Re: a masterpiece of engineering. american cars suck

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by BMW Fan 356, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. #151 Guibo, Dec 10, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    That's the problem. You don't care, so of course, you don't know. You don't know why the Viper even exists, that much is clear.

    Live rear axles? What does that have to do with the Viper and Corvette? Anything? Nothing. Thanks for bringing up yet another lame remark.

    "Your cars are cheap because your government taxes imports so much, its not our fault."

    And yet even in the UK, a Z06 isn't far off the price (and pace) of a Tuscan S. Care to guess which one will make it to 100K without a major rebuild?

    "let me guess, a Viper can beat an F355 around a track because its got 9% more hp/ton, 68% more lbft/ton and 26% wider tires, is that why its faster?"

    And where do you suppose this advantage in power to weight and torque to weight comes from? Could it be that tank-sized pushrod 2 valve per cylinder engine? LOL. Uh, what about mid-engine dynamics? What about ABS brakes? What about decades of Formula One know-how? Sure the Viper's tires are large, but that's because it was designed with them in mind in the first place. Care to discuss power to weight of that Diablo VT against the Viper?
    BFD. Ferrari had every opportunity to outfit their car with huge tires, but aha!...the Viper wasn't even their performance target in the first place now was it. Deja vu?

    "A Z06 has 5% more hp/ton, 6% more lbft/ton than a 996t, is that partly the reason for anything do u think?"

    And it gets better fuel economy to boot. Hahaha. Seriously. The Z06 has worse weight distribution, whereas Porsche's is nearly IDEAL. All that weight in the back for awesome launches w/o wheelspin, all that weight in back for phenomenal braking. AWD, so you can lay down the throttle in mid-term without fear of the back end coming round, as you would on a powerful RWD car. Hundreds of development laps on the famed Nurburgring circuit. 5 and 6 %? Ha.

    "Anyway, check this out, R&T slalom results: 996t 67.8mph, Z06 67.5mph, 360M 67.4mph, Murcielago 65.7mph, Cobra R 63.8mph, GTS 63.6mph. Oh Dear."

    Was that a head to head slalom comparison? Were all cars on hand at the same time? I've a slalom test of a Viper ACR against the 996TT, Z06, and 360 Modena. It beat them all. It also beat all except the Cobra R on the skidpad. Do you doubt me? Go ahead. Say it.
    Besides, you're comparing cars that are newer, considering the GTS came out around '96. What's this? R&T tests the new SRT-10 and gets...68.6 mph. Oh dear. In a convertible, no less.

    "A Viper beat an NSX, holy shit what a shocker, nothing to do with 2.5 TIMES bigger engine i take it."

    Thank you for acknowledging the effectiveness of a huge, crude engine mounted in the nose. It can cancel out ABS, mid-engine placement, years of Formula One experience, and hundreds of laps at the 'Ring. Yes, the NSX tested there too.

    "Check out BrownDoggie's list of the Speed GT challenge thing this year, 996ts 1st & 2nd, followed by an M3 and an NSX. Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

    Check out the results of Open Track Challenge. Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it. LOL, I suppose a mid-engine SUPERCHARGED NSX should at least be as quick around a track as a Corvette.

    Show me proof 350 was the target, as you specifically stated it was.

    "Ruf IS a manufacturer in its own right, sorry about that."

    By legal technicality, yes. By common sense (sorry if you feel deficient in this category), no. If you really think it's a manufacturer, you can take it up with Jim Wald in this discussion. I'm sure he'd be thrilled to discuss it with you:

    Cd of a Corvette Coupe is 0.29. That should get you started.

    "So the Zak did 277kph? seems the page that says 270 is wrong then, hmmm could the same go for the wild-guess time of 3.0?"

    What is that, 2.6% difference? 4 mph, big whoop. Anyway, you said the time of 3.0 was impossible. You provided no proof to refute it. 277 kmh is quite a bit different from 339 kmh, wouldn't you say? You claimed 339 kmh. Contrary to what's going on inside your noggin, the 277 kmh figure backs up my theory that that Viper was FAR from 800 horses, as you claimed (and which I refuted via at least 2 websites).

    "I searched around a bit and found a site saying the 1000TT had 1175hp, and yet u show me a chart peaking at 900?...neither prove its existence."

    This proves its existence:

    The fact that the car showed up for the largest gathering of Viper owners in the States (Viper Owners Invitational) proves its existence. The fact that you so vehemently DENY its existence with absolute SHIT to support it proves your ignorance. And to guess that a Supra made those dyno #'s? Did you not freakin' LOOK at the comparison of peak power numbers in that other thread?
    900 is RWHP. Not net/crank. Factor in 13% driveline loss, and you'll have the figure.

    Strain gauges. You're the engineering student. Why don't you tell us how they work and why they're not used in most car testing, aside from the fact that standard dyno's are plentiful and fully sufficient for most production cars? I thought you were going to tell us why they don't work.

    Duration on the dyno doesn't mean squat. We were comparing given peak power numbers. Bringing durability into the equation only admits your defeat.

    "What issue/page is that dragster article on?..."about 7000hp" isnt quite 9300, which u so eagerly used to calculate 1144hp/litre in order to beat my BMW. Seems like dragsters lose yet ANOTHER comparo."

    June, 2000. I eagerly use 9300 because 9300 is printed in the magazine. You do have it don't you? It's amazing what pops up when I expand the boundary of the scanned image. 9300, right there. 8.1 liters, right there. Your figure of 9 liters? Curiously AWOL and wrong, in the context of this comparo.

    Hmmm...right, but where are the mechanical failures exhibited by the Murcielago, the Porsches, the Ferraris, the TVR's, etc? Funny thing about Lambo. They weren't too happy that the world's motoring press wasn't getting the best acceleration times out of the Diablo. So they flew journalists to Italy to demonstrate the then-new VT's true capabilities. Yup, at the hands of Lambo's test driver, it was devastatingly quick. Yup, it went through plenty of clutches. Is that the European quality you're referring to?
  2. Tuscan S 0-60 3.9, 0-100 8.9...Z06 0-60 4.3, 0-100 9.8. The 1/4 times from Autocar were way off. EVO ran the 360hp Tuscan at 12.6 and yet Autocar only managed 12.8 with 390hp whilst getting even better 0-60, 100 and 150 times. Very odd.

    The Vipers power/torque ratios are better because of the bigger engine, yes, its a little unfair comparing 8000cc to 3500cc isnt it?...Le Mans rules wouldnt allow it would they? Pick on someone your own size. A good driver doesnt need ABS anyway.

    996ts lack of wheelspin is due to 4WD, not its weight distribution. Ever seen a 4WD car do a burnout?...i havent

    When did R&T get 68.6mph out of the SRT-10?

    250% more displacement cancels out ABS and mid-engined handling?'d never guess would u?

    and what about a little BMW M3 beating those Corvettes?

    for the last time, the Olds target was "highest speed". The target may aswell have been 750mph, it doesnt matter, the fact is it only reached 280mph, which means it didnt have 1270hp.

    Ruf is a manufacturer, end of argument.

    The Cd is useless without frontal area im afraid, if u hang on a minute i'll show u what i did in my Engineering Analysis lecture today (instead of listening, of course)...quite interesting

    a link to a forum does not prove the existence of a 1000TT, show me a site that has official figures, a price and standard equipment and i'll believe u. We are not debating whether street legal Vipers can have 1175hp by the way, merely that anything not mentioned on an official site must by definition not be officially out.

    13% driveline loss does not account for 275hp discrepancy. Two sites have claimed "over 1175hp" and your chart is irrelevant without some proof that it didnt actually come off a powerboat or something like that. An official chart would be nice since u seem to have nothing else to do in your life but research.

    The strain gauge i used last week failed to accurately measure the Young's modulus of a steel bar loaded at both ends with 2kg. The fact that the dragster guys in R&T dont believe 9300 should suggest that it is wrong, "about 7000" is quoted.

    Reliability and build quality are not the same thing. Im talking about trim-fittings, quality of materials used, shut lines etc...NOT its ability to run for 100K miles without a problem. I dont know about your JDPower survey, but Lexus usually gets the best marks in Britains one. Reliable AND well made.
  3. right, here it is, my "incredible" formulae have finally come up with these fascinating numbers. Based purely on time taken to accelerate from 100mph to 150mph, and the vehicles weight.

    Lingenfelter 427TT...950hp
    Aston Martin Vantage 600...571hp
    McLaren F1...562hp
    Lamborghini Murcielago...558hp
    Ferrari 575M...554hp
    Aston Martin Vanquish...532hp (!!!)
    Lingenfelter 427...526hp
    Jaguar XJ220...522hp
    Edonis V12...515hp
    Pagani Zonda C12-S...503hp
    Mercedes SL55 AMG...498hp
    Porsche 911 GT1...495hp
    Ferrari F40...482hp
    Mercedes E55 AMG...477hp
    Ferrari 360M...470hp (!!!)
    Porsche 996 GT2...464hp
    Chevrolet Corvette Z06...433hp
    Bugatti EB110GT...431hp
    Ford Mustang Cobra R...404hp
    BMW Z8...388hp

    Now for the conclusions, the Vanquish and 360M were clearly not production examples when tested by Autocar, the manufacturers must have modified those particular examples to get good test results, for the purpose of this argument we'll call them cheats. The Edonis and EB110 are the only cars to show huge amounts LESS than quoted power, and its no surprise to find theyre both powered by basically the same engine - turbo lag could be blamed for this, theyre both small capacity high-revving engines with little off-boost torque. Some of the cars, most noticeably the Zonda and the F1, also have quite a bit less than expected, this could be due to gearing, as both cars have very high top speeds and therefore lose a bit in acceleration (not much though). Any overall trends can be explained by the fact that my formulae couldnt possible accurately predict power to 2,3% based only on time an weight, gearbox efficiency has been totally overlooked so a "constant" was used. Drag was taken into account. Grip wasnt, coz it doesnt matter.

    Still, not bad are they?...give me another car to do if u want
  4. “Tuscan S…Very odd.”

    Yes, very odd. What does pure maths say about that?
    Anyway, published TVR times are hardly a reliable benchmark, considering the company has been known to provide spiced-up press cars. C&D has driven the Z06 to 60 in 4 flat, with a quarter mile of 12.4. Z06 OWNERS have not only replicated this quarter mile time, they’ve beaten it. Same cannot be said of the TVRs. Z06 owners have dyno’ed their car and the figures match up with GM claims. The same cannot be said of TVRs.

    How exactly does a tank-sized V10 mounted in the nose help rapid, transient handling maneuvers, exactly? Oh yeah. It doesn’t.

    ”996ts lack of wheelspin is due to 4WD, not its weight distribution.”

    I never said 4WD doesn’t play a part, now did I? Learn to pay attention. How much wheelspin does a 996 GT3 get coming out of corner? Not too much, unless you’ve absolutely buried the throttle. Now, do the same with a Viper. Hang on.

    “Ever seen a 4WD car do a burnout?...i haven’t”

    Who cares if you haven't? I have. There are videos of modified Subaru WRX’s, Cossie Escorts, Skylines, etc doing burnouts. Lamborghini driver Mario Fasanetto did it three times in a Diablo VT before the clutch succumbed at the hands of another journalist. I have a link to a Murcielago doing it somewhere…
    C&D on the 996TT:
    “Next time the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty comes up for review, this Porsche needs to be on the table. It pushes the notion of off-the-shelf performance way off the chart. Dropping the clutch at 4000 rpm slams the breech closed on a ballistic launch. The rears spin just a little, shuddering as they slip-stick-slip-stick on the edge of adhesion for the first 50 feet. Then they grip like paint.”

    ”When did R&T get 68.6mph out of the SRT-10?”

    In its Sports & GT special publication. Look it up.

    ”and what about a little BMW M3 beating those Corvettes?”

    Different drivers of different skill level. Motor Trend already did a stock M3 vs. stock Z06 test on a road course (with the Boxster S thrown in). The M3 didn’t win (although it did beat the Boxster S). Excellent car, that M3.
    Besides, didn’t you see the M3 losing to the Z06 (by not an insignificant amount) in the cornering sections of R&T’s handling comparo?

    Fact remains that you can’t back up 350 mph as the target as you’ve claimed.

    Ruf is only a manufacturer by technicality. They are not a manufacturer by common sense (of which you seem to be lacking). Tell me. Do they NOT get their bodies from another manufacturer (Porsche)? Do they not build their engines from existing (Porsche) blocks and heads?
    Lingenfelter is not a manufacturer. End of argument.

    “We are not debating whether street legal Vipers can have 1175hp by the way, merely that anything not mentioned on an official site must by definition not be officially out.”

    …and thus it does not exist? Haha, good one. I can point to an E30 M3 with a transplanted Corvette LS6 engine. It isn’t listed on any official site. No official price is mentioned. Does that mean it does not exist? Nope. Your point has no merit.
    What does your search return for the existence of Hennessey’s Venom 750 (again, unlisted at his website)?

    You want a link to that 1000TT dyno? Simply click on the link under Hennessey’s name. Lazy ass, I swear. If you have any further questions and doubts, you can take it up with him. Or post a message to Jamie Parker, the owner of the car. Prepare to have your ass handed to you on a silver platter.

    1175 hp? That figure is wrong. Could be Hennessey’s estimate when on NOS. Who knows. What I do know is that car has never been tested for those other figures listed, the handling numbers. Proves the car does not exist? Not in the least.

    The fact that the dragster guys found the figure hard to believe does not mean that it’s wrong. Could simply mean they found the figure difficult to comprehend. Again, this is the figure they get from the motion of the car combined with strain gauges attached to drivetrain components. Not a figure from a dyno. In any case, the dragster wins even in your vaunted torque/liter scenario.

    Lexus does well in JD Power rankings over here too. So does Jaguar, but only after Ford’s takeover. But then again, we’re not talking about luxury marques. We’re talking about the Corvette. One does not place well on a JD Power Initial Quality Survey due to engineering that sucks.

  5. if 0-100 and 0-150 are bang on, they must have been done on a different run than the 1/4. If a car achieves its predicted 0-150 time then maths holds. U keep on asking me as if u think performance is anything other than a science.

    Tell Don Panoz that having a big fat front engined car doesnt help handling. Hell, tell Team ORECA and Chevy that their respective GTS-R and C5-R arent designed to handle, ask them how theyve won 5 LM-GTS titles in a row. While your at it ask Ferrari why they replaced the mid-engined 512 with the front-engined 550. Ask McLaren why theyre working on Mercedes' new Vision SLR when its a crappy front-engined design, ditto Aston with their Vanquish. Funny how BMW gets 50:50 weight distribution with not a single mid-engined car in its lineup. FR is just as good as MR. What matters is the polar moment of inertia, which is the mass of each of the components of the car multiplied by the square of the distance between themselves and the half-wheelbase. (Sorry, back to physics again)

    no u havent seen a 4WD car do a burnout. You can get wheelspin, but u cannot sit there warming up the tyres. Ive seen lambo's test driver doing donuts in a yellow VT Roadster before burning out the clutch, thats about it. Ive seen 1000hp Skylines dump their clutch at 7000rpm and scoot off the line like an F16 being steam-catapulted off a carrier, they can NOT do burnouts.

    If the Aero topped out at 280, it didnt have 1270hp. A McLaren F1 with that much power would do 307mph (on "salt rubber"), i should hope something with the silhouette of a sidewinder missile could do better.

    Proton (u might not have heard of them) get their engines and bodies from Mitsubishi (or at least did until recently), tell me, does that make them an independent manufacturer or not?

    if there is no official information, it is not a Hennessey 1000TT, it is a Viper with 900RWHP and a sticker on the back. It is the name that doesnt exist, not the car. If u called your BMW a "Chevrolet M3", i would say it didnt exist, however the car itself still would. Ive found 2 sites saying 1175, what makes u think your sites are right and mine wrong?

    the fact that 9300 wasnt quoted and 7000 was means its wrong. Dyno's can not lie, strain gauges can (as mine did last week)

    what was the torque of the BMW, and what state of tune was it in when that figure was recorded? (i cant remember where u said it). If the dragster wins, do you know WHY it wins?

    by the way, whats the point in ending the Enzo thread when u ask me questions in your last post that i cant answer?...u had some sensible points which i would have explained.
  6. Aha, polar moment of inertia. Let me guess. The Viper has a lower polar moment of inertia than the Ferrari F355/360? Yes? No?
    Panoz played second fiddle to Audi (mid-engined), remember? Can't have your cake and eat it too.
    I never said front-engined is "crappy." You did.

    Burnout. Ah, well of course if you meant burnout in that sense (like what dragsters do at the starting line), then no, I've not seen that kind of burnout. Massive wheelspin with all four wheels churning? Yes. Of course, you said "996ts lack of wheelspin is due to 4WD, not its weight distribution." That's what I'm addressing, the wheelspin.

    Again, no proof that 350 was indeed the target as you specifically stated.

    Proton/Mitsubishi. Well, if Proton engineers have some input into an engine and that is reflected in engines for Mitsubishi and/or Proton, maybe they are manufacturers. If they have input in body design then maybe they are manufacturers. What does this have to do with the discussion? How about nothing. You already brought up Ruf, bla, bla, bla. None of this changes the FACT that Lingenfelter is a TUNER, not a manufacturer. It's not even a manufacturer in that hazy/non-common sense way that Ruf is. Until the day arrives that Linfenfelter provides their own body, chassis, raw engine from their own specs, they are nothing more than a TUNER. They don't even go to the extent that Ruf goes to, in regards to crash certification. Not that that would in any way change the fact that LPE is a TUNER.

    "it is a Viper with 900RWHP and a sticker on the back"

    Thank you for proving that you are wrong. The Viper was tuned by whom? Hennessey. How much horsepower does it have? 900RWHP. Is it listed on Hennessey's website? No. Does that mean that one could conceivably order a car with even more power than Hennessey's top of the line 800TT? YES! And the same applies to LPE. THAT was the gist of the discussion. If you don't think the 1000TT exists, go ahead and post that up on that forum. I'd love to hear Hennessey's response. NONE of what you're saying refutes the fact that this Viper, tuned by Hennessey, makes roughly 1000 horses, and carries the sticker, "1000TT" as you've said.
    If I showed you an article referring to a Venom 750 by name, would that make it official enough for you?
    My god, man. When you were shown the dyno chart, you claimed it belonged to a Supra (LOL!). When proven wrong, you didn't even acknowledge it. You claimed the dyno came from a boat engine, yet when given the link to the dyno chart, you didn't even acknowledge your error. When will common sense start to enter your mind? Ever?

    How do I know the 1175 hp figure on your site is wrong? I've seen the owner of that 1000TT post up the very same chart when it was first made public. I ask you again: DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK WITH THE OWNER?

    Strain gauges can lie. Especially if they're set up by someone who confesses to not knowing how the hell they work. Who knows. Operator error? (No, that would be IMPOSSIBLE, wouldn't it?)

    The BMW 1.5-liter turbocharged F1 engine was rated at 786 lb/ft. Race trim was listed at 900 hp. Qualifying trim was 1050.

    "by the way, whats the point in ending the Enzo thread when u ask me questions in your last post that i cant answer?...u had some sensible points which i would have explained."

    Would have explained? I've repeatedly asked some of those questions, and each time you failed to answer them. What's the point of continuing a thread when a participant ignores questions? And when two people other than the moderator agree that it should be ended? Oh wait, there was a third person.
    "f*ck it, i dont care, end the thread"
    How that thread went even that far is beyond me. This one is in the same position.

  7. i dont have any figures for PMI. Perhaps u can tell me, looking at the cars, compare where the engine, transmission, cabin and fuel tank (major masses) are in relation to the half-wheelbase, whichever car has them nearer will have the lower PMI. Remember that weights in the front do NOT cancel out weights in the back, they add to eachother and make it worse.

    Panoz have beaten Audi on several occasions in the ALMS, with a much smaller budget, remember?...I take it u wont dispute the packaging of the GTS-R, C5-R and 550 GT, all of which are there-or-there-abouts with the S7-R in terms of performance (well maybe not the Viper these days)

    If LPE is indeed a tuner and hence the 427TT is not a production car, as far as you're concerned of what importance is the 0-60 in 1.97 time?...irrelevant?...its not the fastest production car in the world, not the fastest street-legal car in the world, so what is it? (i know this isnt in the argument, im just wondering where u stand)

    Is the Hennessey 1000TT an official package like the 800TT or is it like the sledgehammer, a custom 1-off (or 3-off, however many have been made)?...i never said anything about the 750R, feel free to tell me about it

    My strain gauge was set up by my instructor, not i

    BMWs figure of 786lbft was recorded at the same state of tune as the 900hp race engine then? Which means your qual figure of 1050 would yield maybe 850lbft or more, which means my figure of 1400 could yield well over 950lbft, which is more lbft/litre than the dragster. Im going home this weekend so i'll try and find u the interview in Motorsport magazine about it, and the story in my official history of BMW book (which, helpfully, is in German)

    Now, your questions, u ask so god damn many that i dont have time to answer every single minor technicality, i answer those which are of some interest to me. I have repeatedly said my formulae are non-linear functions which lead to errors at the extremes, i was only 3% off on the R6 CR thing. A racebike CAN get higher than 12.4, ive seen Formula 3000 engines go as high as 13.6 (never seen higher than that) but dont forget until last year or so, racebikes were 2-stroke and therefore cannot be compared on any grounds. U got any figures for the new 4-stroke 1-litre GP bikes?

    How can roadbikes use such high CRs?...any engine can use a high CR if its strong enough, the new TVR T440R uses something like 12.5, the Spyker something similar, various japanese 4-cyl engines are in the high 11s. It depends greatly on the quality of fuel being used, the RON of the fuel is connected to the max CR to be used, to avoid detonation...Heres some graphs

    of the 300SL, the Corvette had optional fuel-inj the day it came out did it?...y wasnt it standard?...the 300SL was the first production car to have fuel injection, there was no mention of a 300SLR was there?

    u said the Zak was geared only to reach 170mph, which would mean it had short gears for good acceleration. This is clearly wrong purely based on the fact that "geared only to reach 170mph" means geared max of 170. The Zak was certainly OVER geared, so that 170mph was probably something like 4000rpm in top, or less, meaning that the car had long gears, and poor acceleration, which refuted your claim that gearing would help in 0-60. As far as you were concerned, short gears would mean the Zak would need to change into 2nd before 60, which is wrong.

    At one point the Zak had 800hp, i thought that it would still have 800hp (probably coz i read it in Autocar) and so would be able to reach over 200mph on the main straight past the castle, just as 650hp Porsche 956s reached over 200mph in the early 80s. You got any figures for the old 800hp Zak which says anything other than "over 200mph" for top speed to prove me wrong?...u told me it had 450hp AFTER i said 210mph, remember?
  8. Does the spec sheet for the Zakspeed Viper say anything about “geared max?” No. Does it say anything about theoretical top speeds achieved in a vacuum, free of drag? Nope. It mentions no such thing. That’s a specific term that YOU brought up. You should already know I was talking about REAL WORLD measured top speeds, because that’s all the specs were referring to. Nothing more. Why does the topic even come up if the spec sheet made not a peep of it? Oh that’s right. YOU brought it up. You’re picking nits that aren’t even there.
    Suppose a Viper (or any car for that matter) is supplied with a 3.07:1 final drive ratio. (3.07:1 being just a hypothetical number, you can use any number you want). And when tested on a track, it can go no futher than 193 mph (again, it doesn’t have to be that number; just an example). Would I be wrong in saying, “That Viper was geared for a maximum (in this case measured, since we are on a track and not in a vaccum, after all) speed of 193 mph”? Another way of saying this would be, “With this gearing, that Viper’s maximum speed was 193 mph.” Would anyone be WRONG in saying this? Hardly. The German word used in that Zakspeed spec sheet matches up with the word used by Auto Motor und Sport to show the various top speeds they achieve with various cars. It’s already UNDERSTOOD by the reader that Auto Motor und Sport are NOT talking about theoretical drag-free top speeds. Yet, why do you make the error of assuming that’s what I meant?
    Suppose you put in a 3.23:1 final drive, or a 4.11:1 for that matter, on that Viper. What should the affect be on 0-60? What should the affect be on top speed? All else being equal of course (same weight, same transmission, same drag, same pure slick racing tires, same conditions, etc.).

    I never said the 427TT was a production car. It’s quite obviously a tuned car. Street legal? I’ll have to look for that article again. Why would it not be street legal?

    I don’t have the article on that BMW F1 car right in front of me, I’ll see if it says anything in the text regarding a variation in torque.
    Like I asked before, what’s the difference in power between the Brabham-BMW and the Benetton-BMW engines? Differences in hp?

    CR’s. Right, but you still haven’t explained how those piddly street motorbike engines can run such high CR’s even compared with the ultra-exotic street (and even race) cars.

    Why wasn’t fuel injection standard? Let me guess. The point about the Corvette is to spend as much money as one possibly can? Didn’t think so.

    “u told me it had 450hp AFTER i said 210mph, remember?”

    What difference does it make if it was AFTER? You said it hit 210+ mph and had 800 hp. You were wrong. Simply admit it and move on.

  9. The spec sheet just says 270, it was you who was talking about the gearing of the car. Your hypothetical car, (which couldnt possibly be a GTS by any chance could it?) has a drag max of 193mph, in 5th gear i presume, as 6th is for space travel or something. If a car is overgeared, its top speed is independent of this gearing, as it is the drag which limits its speed. If a car is undergeared, its top speed is independent of drag, as the gears/rev limit stop the car getting near its drag max. Racecars are overgeared, to avoid sitting on the rev limiter and to allow slipstreaming. Rally cars are undergeared since they rarely venture past 120mph.

    the figure of 270kph isnt its drag max or its geared max, so no further comments can be made as to what the gearing is like, based on this number.

    Whether a 427TT is street-legal or not isnt the point. Its not the fastest street-legal car in the world as there are daily drivers running in the 7s & 8s according to BrownDoggie (hmmm, drag slicks arent street legal over here, only rain tyres are allowed)

    i only have figures for the Brabham-BMW. Where are u going with this?

    On average, very high performance street bikes have a CR no higher than similarly very high performance supercars (mid 12s). Bikes dont have the luxury of throwing another litre on top of the displacement so they are FORCED to up the CR, thats all they can do. Car companies would rather have say, 11:1 and a slightly bigger engine than 13:1 and the same size.

    My graphs show that power gain tails off with v.high CRs, due to the energy lost in compressing the charge, which doesnt want to be compressed to 15 times its initial pressure, it would rather be compressed to 10 times its initial pressure. High CR also leads to high temperature which leads to detonation.

    anything else?
  10. More about gearing in awhile.

    "Whether a 427TT is street-legal or not isnt the point. Its not the fastest street-legal car in the world as there are daily drivers running in the 7s & 8s according to BrownDoggie (hmmm, drag slicks arent street legal over here, only rain tyres are allowed)"

    What makes you think my point was about the fastest street-legal car in the world? My point was: 427TT vs. GT90, remember? Hp/l? Torque/liter? Ring any bells? Being street-legal is merely icing on the cake.
    The 427TT wasn't tested on drag slicks. They were fully street legal, semi-slick, treaded DOT-approved tires. I'd be curious what the car might do on pure racing drag slicks.

    I have a book with great photos (some old, some current) by Rainer W. Schlegelmilch, published with the official support of BMW, and featuring many of the historic vehicles within its own collection. In the section that covers Nelson Piquet's Brabham-BMW BT52, it says the BMW dyno only read to 1280. Therefore, your 1400 figure (later revised to 1450) is being called into question.

    What's the CR on a Carrera GT again?

    Right, well it's important to note that the Viper is already comfortably close enough to your 10:1 preference, isn't it? What's the point in going to 15:1 (especially when you've already got GM's top of the line Corvette in your rear-view mirror)? It's also important to note that while 12-13:1 is nice in an Audi R8 or Viper GTS-R that might spend, what, 1% of its entire life stationary and idling, it's quite another thing to have 12-13:1 in a Viper that's expected to idle down to 700-800 rpm. In bumper to bumper stop and go gridlock traffic. In 105-degree weather. How about in the town of Las Vegas or Denver in the summer?
    Just curious, is (US) 92 octane (the highest I can currently get at the pump in my area) roughly equivalent to Shell Optimax (98 RON)?
  11. so the high-boost 427TT beats the lower boost GT90? clap clap. Imagine what Lingenfelter could get out of the GT90 engine if they tuned it, more than 1000 thats for sure.

    more to the point i'd be curious what the 427TT could do on its normal street tires, so that we could sensibly compare it to other cars. Low 3s to 60, maybe 6 flat to 100 are my guesses. Mid 10s in the 1/4?

    my figure of 1400 (the scale, not the power) was taken from the Motorsport interview, which i'll post soon. 1450 was the guess at max power. (thats a good book uve got there, ive got the BMW and the similar, but twice the size, Mercedes version)

    the CR of the Carrera GT hasnt been announced yet. Low 11 i think

    my 10:1 isnt a preference, i just used 10 & 15 as two numbers to the nearest 5 to make my point. 11:1 is a good start if u want a decent amount of torque from your engine. 12 to 13:1 in an R8?...nope try 9:1, its twin-turbo remember? Honda S2000s seem to be reliable enough with 11.7:1. They dont break down in traffic or hot weather do they?...They also seem to run on your low-quality fuel with perhaps only a small torque loss over the jap version, which runs on the far superior (even compared to europe) fuel supplied over there, (100 RON+).
  12. “so the high-boost 427TT beats the lower boost GT90? clap clap. Imagine what Lingenfelter could get out of the GT90 engine if they tuned it, more than 1000 thats for sure.”

    Imagine what Lingenfelter could get out of the 427TT if he dumped $700K-5M into it. As the old saying goes: "Horsepower costs money. How fast do you want to go?"

    ”more to the point i'd be curious what the 427TT could do on its normal street tires, so that we could sensibly compare it to other cars. Low 3s to 60, maybe 6 flat to 100 are my guesses. Mid 10s in the 1/4?”

    Sounds about right. But there’s really no point in testing a super-tuned car on its stock-spec tires, particularly when those stock tires are runflat tires which are already so compromised for performance driving anyway. One could still opt for some middle ground (say, auto-X or roadracing-spec tires) and still increase traction over stock without any questions of street legality.

    ”the CR of the Carrera GT hasnt been announced yet. Low 11 i think”

    Exactly. So, lower than its considerably more mundane stablemate, the 996 GT3. Ditto the S2000 (11.7:1), which is higher than its stablemate, the NSX. Hell, the S2000’s is even higher than the McLaren F1 LM’s, which produces considerably more torque per liter than the S2000. Odd? And as labor- and materials- intensive as the S2000’s engine is, it’s got to pale in comparison to the F1. The Ferrari Enzo’s is right on par with its smaller sibing, the 360 Modena. However, its pricetag (at nearly 4X’s as much) is not. I’m going to guess a large part of that difference went into the design and development of the engine, no? BMW M5, 11.0:1 vs. 11.5:1 for its smaller M3 sibling.
    Pagani Zonda S, 10.0:1. Murcielago, 10.7:1. These are the cream of the crop of today’s street legal very limited production supercars. Yet none of them approaches the 12.4:1 delivered by a mass produced common market superbike. Hell, the Zonda is not too far off the Viper.

    My bad on the R8, was thinking of the V12 LMR. 100+ and 2.

    Nope, the S2000 doesn’t run too badly, and doesn’t overheat. But then again, it doesn’t face the cooling issues inherent in an 8.0-liter V10, now does it? All I’m saying is that what works for the S2000 doesn’t necessarily work for the Viper and vice versa. They have their goals to go for and it’s up to the engineers to decide where the compromises lie.
  13. i was thinking street tyres for the 427TT so that we could compare it to other cars, all of which are tested on their factory fitted tyres usually. Run-flats arent so bad, the Veyron is gonna use them apparently (at least, the show car had them) - 400kph and run-flat at the same time, i'd like to know how

    i'd hardly call a 996 GT3 mundane by any stretch of the imagination, its basically a race engine (hence the designation). Revs to what, 7800rpm? The NSXs low CR is due to the 280hp thing in Japan, if u had a 3200cc engine with a high CR, it would reach 280hp by about 6500rpm, Honda wanted a more revvy engine to suit the image of the car, so used a low CR and max revs of 8000 (im only guessing here, seems like the only explanation really). With the M5, 11:1 really is enough, although its a shame they didnt crank it up a notch for the Z8, and maybe had a more racey exhaust on it. The F1, just shows how wrong formulae can be when u spend half the 3rd-world global debt on engine design. If they dont get their power from CR, they must get it from amazing air-flow design and no friction. Another example is the similarly extreme CLK-GTR. The Zonda is actually quite similar in concept to the Viper, big slow revving monster that just gets on with the job. Still well and truly beats the Viper from 1-litre less and sounds 10 times better.

    It seems like we're running out of things to argue about...
  14. "i'd hardly call a 996 GT3 mundane by any stretch of the imagination, its basically a race engine (hence the designation). "

    And so was the Carrera GT's, remember? Didn't say the GT3 was mundane, I said "considerably more mundane" as it relates to the Carrera GT.

    "The NSXs low CR is due to the 280hp thing in Japan."

    The 280hp thing doesn't make sense, considering 320-hp Supras reached our shores (and 350-ish hp V-Spec Skylines made it to others).

    "With the M5, 11:1 really is enough..."

    Aha, there's that word again. "Enough." Fully evident in the fact that the M5 outran its market segment competitors for some 4 years, and is only being surpassed just now.
    So, what's the relationship between CR as it relates to large and small engines? Let's assume similar states of tune, and to keep things simple, we'll use the M3/M5 example. Is it easier for the larger engine to accomodate high CR, or is it easier for the smaller engine to accomodate high CR?

    "The F1, just shows how wrong formulae can be when u spend half the 3rd-world global debt on engine design."

    Exactly. Which is what I've been trying to say. The end-result specific output of an engine is greatly affected by many variables: How large is it going to be? How much money do you want to invest in R&D to get a reliable, warrantable engine? And there are probably many more things to take into consideration, but in the end, all those who are involved have to find that sliding scale, a balance of all of those things. And the thing that might ultimately decide how well they execute the plan is: what kind of funding do we have up front? It's one thing for Gordon Murrary to set out to build the world's most powerful N/A large-displacement engine in what is supposed to be the ultimate driver's roadcar. In other words, this is the car that will subjugate ALL other roadcars (regardless of country of origin) that have come before it, all that were being built concurrently, and (as a byproduct) will remain uncontested for many years to come. Not exactly a modest undertaking, and with that in mind (and the funding to go with it), he can afford to make fewer compromises.
    On the other hand, the Viper team had to make many more compromises, particularly in the area of funding (which as it turns out leads to further compromises in other areas). Dodge was in a crap situation at the time, with nothing more than its bread and butter lineup of sedans, trucks, and minivans to support it. Any flight of whimsy into a fairyland sports car world (with a low-volume, relatively high-cost, handbuilt vehicle totally alien to established Dodge manufacturing processes) was simply out of the question to corporate bean counters who would rather do nothing to compromise the sustenance provided by the bread and butter lineup. Had orders not poured in at the concept car's unveiling in '89, the project would've been dead. Lee Iaccoca had not the stomach for it, and was only finally swayed to give the green light when Bob Lutz brought Carroll Shelby on board.

    "The Zonda is actually quite similar in concept to the Viper, big slow revving monster that just gets on with the job. Still well and truly beats the Viper from 1-litre less and sounds 10 times better."

    ...and costs how much again? Not even remotely in the same ballpark. It's sort of expected that if you have a car that sells for more than 4 times as much as another, with an engine further massaged from an already massaged AMG unit, it should be capable of great things, as it is. Particularly when your lineup is as lean and as focused as Pagani's.
    Of the then-developing Murcielago (with huge funding from VW Group) Horacio Pagani said, "If the new Diablo isn't as good as I hope, it will prove that money alone does not guarantee a great car." True. But money certainly doesn't hurt, and it allows you some leeway, some ability to push back those compromises that you otherwise wouldn't have. Fortunately (and not too coincidentally), the Murcielago turned out to be something of a masterpiece.
    Regarding the sound, that is purely subjective and no doubt easily remedied to some extent by the fitment of aftermarket exhaust. Depends on what kind of sound you like. Having not heard either one, I couldn't say for sure. All I do know is that the Zonda was DQ'ed from Autocar's Best Driver's Car shootout by fault of its loud exhaust which exceeded the allowable limit at Goodwood. Louder at 2500 rpm than the Murcielago was at 7500 rpm (peak power). Goodness.

    Regarding your Motorsport interview, who was the subject speaking? I've just watched a videotape my brother gave me (I don't get Speedvision/Speed TV here). It deals with the history of BMW M. In it, former BMW team driver Marc Surer gives insight on the power of the Brabham-BMW BT52:
    "And I once asked Paul Rosche, our chief engineer, how much hp I had just now out there. And he said, 'I don't know because our dyno ends up @ 1200 hp, but it was at the end, so it must have been more.'"

    Overheard at the AtlasF1 forum:
    "The highest kind of believable figure that I recall hearing - without trawling through reams of notes and team reports etc to check - was 1340bhp from one of BMW's finest, and that was merely extrapolated by Paul Rosche, the chief engineer, by extending the power curve beyond the final point at which they could measure it [Ed.-most likely the 1280 figure given in the book], and calculating from the lap times returned and gear-chart speeds etc.

    At Monza Nelson Piquet's Brabham-BMW ran with direct water sprays onto the intercooler matrices, the turbo wastegate blanked off, the merest fuel load and Nelson freshly insulted and angry beyond words, with steam coming out of his ears. Then with great ceremony Parl Rosche would summon forward one of his engine fitters who would open a small padded box, from which he would take the ultimate engine management chip. Paul announced to Gordon Murray that 'It is time to use the Hitler Prom' - the chip was installed, Piquet told that he was incapable of driving his way out of a paper bag, and away he went into final qualifying, to do 220mph across the timing line on acceleration away from the 180-degree Parabolica"
    ---Doug Nye

    "In Doug Nye's History of the GP car 1966-1985, on pg 144, Barnard admits to having around 750bhp in race tune. The first TAG turbo had 600bhp on the dyno according to Porsche. The BMW turbo engine of 1984 was reckoned to be about 850bhp, maybe more. In 1985, apparently 1270bhp was realized on the Porsche dynos. In races some of the speeds reached at Monza and Paul Ricard indicate at least 1100 bhp (pg 149). "

    There are some passages stating that advances in engine management systems allowed for more precise, more reliable control high-boost running. Continuing on...

    "As for BMW, here is what the authorized company history says about the turbo engines of 1985:

    At Monza there was open talk for the first time of the magic 1,000 bhp produced by the Munich four-cylinder, but Piquet must have had considerably more power to take him to second on the grid in practice. On its test bed BMW Motorsport was able to run the engine with a maximum boost pressure of 5.1 bar, giving a reading of 1,065 bhp. The manometer in the cockpit of the Brabham BT54 went up to 5.5 bar, and Roland Ast reported to Paul Rosche from his readings of the memory system in the on-board computer that the boost went “right to the stops”. Thus if Nelson Piquet required more power he simply turned his “steam wheel” and had perhaps more than 1,200 bhp in the rear of his Brabham for a special occasion. Nevertheless his paltry account for the remaining five races included only two second-fastest times in practice, a second-place finish at Monza and a fifth place at Spa.

    BMW prepared engines that ranged between two extremes. Peak performance was given by the practice engines, for which special Kugelfischer injection pumps were made with a diameter of 10 mm instead of the previous 8œ and 9 mm with a 4 mm stroke. Much softer race characteristics were needed for narrow street circuits like Monaco and Detroit. For the first time in 1985 Paul Rosche was able to meet the latter requirement with engines that had more punch at low revs and earlier onset of turbo assist. "
    ---Karl Ludvigsen, Atlas F1 writer

    The race/qualifying figures of 900/1050 I gave are for the Benetton-BMW B185, tested by R&T with Teo Fabi at the wheel. Seeing how most magazines (R&T included) only give max figures (peak power, peak torque, etc.), it would make sense that the 786 lb/ft figure is the high end, not the low end.
  15. well, here it is, the Paul Rosche interview - Motorsport magazine, January '01, Page 36-42 (unfortunately my scanner software is elsewhere so you're just gonna have to take my word for it, unless u wanna wait til January to read it)

    "Suddenly the detonation was gone. We could increase the boost pressure, and the power, without problems. The maximum boost pressure we saw on the dyno was 5.6 bar absolute, at which the engine was developing more than 1400 horsepower. It was maybe 1420 or 1450 horsepower, we really don't know because we couldn't measure it - our dyno only went up to 1400."

    "Maximum power was strictly for qualifying, though, only for one or two laps. In the race we ran about 1000 horsepower. This was one of the reasons we won the championship in 1983."

    I would imagine Brabham, the works team, would have slightly better engines than the customer Benetton team. All R&D was for the Brabham team, alongside Gordon Murray, technical director.

    I'd love to see a dyno chart of an early 80s turbo F1 motor, they probably had a torque curve shaped like the Eiffel tower, i imagine u would have to floor the throttle mid-corner to make sure the power was there by the time u got to the straightaway.
  16. #166 Guibo, Dec 14, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  17. well, maybe they got a new dyno, what once read only to 1280 now reads to 1400.

    If theyre both Paul Rosche, which im sure they are, it only makes sense to take the highest figure, lets call it an even 1400hp.

    This is a topic which interests me greatly, u couldnt scan in or post up the full spec of the Benetton tested in R&T, performance figures too?
  18. america likes pickups, who buys pickups?.

    Have a look at the Lingenfelter AWD Sonoma tested by Car and Driver on street tires. It has a 700 Hp 427TT LS1. It ran 0-60 in 2.8 and 1/4 in 10.6.

    I also drive a pick up. While its not as nimble as an s2000, it has had a few modifications. In fact I am modeling it after the Silverado SS concept (have a look, it pretty) except black.

    As for the C5-R times 0-60, it was actually estimated in R&T. Thats what the little superscript number refers to. When I talked to the C5-R engineers they said that it quote "depends on the gearing. We run different set ups for each track. The only thing for sure is that its damn fast. It will run with some of the cars in the LMP classes."
  19. Oh yeah, and the other thing essential to performance isn't torque/Litre. Its the shape of your torque and power curves.
  20. I've read some of your postings and thought someone in these forums had a few cells to rub together. Then I read this one and realize Seansvette, that you are just another "my car is better than your car" type of guy. With way too many words all you ever really say is that big engines make more torque than small engines. Loads of torque doesn't always means loads of performance. I own an S2000 and a 540i, two very different cars which I really like. When I need to transport people and/or additional weight (like groceries?) I drive the BMW. It's no slouch and it's a fine handling and fun car. When I wan't to have more fun I drive the S2000. In my opinion, at 2,800 lbs. this car doesn't need anymore torque than it has. It gets off the line plenty fast enough. The 0-60 time, whether it's 5.2 or 5.8 seconds(depending on which rag you choose to read) is fast enough for me. The quarter is pretty good to. The car "experts" in these forums who spend too much time trying to find statistics to justify their existence should just accept this car for what it is - a 4-cyl., light weight, roadster that happens to be able to run with vettes and mustangs. How about you cowboy? Sometime when you're not too busy defending the good ol' American V-8, you should drive the S2000. Maybe then you wouldn't make dummy f@ck statements like "... Wow. Nothing like a 153 ft/lbs of torque to really get your blood boiling". Cheers.
  21. Re:

    I'd have to be in agreement with Seansvette on this matter.

    As the owner of a Corvette, I'm sure he understands how exhillerating it feels to step on the gas and get thrust back into the seat with immediate, gradifying acceleration.

    He's just stating an opinion, in counterpart to this topic, which is "American cars suck."

    I guess he's just saying "American cars do suck, if you like going fast..."
  22. Driver was Teo Fabi. The car was set up for Silverstone (one of, if not the, fastest course from that year). They tested over the course of 2-3 days, before they had to call it quits due to coming rain. The track was dry enough for a couple of good solid runs, though.
  23. look ***** all i wanna say to u is #$%# u hoe i hate american shit i hate japanese shit i like german and italian thats all
  24. hey Guibo, do you ride a 929RR? (BTW: go to, it has 68.4 @ 8750rpm, not 81; that's 73lb ft./L).


Share This Page