. You'll be glad you did.


Direct all inquiries to:


Giuen Holding Ltd.
Ledningsgrupp för finansiering av
satsningar på tillväxtorienterad industri
Goteborgsvagen 1.
SE: 434 00 Kungsbacka
Tel: 070-5474830
Int. Mobil: +46 (0) 705474830
website/blog: http://cwmgateway.blogspot.com/

In article
,
CWMtrader wrote:
The 2006 Dodge Viper has an 8.3 litre all-aluminium motor that works
with ten cylinders. The engine has the power to produce 500
horsepower's and about 525 pounds of torque. It also has a six speed
manual transmission. Wow, talk about being packed with a punch. Now
there is no more need to convince you about how great this car is.

60 bhp per litre. The same as a '64 Mini Cooper S. Just what you'd expect
from a modern truck engine. Proper sports car engines manage over 100 bhp
per litre.

--
*Caution: I drive like you do.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
CWMtrader wrote:
The 2006 Dodge Viper has an 8.3 litre all-aluminium motor that works
with ten cylinders. The engine has the power to produce 500
horsepower's and about 525 pounds of torque. It also has a six speed
manual transmission. Wow, talk about being packed with a punch. Now
there is no more need to convince you about how great this car is.

60 bhp per litre. The same as a '64 Mini Cooper S. Just what you'd expect
from a modern truck engine. Proper sports car engines manage over 100 bhp
per litre.

Well racing car engines possibly. Not many road tuned cars will do it.

The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

60 bhp per litre. The same as a '64 Mini Cooper S. Just what you'd
expect from a modern truck engine. Proper sports car engines manage
over 100 bhp per litre.

Well racing car engines possibly. Not many road tuned cars will do it.

It's not that unusual.

120bhp per litre is available from your friendly local dealer, without
forced induction.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
60 bhp per litre. The same as a '64 Mini Cooper S. Just what you'd
expect from a modern truck engine. Proper sports car engines manage
over 100 bhp per litre.

Well racing car engines possibly. Not many road tuned cars will do it.

Plenty naturally aspirated ones out there made by BMW, Honda, etc. 'Race'
cars will be well above that.

--
*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:04:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

60 bhp per litre. The same as a '64 Mini Cooper S. Just what you'd expect
from a modern truck engine. Proper sports car engines manage over 100 bhp
per litre.

Well racing car engines possibly. Not many road tuned cars will do it.

100bhp / litre was the mark of a "tuned" car 25 years ago and it often
meant something that had a lumpy idle and didn't deliver until 3000 rpm.
These day's it's just hot hatch territory and 120bhp / litre is nothing
unusual for a perfectly well behaved road car.

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:04:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

60 bhp per litre. The same as a '64 Mini Cooper S. Just what you'd expect
from a modern truck engine. Proper sports car engines manage over 100 bhp
per litre.

Well racing car engines possibly. Not many road tuned cars will do it.

100bhp / litre was the mark of a "tuned" car 25 years ago and it often
meant something that had a lumpy idle and didn't deliver until 3000 rpm.
These day's it's just hot hatch territory and 120bhp / litre is nothing
unusual for a perfectly well behaved road car.

Normally aspirated?

Even my supercharged 4.2 jag was only 380bhp..

ISTR a 3.5 BMW is only 280 bhp. unblown..

Bikes yes, but cars?

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
100bhp / litre was the mark of a "tuned" car 25 years ago and it often
meant something that had a lumpy idle and didn't deliver until 3000 rpm.
These day's it's just hot hatch territory and 120bhp / litre is nothing
unusual for a perfectly well behaved road car.

Normally aspirated?

Even my supercharged 4.2 jag was only 380bhp..

Superchargers are a poor method for maximum specific power outputs. Too
many losses. They're best for increasing low end torque.

ISTR a 3.5 BMW is only 280 bhp. unblown..

Don't think they make such a beast currently.

Look at 'M' series BMWs for normally aspirated production cars with 100
bhp/litre.

Bikes yes, but cars?

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) ("Dave Plowman (News)" ) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Look at 'M' series BMWs for normally aspirated production cars with 100
bhp/litre.

Or Honda.

The Civic VTi was doing 160bhp from 1.6 litres fifteen years ago.
The S2000 has been doing 240bhp from 2.0 litres for nearly a decade.
The current Civic Type-R is still "only" doing 198bhp from 2.0 litres.

Bikes yes, but cars?

Bikes are heading towards 200bhp/litre, naturally aspirated.

The message
from Andy Dingley contains these words:

60 bhp per litre. The same as a '64 Mini Cooper S. Just what you'd expect
from a modern truck engine. Proper sports car engines manage over 100 bhp
per litre.

Well racing car engines possibly. Not many road tuned cars will do it.

100bhp / litre was the mark of a "tuned" car 25 years ago and it often
meant something that had a lumpy idle and didn't deliver until 3000 rpm.
These day's it's just hot hatch territory and 120bhp / litre is nothing
unusual for a perfectly well behaved road car.

I have missed the earlier part of this thread but proper sports cars
back in the 60s an early 70s were mostly way below 100 bhp per litre.

The Lotus Elan at 1600cc as introduced in 1962 had a claimed output of
105 bhp and the figures got worse over the years before they got better.
The S4 std, s/e, Sprint were 90/93/126 respectively and it has since
been alleged in some quarters that at least some of the figures had been
either exagerated or resulted from especially tuned engines. The Lotus
BRM, essentially the prototype Sprint was supposedly 130 bhp but that
didn't have a rev limiter at 6500 rpm while the Sprint reached maximum
power right on that rev limit.

Most of the sports cars of the period were much less powerful both in
power/weight ratio and specific power output per litre. The Elan Sprint
is one of the few cars of the era that can see off todays hot hatches.
Geoffs E Type may be another. Things like MGBs are really pedestrian (I
had a friend in the 70s who reckoned the MGA was a better car) and
Spridgets were a joke sports car from inception. Donald Healey claimed
(back in the 40s I think) that sports cars (even then) should have a
power to weight ratio of at least 100 bhp per ton. It was debatable with
the first of the Austin Healeys, the BN1 100/4 (introduced 1952 IIRC)
and none of the Spridgets (Sprite introduced 1958) came anywhere close.
Almost any modern shopping trolley will see off a Spridget, at least in
a straight line.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger wrote:
Things like MGBs are really pedestrian (I
had a friend in the 70s who reckoned the MGA was a better car)

It may have been prettier but not better. The mechanics were basically all
the same. Just earlier versions.

and
Spridgets were a joke sports car from inception.

The 1275 was faster than a B on the average country road. Not as high a
top speed though. Nicer car to drive in most ways.

--
*Born free...Taxed to death.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Roger wrote:
The message
from Andy Dingley contains these words:

60 bhp per litre. The same as a '64 Mini Cooper S. Just what you'd expect
from a modern truck engine. Proper sports car engines manage over 100 bhp
per litre.

Well racing car engines possibly. Not many road tuned cars will do it.

100bhp / litre was the mark of a "tuned" car 25 years ago and it often
meant something that had a lumpy idle and didn't deliver until 3000 rpm.
These day's it's just hot hatch territory and 120bhp / litre is nothing
unusual for a perfectly well behaved road car.

I have missed the earlier part of this thread but proper sports cars
back in the 60s an early 70s were mostly way below 100 bhp per litre.

The Lotus Elan at 1600cc as introduced in 1962 had a claimed output of
105 bhp and the figures got worse over the years before they got better.
The S4 std, s/e, Sprint were 90/93/126 respectively and it has since
been alleged in some quarters that at least some of the figures had been
either exagerated or resulted from especially tuned engines. The Lotus
BRM, essentially the prototype Sprint was supposedly 130 bhp but that
didn't have a rev limiter at 6500 rpm while the Sprint reached maximum
power right on that rev limit.

Most of the sports cars of the period were much less powerful both in
power/weight ratio and specific power output per litre. The Elan Sprint
is one of the few cars of the era that can see off todays hot hatches.
Geoffs E Type may be another. Things like MGBs are really pedestrian (I
had a friend in the 70s who reckoned the MGA was a better car) and
Spridgets were a joke sports car from inception. Donald Healey claimed
(back in the 40s I think) that sports cars (even then) should have a
power to weight ratio of at least 100 bhp per ton. It was debatable with
the first of the Austin Healeys, the BN1 100/4 (introduced 1952 IIRC)
and none of the Spridgets (Sprite introduced 1958) came anywhere close.
Almost any modern shopping trolley will see off a Spridget, at least in
a straight line.

Indeed.I have a 1500 Triumph engine tuned within an inch of its life,
and it wont do more than about 95bhp.

Until VVT came along, and turbos, you could get yer 100bhp per liter,
but only at the expense of a cam profile that idled at 3000 RPM, and
threw unburnt fuel out of the exhaust while it did so..and probably
delivered all its power between 4500 and 6000 RPM,at which point the
bearings exploded.

Ive driven plenty of sop called spoirst cars,and no]ne are in that
league. Perhaps the most ridiculoous was a Nisaan 200SX. 2liter twin
turbo, and 185 bhp.

its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated road
engine.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated road
engine.

Not these days. Variable valve timing has allowed high specific outputs
with excellent tractability.

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

Things like MGBs are really pedestrian (I
had a friend in the 70s who reckoned the MGA was a better car)

It may have been prettier but not better. The mechanics were basically all
the same. Just earlier versions.

and
Spridgets were a joke sports car from inception.

The 1275 was faster than a B on the average country road. Not as high a
top speed though. Nicer car to drive in most ways.

I had a couple of Midgets in the 70s, one between a Lotus Elan and a
Fiat X 1-9 if I recall the sequence correctly. I liked Midgets but the
Midget was the slowest by some margin and the acceleration was
sufficiently poor to make overtaking bloody minded slow drivers
hazardous (and I had honed my overtaking skills in a 2A SWB Land Rover).

I have never even ridden in a B so can't comment on their handling (and
only the once in an elderly A) but I thought the 0-60 time for the B was
considerably better than even the later Midgets.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger wrote:
The 1275 was faster than a B on the average country road. Not as high a
top speed though. Nicer car to drive in most ways.

I had a couple of Midgets in the 70s, one between a Lotus Elan and a
Fiat X 1-9 if I recall the sequence correctly. I liked Midgets but the
Midget was the slowest by some margin and the acceleration was
sufficiently poor to make overtaking bloody minded slow drivers
hazardous (and I had honed my overtaking skills in a 2A SWB Land Rover).

Then you're talking about the 948cc one - which is slow by modern
standards. But never by Land Rover ones. ;-) The 1275 is lively.

I have never even ridden in a B so can't comment on their handling (and
only the once in an elderly A) but I thought the 0-60 time for the B was
considerably better than even the later Midgets.

The power to weight ratio between a B and 1275 Midget is near identical.

--
*Marathon runners with bad footwear suffer the agony of defeat*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I had a couple of Midgets in the 70s, one between a Lotus Elan and a
Fiat X 1-9 if I recall the sequence correctly. I liked Midgets but the
Midget was the slowest by some margin and the acceleration was
sufficiently poor to make overtaking bloody minded slow drivers
hazardous (and I had honed my overtaking skills in a 2A SWB Land Rover).

Then you're talking about the 948cc one - which is slow by modern
standards. But never by Land Rover ones. ;-) The 1275 is lively.

No - 1098cc. One C reg, one D.

According to a Buyers Guide (Classic Cars August 1998) the top speed of
the Mk 3 1275 was 95 mph and 0-60 time 14 seconds. A similar guide (CC
11/2002) for the MGB quoted figures for the 1965 Roadster of 106 and
12.9.

I have never even ridden in a B so can't comment on their handling (and
only the once in an elderly A) but I thought the 0-60 time for the B was
considerably better than even the later Midgets.

The power to weight ratio between a B and 1275 Midget is near identical.

The figures above would seem to suggest the B had the edge. I don't have
any figures for weight but the Mk3 Midget was 64 bhp at 5800 with 72 ft
lb of torque at 3000 while the B was 95 bhp at 5400 with 100 lb ft of
torque at 3000.

By way of contrast the Elan Sprint (CC 3/05) was 126bhp at 6500 with 113
ft lb of torque at 5500 and a 0-60 time of 6.7 seconds.

Classic Cars haven't done a report on the S2 Land Rover AFAIK but I
wouldn't be at all surprised if the 0-60 time was closer to 30 seconds
than 20.

--
Roger Chapman

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated road
engine.



Almost any bike.

Or if you want cars - Toyota 3SGE (in the MR2 Mk2 among others), 2
litres, 158BHP from the later UK models, and over 200 if you can get
hold of one of the Japan-only BEAMS engines. Though the last does have
variable valves etc...

Or the BMW 320, 150BHP/ 2 litres from 1991.

Or IIRC the Cavalier GSI, 156 BHP, 2 litres, and that's back a few years.

If you say normally aspirated, *carburettor* engine, then I'll let you
have it.

Andy.

Roger wrote:
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I had a couple of Midgets in the 70s, one between a Lotus Elan and a
Fiat X 1-9 if I recall the sequence correctly. I liked Midgets but the
Midget was the slowest by some margin and the acceleration was
sufficiently poor to make overtaking bloody minded slow drivers
hazardous (and I had honed my overtaking skills in a 2A SWB Land Rover).

Then you're talking about the 948cc one - which is slow by modern
standards. But never by Land Rover ones. ;-) The 1275 is lively.

No - 1098cc. One C reg, one D.

According to a Buyers Guide (Classic Cars August 1998) the top speed of
the Mk 3 1275 was 95 mph and 0-60 time 14 seconds. A similar guide (CC
11/2002) for the MGB quoted figures for the 1965 Roadster of 106 and
12.9.

I have never even ridden in a B so can't comment on their handling (and
only the once in an elderly A) but I thought the 0-60 time for the B was
considerably better than even the later Midgets.

The power to weight ratio between a B and 1275 Midget is near identical.

The figures above would seem to suggest the B had the edge. I don't have
any figures for weight but the Mk3 Midget was 64 bhp at 5800 with 72 ft
lb of torque at 3000 while the B was 95 bhp at 5400 with 100 lb ft of
torque at 3000.

By way of contrast the Elan Sprint (CC 3/05) was 126bhp at 6500 with 113
ft lb of torque at 5500 and a 0-60 time of 6.7 seconds.


If it would start at all. I had a collegaue who used to have to retard
they ignition last thing at night, start it,and then retime it to get it
to run smoothly ;-)


Classic Cars haven't done a report on the S2 Land Rover AFAIK but I
wouldn't be at all surprised if the 0-60 time was closer to 30 seconds
than 20.

Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated road
engine.



Almost any bike.

Or if you want cars - Toyota 3SGE (in the MR2 Mk2 among others), 2
litres, 158BHP from the later UK models, and over 200 if you can get
hold of one of the Japan-only BEAMS engines. Though the last does have
variable valves etc...

Or the BMW 320, 150BHP/ 2 litres from 1991.

Or IIRC the Cavalier GSI, 156 BHP, 2 litres, and that's back a few years.

Thse are pushing 75bhp/liter and are RARE. I did have an astra SRI
wahich was quite a lively injected 1.8 liter engine...otherwise it was
deeply dull.

None exceeds 100bhp/l;iter. You need to be up around 7-8000 RPM AT LEAST
for hose, Bike engines do more than that: Thats how they get those sorts
of power levels.


What a current state of the art F1 engine? 900bhp at 18000 RPM? on 3
liters..Given that they are as torquey as can be made, and run on
special fuel with SOME air boost from te intakes, and tuned exhausts..at
6K RPM you are stuck with about 1bhp per liter absolute MAX.




If you say normally aspirated, *carburettor* engine, then I'll let you
have it.


It's not the carbs that kill you - twin choke webers will do any power
you want: its the valve timing and RPM limit bit. You COULD get about
160bhp out of a race tuned bored out re-headed 1430 mini engine..as long
as you didn't want to use it in traffic and didn't mind the 12mpg
consumption..or the 3000 mile rebuild..


Andy.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated road
engine.



Almost any bike.

Or if you want cars - Toyota 3SGE (in the MR2 Mk2 among others), 2
litres, 158BHP from the later UK models, and over 200 if you can get hold
of one of the Japan-only BEAMS engines. Though the last does have
variable valves etc...

Or the BMW 320, 150BHP/ 2 litres from 1991.

Or IIRC the Cavalier GSI, 156 BHP, 2 litres, and that's back a few years.

Thse are pushing 75bhp/liter and are RARE. I did have an astra SRI wahich
was quite a lively injected 1.8 liter engine...otherwise it was deeply
dull.

So, the BMW engine is rare? Do you drive around with your eyes shut?

Another example from a few years ago - PSA 1.9 16v engine, 1905cc, 160 bhp.
So 84 bhp/litre, over 10 years ago. No variable valves, and it was a
reliable engine.

None exceeds 100bhp/l;iter.

True. Those examples are all from 10 years ago.

Let's look at some more recent stuff. Peugeot 206 - 180hp from 2 litres NA.
Renault clio - 200 hp from 2 litres NA.

2001 - Honda civic type R. Rather popular hot hatch, probably because of the
197hp from a 2 litre N/A engine. (the S2000 is 237hp from the same size
engine).

Now obviously these are all at the quick end of the market. But they're
there, easy to get hold of, and reliable. Which sort of makes your
contention that 70 bhp/litre is rare a bit wrong.

clive

The message
from Andy Champ contains these words:

its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated road
engine.

Almost any bike.

Or if you want cars - Toyota 3SGE (in the MR2 Mk2 among others), 2
litres, 158BHP from the later UK models, and over 200 if you can get
hold of one of the Japan-only BEAMS engines. Though the last does have
variable valves etc...

Or the BMW 320, 150BHP/ 2 litres from 1991.

75bhp/litre. 11 years on and it had hardly changed - 170 from 2.2 or 77/litre.

Or IIRC the Cavalier GSI, 156 BHP, 2 litres, and that's back a few years.

If you say normally aspirated, *carburettor* engine, then I'll let you
have it.

Well the Elan Sprint had much the same output as the 2002 320 BMW and
that fits the carburettor bill. OTOH it is and was a rare car.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

By way of contrast the Elan Sprint (CC 3/05) was 126bhp at 6500 with 113
ft lb of torque at 5500 and a 0-60 time of 6.7 seconds.


If it would start at all. I had a collegaue who used to have to retard
they ignition last thing at night, start it,and then retime it to get it
to run smoothly ;-)

Mine was a bit of a sod to start but that was down to the Webber carbs.
There was a technique which I have now forgotten but it didn't include
the advice that was current at the time of not using the choke at all. I
had to drop that engine into my later Plus 2 after the contents of the
petrol tank ended up in the sump (fixed by a cutoff valve that should
have been done on recall) and I didn't bother to change the carbs.
Dellortos made it much easier to start. It just didn't feel like the
same engine.

--
Roger Chapman

Clive George ("Clive George" ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Another example from a few years ago - PSA 1.9 16v engine, 1905cc, 160
bhp. So 84 bhp/litre, over 10 years ago.

Longer, even, than that - that engine was in the BX 16v in '87.

No variable valves, and it was a reliable engine.

Indeed. And seriously fun in a car that weighed not much more than a
ton...

Now obviously these are all at the quick end of the market. But they're
there, easy to get hold of, and reliable. Which sort of makes your
contention that 70 bhp/litre is rare a bit wrong.

Panhard were putting out 60bhp from 850cc in the '60s - with two valves
per pot, air-cooling, carbs and pushrods.

Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated
road engine.



Almost any bike.

Or if you want cars - Toyota 3SGE (in the MR2 Mk2 among others), 2
litres, 158BHP from the later UK models, and over 200 if you can get
hold of one of the Japan-only BEAMS engines. Though the last does
have variable valves etc...

Or the BMW 320, 150BHP/ 2 litres from 1991.

Or IIRC the Cavalier GSI, 156 BHP, 2 litres, and that's back a few
years.

Thse are pushing 75bhp/liter and are RARE. I did have an astra SRI
wahich was quite a lively injected 1.8 liter engine...otherwise it was
deeply dull.

So, the BMW engine is rare? Do you drive around with your eyes shut?

Another example from a few years ago - PSA 1.9 16v engine, 1905cc, 160
bhp. So 84 bhp/litre, over 10 years ago. No variable valves, and it was
a reliable engine.

None exceeds 100bhp/l;iter.

True. Those examples are all from 10 years ago.

Let's look at some more recent stuff. Peugeot 206 - 180hp from 2 litres
NA.

I couldn't find a Peugot 206 with a 2 liter engine. Anyway thats still
not 100bhp /liter.

Renault clio - 200 hp from 2 litres NA.


197bhp on a 16v engine doing 7.25K RPM. So still not 100bhp/liter.


2001 - Honda civic type R. Rather popular hot hatch, probably because of
the 197hp from a 2 litre N/A engine. (the S2000 is 237hp from the same
size engine).

Honda sports cars have what amounts to racing engines in them. Again and
exception. 8300 RPM. who really is going to redline at that sort of RPM?



Now obviously these are all at the quick end of the market. But they're
there, easy to get hold of, and reliable. Which sort of makes your
contention that 70 bhp/litre is rare a bit wrong.

These are all boy racer products competing on specmanship, and probably
a LOT less when they are actually put on a rolling road. BIG fast cars
knpow that reliability and smooth power deployment comes with bigger
engines run with less aggressive port timing.

If you blueprint and balance an engine of course with sufficiently large
porting and an RPM limit up around 8300, you can get 100bhp per liter,
till it wears out. with VVT it may even be suitable for road use...;-)


I wonder what it really produces after its been around a few years.




clive

Adrian wrote:
Clive George ("Clive George" ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Another example from a few years ago - PSA 1.9 16v engine, 1905cc, 160
bhp. So 84 bhp/litre, over 10 years ago.

Longer, even, than that - that engine was in the BX 16v in '87.

No variable valves, and it was a reliable engine.

Indeed. And seriously fun in a car that weighed not much more than a
ton...

Now obviously these are all at the quick end of the market. But they're
there, easy to get hold of, and reliable. Which sort of makes your
contention that 70 bhp/litre is rare a bit wrong.

Panhard were putting out 60bhp from 850cc in the '60s - with two valves
per pot, air-cooling, carbs and pushrods.


Its easer with little engines, cos the revs acan go higher. Its even
easier wit 2-strokes, cos they get two bangs to a 4-strokes one..


I can show you a .36 cu in methanol and nitro engine (about what? 6cc?)
that will do over 3bhp...normally aspirated, on a carburettor..at 18K
RPM plus..

I've seen an 8 liter drag supercharged racing engine that will do around
5000bhp..well for about 30 seconds..

It doesn't matter how you swing it, you need either forced induction, or
6kRPM to get 100bhp/litre out of a N/A 4 stroke running on petrol.

6K is where you start to run into material and wear problems on anything
above 1500cc or so. at 8K you are needing very good porting and valve
trains..much over 12K and valve bounce is staring to be a killer, and yu
need pneumatic springs to slam the valves shut and keep them there.

Sure, its all possible, but it makes for an expensive fragile engine.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Let's look at some more recent stuff. Peugeot 206 - 180hp from 2 litres
NA.

I couldn't find a Peugot 206 with a 2 liter engine. Anyway thats still not
100bhp /liter.

206 GTI 180.


Renault clio - 200 hp from 2 litres NA.


197bhp on a 16v engine doing 7.25K RPM. So still not 100bhp/liter.

Granted. _Only_ 98.5

2001 - Honda civic type R. Rather popular hot hatch, probably because of
the 197hp from a 2 litre N/A engine. (the S2000 is 237hp from the same
size engine).

Honda sports cars have what amounts to racing engines in them. Again and
exception. 8300 RPM. who really is going to redline at that sort of RPM?

FSVO "racing engines". They're reliable, built to last, and are happy
pootling around - ie perfectly good road engines. And the answer to your
question is "the person who wants to go fast" - they're designed to run at
that speed.

Now obviously these are all at the quick end of the market. But they're
there, easy to get hold of, and reliable. Which sort of makes your
contention that 70 bhp/litre is rare a bit wrong.

These are all boy racer products competing on specmanship, and probably a
LOT less when they are actually put on a rolling road.

Oh dear. Those are real numbers, not the made up ones preferred by dodgy
"tuners". You're making the mistake of comparing your experience from quite
a while ago with what's happening now.

BIG fast cars knpow that reliability and smooth power deployment comes
with bigger engines run with less aggressive port timing.

The thing is, the engines we're talking about here _are_ reliable and don't
have the lumpy cams you're thinking about.
Oh yes - BIG fast cars like the BMW M5? 81 bhp/litre in the late 80s, 89
bhp/litre in the early 90s, and 100 bhp/litre at the moment. The smaller M3
only had 343hp out of a 3.2L engine 7 years ago...

If you blueprint and balance an engine of course with sufficiently large
porting and an RPM limit up around 8300, you can get 100bhp per liter,
till it wears out. with VVT it may even be suitable for road use...;-)

You're behind the times. Yes, VVT is a key part of these engines (though not
there on eg the PSA 1.9 16v 84bhp/litre engine). Materials, technology and
engineering have all moved on from the engines you're thinking of - more
valve area, properly analysed air flow, better tolerances in manufacturing,
etc all mean what you consider as racing car stuff are actually available in
road cars - and reliable too.

clive

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

6K is where you start to run into material and wear problems on anything
above 1500cc or so.

I think you'll find rather a lot of car makers disproving you there

at 8K you are needing very good porting and valve trains..

Yes, and? There's a lot of computer power around these days to get the
porting and airflow right.

Sure, its all possible, but it makes for an expensive fragile engine.

Honda and BMW aren't noted for making fragile engines (nikasil aside, oops).
And TBH the Honda at least isn't that expensive either.

clive

The Natural Philosopher (The Natural Philosopher ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Now obviously these are all at the quick end of the market. But
they're there, easy to get hold of, and reliable. Which sort of makes
your contention that 70 bhp/litre is rare a bit wrong.

Panhard were putting out 60bhp from 850cc in the '60s - with two valves
per pot, air-cooling, carbs and pushrods.

Its easer with little engines, cos the revs acan go higher. Its even
easier wit 2-strokes, cos they get two bangs to a 4-strokes one..

Umm, that Panhard lump put out peak power at 5,750rpm - and it's a four-
stroke. Two-smokes don't tend to have pushrods...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I wonder what it really produces after its been around a few years.

I can't speak for the rest of them, but MR2s are well known for topping
200k miles. Even the turbo versions, which are usually tweaked to 250+.

Unless some boy racer finds out what "snap oversteer" means...

BTW ISTR this started with you saying

its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated road
engine.

.... which a bunch of us promptly disagreed with.

Now we have

None exceeds 100bhp/l;iter.

.... which is a different kettle of fish entirely. Did the goalposts move?

That is rare in a NA car engine with current technology. But as has
been pointed out, not unknown.

Andy

p.s. It's a litre, not a liter

Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I wonder what it really produces after its been around a few years.

I can't speak for the rest of them, but MR2s are well known for topping
200k miles. Even the turbo versions, which are usually tweaked to 250+.


But not run on the redline. Wr goes up as teh square of RPM more or less.

Unless some boy racer finds out what "snap oversteer" means...

BTW ISTR this started with you saying

its rare to see more than 70bhp/liter from any normally aspirated road
engine.

... which a bunch of us promptly disagreed with.

AND in fact has been shown to be true. Its rate to find that. Perhaps 3
models out of 300?


Now we have

None exceeds 100bhp/l;iter.

... which is a different kettle of fish entirely. Did the goalposts move?


Nope, the original aseertion as that 100nhp /liter was a standard easy
to reach benchmark of a N/A performance engine. Its been shown that not
only its that EXTREMELY rare, its not that easy to reach.


That is rare in a NA car engine with current technology. But as has
been pointed out, not unknown.

Andy

p.s. It's a litre, not a liter

Depends. I spend too much time talking to septics..