Rycers worst dream (the truth)

Discussion in '2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra' started by 6979ccV12, Jul 28, 2004.

  1. #1 6979ccV12, Jul 28, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    If you came here cause you think I'm going to talk about how the 03 cobra is a better car then all of the Japanese cars, then sorry to disappoint you. What I think is funny is how Japanese car fans talk about how great their 4/6 cylinders are and how low displacement is the $hit!

    Yet the funny thing is in the Japanese racing world, (Japanese Gran touring challenge) Toyota has replaced it's turbo-ed 4 banger for a naturally aspirated V8, from Lexus. The 4.3 litter v8 was bored up to 5.2 litters. WHY???? I mean we all know low displacement and less cylinders are superior in every way... I mean they rev higher & stuff & um yea well you know. The following year they had to destroke it down to 4.5 litters to meet with new regulations. But that just means that it will be stronger since it has less displacement :p LOL j/k. Did I come of as an ass? Nah I'm not picking on Japanese cars, I'm picking on the stupidity of ppl that think v8s suck and low displacement 4 cylinders are superior that's why we should all mods civics & put b16 in our cars & crap.

    If you wanna read a quick article I found in another forum (with some nice pics) about this go to http://www.tripleplate.com/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-2496

    or just look this $hit up yourself on the net, I'm still in awe that Toyota would put a v8 into a supra, I give them props for stepping up to the plate and putting in a better motor then the 4 banger that it used to have.
     
  2. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    I don't really think they believe a smaller displacement engine is better than a large displacement counterpart.


    I think they see it as unneccessary and sort of "the big hairy gorilla" to use an engine with massive displacement.

    The people you might be referring to are the civic/accord/prelude crowd who listen to their own urban legends about what car is better and why.

    I happen to think there are a few good ways to skin the performance cat. I've had a chance to own everything from a 2.0L I4 in an MR2, to a 1.8L V6, to a 327 V8, to a TT I6. Each is fun in its own way....
     
  3. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    actually there are a lot of ppl out there that think that since a lot of power can be extracted from a 4 cylinder that it's better and I'll tell you there reasoning.

    Naturally a smaller displacement engine will rev out higher.

    1) There theory is if an engine can rev to 9 grand it can stay in it's power band longer and there for will pull harder, neglecting torque and the fact that a bigger displacement engine will likely produce that same power way earlier in the rpm range and that power on a graph is usually more flat then not (with higher displacement engines) as apposed to a spike going up to hit it's peak power. (with the low displacement engines)

    2) If it revs higher then it's better suited for turbos. This one I still don't get how they come to that conclusion but, there logic is somewhere along the lines of the higher your reving the harder the turbo's work and there for smaller engines are better for forced induction.
    This is so not true, and is funnier then hell, A larger displacement engine will take in more air from the start then a smaller displacement engine and when that air is coming out of the exhaust those turbos will spool up faster then a small displacement engine could ever spool them up.

    3)Hp/litter Somehow if a small engine makes good hp/litter then it matters. Contrary to popular belief this has nothing to do with anything. If every engine would have 120 hp per litter then most cars wouldn't be street legal, wouldn't ever meet emissions, insurance on those cars would be higher then hell, if they could ever be driven on the road & I'm sure every one needs over 600 hp in their camaro or other muscle car for daily driving. Bottom line a civic can get a bit over 1000 hp out of it's 2 litter engine the ls1 has hit record breaking numbers of over 1600 and I've seen 2500 hp camaros and 2200 hp mustangs. (The 2k hp figures don't come from gm's ls1 or fords modular engines though)

    4) Smaller displacement engines weigh less & there for are better
    Yes smaller 4/6 cylinder engines weigh less they give you that extra little advantage, but for all the extra power made through earlier rpm ranges the bigger v8s v10 and 12s those are much more suited for racing.

    If what you wanna do is mod those engines then fine but don't tell me how superior it is to a v8. It's not, don't think they ever will be although i agree they are impressive for what they have become today.

    But getting back to the rest of your statement, yes you can "skin the performance cat" on smaller engines, the supra, skyline rx7, nsx, s2000 are all good examples but if you had a larger displacement engine in those cars they would all be considerbly faster.

    And as far as "the big hairy gorilla" statement goes. Um okay what ever, if you have to mod your engine & add turbos just to get to the same power of a stock ls1 that's shitty. Aside from japan's sports line, just about every sports car uses a large displacement engine, yes there is a good reason for that. It works! That's why the supra has also switched over to a v8 and increased it's displacement(This is not about the stock factory supra incase some of you can't read the first post) they didn't do it just so it would cost them the race and so that nissan or honda would walk all over them, they see it as an advantage and use it.
     
  4. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    dsf
     
  5. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    Actually, the reason they went to the V8 in their Supra was they were thinking about using it in the 5000GT and wanted to see how much interest was generated with it. Consider they also dropped the 3.0L I-6 for the smaller 3S-GTE in that same car.... And just this year, they decreased the 5.2L V8 down to a 4.5L V8 for the 2004 season.

    Bigger isn't always better.

    A number of the really quick sports cars use "smaller" displacements.

    The F40 was a 3-liter, Porsche uses 3.6L, the F50 was a 4.7L V12 (very small cylinders), the EB110 was 3.5L, Lotus uses smaller engines. By contrast, the large cruisers often use large displacement engines....Mercedes, Cadillac, BMW etc. They want low, smooth power that makes it easy to have a quiet ride without a lot of extra gearing.

    Doesn't mean its any better or any worse....but the immediate "increase the displacement" isn't always the right answer.

    I find the term r1cer rather ridiculous....I've seen just as many kids in Mustangs and Mustang GTs that think they can outrun me, merely because they have "American Iron". There are at least 3 Mustangs driving around town with "GTR" slapped on the back....and quite a few Cavaliers, Focus, etc, driving around with crazy wings and stickers. It has nothing to do with the "import crowd"...it has to do with kids (and sometimes adults) who are uninformed, never had anything faster, and think they are Schumacher.
     
  6. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    I can spell niggar but i can't spell ryce gay
     
  7. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    I can write nigger on super cars but i can't write ryce thanks a$$holes

    Damn it won't let me post my quote for you bored up. I'll save it now and paste it later i've got to go though
     
  8. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    I don't have much time so i'll make this quick!

    1) The supra was always in the gt 500 class i don't know how the hell you had the idea that they were in the gt 300 class.

    They won in 96 and 97 but lost to the skyline in 98 and 99. Which by the way in JCTC is rwd! there are no restrictions in jctc against awd and no penelties i just looked it up. They switched to the v8 in 01 where the won another championship.

    however they were forced to detune the engine do to new restrictions.

    Bored up where ever you got your info from go back and reread it.

    Next yes i've said that a small engine can make big power, the problem is it lacks torque and it's power is peak power really not a smooth almost flat line of nearly even power from lower rpm ranges to it's max, like a big displacement engine is.

    a 4.7 litter engine isn't really small in my book. It's about average displacement. Ferrari makes a bit over 500 hp at 8500 rpms and around 360 torque max. Great that's not bad from a 4.7...

    here's the stats on a zl1 camaro, these cars are rare, but company made like your so called n1 skyline...

    anyways it's 7 litters and here's the stats


    Top Speed: 230.0 MPH / 370.1 KPH
    Πmile: 10.4 Seconds
    0 - 60 mph: 2.7 Seconds
    Power: 770.0 BHP / 574.2 KW @ 6900 RPM
    Torque: 683.0 FT LBS / 925 NM @ 5300 RPM
    Stroke: 4.5 IN / 114 MM
    Bore: 4.5 IN / 114 MM
    Gear Type: 6-Speed Manual
    1st Gear Ratio: 2.86:1
    2nd Gear Ratio: 2.86:1
    3rd Gear Ratio: 1.55:1
    4th Gear Ratio: 1.29:1
    5th Gear Ratio: 1.00:1
    6th Gear Ratio: 0.50:1
    Final Drive Ratio: 3.54:1
    Body and Frame.
    Drive Wheels: RWD
    Curb Weight: 3391 LBS / 1537.9 KG
    Length: 3391 IN / 86121 MM
    Width: 63.0 IN / 1600 MM
    Wheelbase 101.1 IN / 2568 MM
    Front Brakes: Brembro Discs
    Front Brake Size 11.5 IN / 292 MM
    Rear Brake Size: 11.5 IN / 292 MM
    Front Wheels: 18.0 x 25 IN / 45.7 x 63.5 CM
    Rear Wheels: 18.0 x 31 IN / 45.7 x 78.7 CM

    770 hp N/A 683 ft. torque Yea big engines are better then isn't any denying it. You can get 600 hp from a 6 litter N/A or a 3 litter twin turbo pushing 20 psi. The bigger one is more impressive to me it has much more potential left. (In most cases it makes more power quicker at lower rpms it's graph is much smother instead of a spike that hit's max horse at really high rpms. If you compare the motors of the ferrari and this. 4.7 with 513 horse and 347 ft or 7.0 with 770 hp & 683 ft lbs of torque at lower rpms.

    Last note I never said that there isn't such a thing as domestic ryce, put them in their place for being stupid. I think the v6 models of the stang, camaro are shit plain and simple. The Gt is the worst american muscle car ever, the cobra and the camaros hit 13s normally N/A (not talking about the 03 cobra)
     
  9. #9 27GTR, Jul 29, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    When did I EVER say the Supra was in the GT300 class?

    As for AWD, it is forbidden by the rules...good grief. Where did you look it up?...because it states it even in the summary of the technical regulations...

    http://www.jgtc.net/race/whats/04t_regu.htm

    You either didn't read very well...or didn't understand what you were reading.....
    Power actuated clutches and Electronic control systems with closed-loop circuits other than engine are banned...which directly prevents the use paddle type shifting and AWD. It outright states no paddle shifting, AWD, AWS in the full regulations.

    AWD is also banned from LeMans Eurosaloons racing.

    They weren't forced to detune the V8 for regulations, reducing the displacement provided for better volumetric efficiency at 500HP, as printed in JGTC Monthly.

    A bigger engine isn't always better. Especially when considering placement in terms of center of gravity. If a bigger engine was ALWAYS better, we would all be driving around 427's in our sports cars in various levels of tune.
    Larger doesn't particularly mean more potential either. At the compression ratio's and design of the large displacement N/A engines, you can't always just slap on FI and go. It requires a whole reworking of the internals to make it reasonable. Even if you do "slap on" FI, the expense for such a system is high. Compare 500HP builds on say a 3.0L 2JZ vs a 5.7L LS1.

    Don't fall into the conclusion that I personally don't like larger displacement engines.....after all, I did own a 327/350 powered Corvette for a few years.
     
  10. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    larger displacement engines don't nessacerally mean they have to be huge. The ls1 is a great example of that, it's only a tad bit bigger then the nsx motor which is a 6 cylender. Yet it can be stroked and bored up to 7.4 litters.

    This statement
    "Actually, the reason they went to the V8 in their Supra was they were thinking about using it in the 5000GT and wanted to see how much interest was generated with it" Seemed like it suggested that the supra was in the gt300 class and they were going to put a v8 and get it into the 500 class, i was in a hurry i missuderstood that. But also they did use that engine for the record so obviously there is a good advantage to it.

    Japan's economy and gas prices don't let them build the huge displacement engines that we have here. That's why the make the best out of smaller displacement engines with turbos. That doesn't make the japanese design better in anyway. Nor does everyone need a 427 to go get groceries at price chopper. There is a market for all motors but in racing larger displacement engines work better. Also every Race has a displacement regulation.

    The deal with the v8 supra was that if they were to keep the 5.2 litters they would of had more air restrictions. Instead they dropped it to a 4.5 so that they wouldn't have to put in those air restrictors on the car, it also let them rev higher. I don't understand why you don't get that. Volumetric efficiency? Did you know what you said 500 hp is 500 hp there is no need to detune it I don't care if it's 500 with a 5.2 or 500 with a 4.5 the difference in this case is torque where the 5.2 litter would have more of it the only advatage the 4.5 provides right now is better fuel economy but you sacrifice low end power for it so it's not really worth it so what ever the hell you just said just went down the drain.

    I'm not calling you racist against big engines i'm just not sure how you can argue the fact that a smaller engine is better. If you look at the porshe carrera gt it has a 5.7 v10 it's engine design is one of the best it's incredibly low to the ground, road and track stated how great it's center of gravity is and what an awesome job porshe did.
     
  11. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    Thats it! v8 is better!!

    I still think v8 is the most potent and Overral best engine!
     
  12. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    Son, go back to your room....the adults are talking.
     
  13. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    The air restrictors don't hinder max torque, they prevent the engine from breathing at higher RPM's to reduce max power. It's a basic function of engine design. The volumetric efficiency was, however, higher leading to less fall off of torque (generating more power longer) after peak torque using the 4.5L. That's why they decreased it.

    I am not arguing that a smaller engine is better. I am saying that a larger displacement isn't always the best answer. Again, there is a difference between the two. For example, looking at the JGTC Supras again, a number of teams changed the 3.0L I6 for a 2.0L I4 to improve balance by placing the bulk of the engine behind the front wheels (essentially making it a front engine, midship car....sort of like the Z06).

    The Celsior V8 is being used, as I said, for a testbed for the 5000GT.....it had nothing to do with a requirement or a need to increase the displacement. It just isn't necessary in this case.
     
  14. #14 6979ccV12, Jul 30, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    Obviously your misssing something so again i'll make this quick.

    I never said air restrictors hinder torque on this forum/thread. Although it does, think about it, horse power is torque at a certain rpm. In order to lower the horse power you hinder torque which lowers the amount of power, the only way to really get more horse with out getting more torque is to rev higher, and like you said it will have it's peak horse power longer after it's peak torque is dropped. After all more bore over stroke equalls higher revs. Which is how they are still able to keep close to 500 horse while haveing less torque with a smaller displacement engine. Did you follow all that so far?

    Next you seem to not want to accept the fact that they had to lower the displacement to meet new regulations otherwise they would need more restrictors placed on their car

    here's a quick quote from them:

    "In contrast to Nissan's bold move, Toyota opted for a sound, proven package this year, relying on the evolutionary 2004 version for the Supra. Changes include the adoption of a naturally aspirated V8 engine with a displacement of 4.5 liters, down from the 5.2-liter version of the 2003 model, giving the car favorable minimum weight and air restrictor size values, which were newly revised for 2004."

    ( http://www.jgtc.net/race/2004/04rd1/041preview_en.shtm)

    Right there it says that rules were revised for 04 which is when they dropped to a 4.5 litter destroking the v8. Otherwise they would of had to more restrictors and there was no need for it, not to mention they would of had to meet new min weight requirements with a 5.2 as opposed to a 4.5. Since 500 horse is easily obtainable with either set up the 4.5 was the obvious choise.
     
  15. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    I like how all the V8 guys always say "well if I had turbos....." after they get beat.
     
  16. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    What the hell are you talking about, first of all. I don't see to many turbo c cylenders beating v8s although it does happen. & WTF don't you understand about what you can do to a smaller engine you can do to a bigger one. It's that simple so your temporary advatage of haveing a turbo over a stock v8 is temporary because when both are under forced induction the v8 will produce more power with the same psi, as a turboed 4 or 6 cylender
     
  17. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    Your link is dead. It sounds like a portion of the article in JGTC monthly...except the remainder goes on to explain the ENTIRE REASON the 4.5 was a better choice for the car being that the 4.5 was doing the 500HP job more efficiently ("there was no need for it", as quoted by you). Bore/Stroke is very minimal in regards to max revolutions when considering materials and balance. According to the same article, their max torque was the same, although the smaller engine was able to maintain more torque longer through the power band (vice the sharp drop off often encountered in a larger displacement engine, an effect of falling intake charge efficiency.) This made the choice a no brainer. Considering that these devices are designed to make the playing field equal, doesn't it make sense to make power the best way you can?

    Again, restrictors, (in the case used here to maintain level playing fields across the board) do not effect max torque. If you honestly think I don't know the relationship between HP and Torque, you haven't read any of my other threads. This is deeper than that....as RPM's increase, air flow increases dramatically. While this doesn't effect the engine at lower RPMs (around max torque), it does indeed effect the amount of air the engine can draw when it approaches higher RPMs, what would be max power. While displacement does effect torque, there are two schools to apply to....more displacement, generally more torque, flatter curve, sharp fall-off. Less displacement, generally less torque, less flat curve, but the torque, although less, maintains longer, offering a larger power band. In this case, 500PS +/- 10% is easily obtainable with 4.5L. The smaller displacement (while still netting your 500HP) will draw longer, giving you a longer powerband. It is the better choice for this race, even more so given weight penalty assignment.

    The displacement doesn't effect the number of restrictors on the car. They can even run larger diameter holes on the larger engine if they so chose....although they would incur a weight penalty.
     
  18. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    You are having a hard time understanding how a twinturbo V6 can beat V8's? Let me out it this way....

    From 1990-1996 Nissan produced the twinturbo 300zx which went 0-60 in 5 flat and ran quarter miles at 13.5-13.7. Lets compare that to some "muscle cars of the same era" Ones that people in their early 20's can now afford.

    Saleen S351- 0-60=5.1 1/4=13.9
    Z28 0-60=5.4 1/4=14.1
    mustang cobra 0-60=5.9 1/4=14.7


    Sure any of these cars can be supercharged for aroun $4000 and you "might" get to 400WHP. Where as in the 300zx with a simple upgrade of the exhaust, ECU and intake make 400BHP at a measley 14PSI. Until I see many guys in their early 20's driving around in 2003 cobras I will consider that an expensive toy that people the same age as the typical corvette owners tend to buy.


    V8's are slow because I also live at a mile above sea level in Denver. Up here a newer mustang GT hits low 15's and the 2003 cobras are in the mid 13's. C5 corvettes are in the mid 14's. Yeah, that's not very fast at all.



    Not to mention that most of the V8's around, say 90% are not supercharged. Making you idea very lackluster.


     
  19. Re: Rycers worst dream (the truth)

    Goto svtperformance.com, just long enough to see how old they are. The Cobra owners arent much more than 20. Some are still in high school.

    Edit: the average. Theres going to be some 50+ years olds, in a mid-life crisis.
     
  20. yea, this dude in my college has an 03 cobra and he is only 19.....lucky bastard
     

Share This Page