80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

Discussion in '1969 Nissan Skyline 2000GTR' started by BigWillman, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    you people make me laugh so hard...hp per litre is such a joke and anyone who puts stock in it as some sort of measurement of anything has no place in the garage. whoopady damn doo it has 80 hp per litre! its only a 2 litre engine! dammit! a radio controlled airplane makes 1100 hp per litre...maybe nissan should have dropped that in the skyline to impress people with your logic! now someone tell me what is better...160 hp or 400 hp? that's a pretty dumb question right? of course the 400 hp...you can have your 160 hp, 2 litre...i'll stick with my orange chrysler big block (if you don't know why it's orange, may the pistons of your car suddenly seize)<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. Impressive for 1969, even back then way ahead of americans and doing stuff that only jaguar and others were doing !

    I'd give my eye teeth for one of these as a collectors piece!

    <!-- Signature -->
     
  3. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    you think that is impresive... take a look at the alfa GTA! it has something like 125 bhp per liter and it was from 67!<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    80hp per liter in 69 was nothing, Ferraris, Porsches, Alfas and even Lambos were making closer to 100hp per liter in those days, with some even making more than 100
     
  5. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!


    You cant really compare. Ferrari's and Porsche's and Lambo to a Little Dinky Nissan. even if its a skyline. <!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    So whats your guys point. A good racing motor makes 200hp per litre.
     
  7. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    you know what is funny, henry ford made a dohc inine four cyl in the 20's, and produced it
     
  8. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    *sigh*....you guys....i'm loss for words....just give it break
     
  9. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    hahaha benz had a 736hp car in 1937
     
  10. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    yeah horsepower per liter does not really mean anything. guys with cars with less horsepower overall like to throw that in your face.
     
  11. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Sinister</i>
    <b>
    You cant really compare. Ferrari's and Porsche's and Lambo to a Little Dinky Nissan. even if its a skyline. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->


    good one, that is true but this is probably in my opinion the best Skyline besides an R32. Sure the R33 R34 R32 and probably R31 and R30 are quicker but this is a classic.<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    hp is power hp/per liter is skill
     
  13. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    skill my ass, hp/l only matters if you are in a displacement limited competition,it doesnt improve gas mileage, make a car easier to maintain, sure as hell doesnt give it more torque, so basically hp/l for allmost everyone is just a cop out for saying my car doest have as much hp as your
     
  14. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from LithiumProphet</i>
    <b>hahaha benz had a 736hp car in 1937</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    true, the silver bullets (which is what i assume you're referring to) friggin ROKKED. dunno if they necessarily count, since the equivalent today would be somethin as exotic as like Breedlove's rocket-car out on the salt-flats ..seeing as they were used considerably for land-speed records back in the day. <!-- Signature -->
     
  15. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    Not to sound like a smart ass or anything but don't you mean silver arrows. I believe a silver bullet is a can of Coors.
     
  16. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    Maybe back in the day this was a nice car, but now, it sucks. ok so there was a lot of technology in this car back in the day, but now it means nothing. I would say that i would prefer to have a 69 camaro over a 69 skyline. It's ugly
     
  17. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    HP/Liter doesn't mean anything. A John Deere lawnmower makes 240 hp/liter. Whanna argue?

    Due to the exponential nature of power production, when you are producing higher amounts of horsepower, the output needed to produce that horsepower is squared. Also, displacement is merely a measure of the amount of air/gas mixture an engine can displace in four strokes.

    Therefore, when dealing with a piece-of-shit 160-horsepower motor like this, you can say "Look!! 80 hp/liter!!" all you want; it'd take 4 times the output to produce 320 horsepower (or the approximate output of a 1969 Z28). Since the Z-28 has more than half the specific output needed to make 160 horsepower (more than 40 hp/liter), I guess the Chevy 302 is a better engine, and since it was a major Trans-Am contender for the third year in a row by the time this car came out, I guess that gives it a "richer racing history," as well.

    But those front mounted side-view mirrors are, well - unconventional. Cheers to Nissan for... "innovation," I guess?
     
  18. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BigWillman</i>
    <b>you people make me laugh so hard...hp per litre is such a joke and anyone who puts stock in it as some sort of measurement of anything has no place in the garage. whoopady damn doo it has 80 hp per litre! its only a 2 litre engine! dammit! a radio controlled airplane makes 1100 hp per litre...maybe nissan should have dropped that in the skyline to impress people with your logic! now someone tell me what is better...160 hp or 400 hp? that's a pretty dumb question right? of course the 400 hp...you can have your 160 hp, 2 litre...i'll stick with my orange chrysler big block (if you don't know why it's orange, may the pistons of your car suddenly seize)</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    OK, lets follow your logic. One engine has 5.7 liters, the other, 3.0. Gee, by your reasoning it sounds like theres no contest right? Well, no, not really, yeah not at all. Hmm, cause the second engine has 257hp/L, and your big-block has 55 hp per liter. Sure the first engine is a F1 engine, but I needed an extreme example. By the way, my 84' NA 2.0 liter engine puts out 55hp/L. So effectively, my engine has the same efficiency, it just happens to have 4 cylinders and 1/3 the displacement. hp/L is like measuring the percent body fat on an individual. One guy may be able to bench 300, but he may also way 300lbs. Thats not as impressive as the 180lber who can also bench 300.
     
  19. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from michaelmanGT</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BigWillman</i>
    <b>you people make me laugh so hard...hp per litre is such a joke and anyone who puts stock in it as some sort of measurement of anything has no place in the garage. whoopady damn doo it has 80 hp per litre! its only a 2 litre engine! dammit! a radio controlled airplane makes 1100 hp per litre...maybe nissan should have dropped that in the skyline to impress people with your logic! now someone tell me what is better...160 hp or 400 hp? that's a pretty dumb question right? of course the 400 hp...you can have your 160 hp, 2 litre...i'll stick with my orange chrysler big block (if you don't know why it's orange, may the pistons of your car suddenly seize)</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    OK, lets follow your logic. One engine has 5.7 liters, the other, 3.0. Gee, by your reasoning it sounds like theres no contest right? Well, no, not really, yeah not at all. Hmm, cause the second engine has 257hp/L, and your big-block has 55 hp per liter. Sure the first engine is a F1 engine, but I needed an extreme example. By the way, my 84' NA 2.0 liter engine puts out 55hp/L. So effectively, my engine has the same efficiency, it just happens to have 4 cylinders and 1/3 the displacement. hp/L is like measuring the percent body fat on an individual. One guy may be able to bench 300, but he may also way 300lbs. Thats not as impressive as the 180lber who can also bench 300.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    But the 5.7 liter is capable of much more than the 3.0 and would also be more reliable.
     
  20. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from bigrob</i>
    <b>skill my ass, hp/l only matters if you are in a displacement limited competition,it doesnt improve gas mileage, make a car easier to maintain, sure as hell doesnt give it more torque, so basically hp/l for allmost everyone is just a cop out for saying my car doest have as much hp as your</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->right, only in displacement limited competition it matters.

    And to anyone saying that DOHC was advanced for the time, it has been around for a long time. Ford had a 427 DOHC around the same time. And it was tunable past 1000hp<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    Dude, first off, displacement is measured from one stroke. Stroke X Bore X # of cylinders, everyone knows that so already you don't seem too knowledgable. I've never heard of the exponetial nature of power production either. And the whole mirror thing, they actually give a better view when they're down there, yeah they're ugly, but I place function over form.
     
  22. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    Was it way ahead of american cars because it was slower, or because it's uglier?
     
  23. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    In the end it is the absolute numbers that matter. I think more important than the HP/L ratio is the Power/Weight ratio. Some people would still argue that american cars are heavy but I'd rather have a hemi cuda than an NSX.

    Respect goes out to Nissan for existing before I was born.
     
  24. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    was'nt this the basis for the Datsun 510?
     
  25. Re: 80bhp per litre in DOHC in 1969!!!

    this car wasnt a nice car back in the day, if you pulled up to a stop light in this next to a chevelle or gto or cuda or almost ne american car u would be laughed at, not trying to argue, just tryin to inform
     

Share This Page