|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=17166 |
|
| Comments: 108 (Read/Post) Favorites: 5 (View) |
Submitted
on: 01-10-2003
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Car |
|
|
Description:
very nice accord |
Showing page: 3 of 6
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
 |
| #41 |
1-10-2003 @ 03:22:28 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#38 if the engine is smooth, it sounds great, just around 7500rpm, you and your passengers keep wondering how high it can go and when you will shift, feels like a go-kart or something
|
|
| #42 |
1-10-2003 @ 03:23:54 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
thats not to say that i dont like roaring of large-displacement engines, i do
|
|
| #43 |
1-10-2003 @ 03:31:27 PM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I don't like high-revving engines, they just don't feel right to me. It feels like you are going to blow something (and you will if you keep revving it high). My car redlines at 6500, and I rarely get it above 4K. Most import cars rev ridiculously high and don't really go anywhere.
|
|
| #44 |
1-10-2003 @ 03:51:41 PM |
| Posted By : SuperDave479 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#42, Yep, I will be keeping the Z. :) I'm waiting for my new catback exhaust to come in so I can really hear it roar. I can't wait!
|
|
| #45 |
1-10-2003 @ 03:54:50 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#43, My little 3.8 only revs out to around 5500 RPM or so. The redline on the tach is at 5300. This is actually an improvement (in revving capacity) over the previous generation of 3.8, which redlined before 5000 RPM and really wasn't making ANY power at that point anyway.
|
|
| #46 |
1-10-2003 @ 03:58:42 PM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
It's impressive that somthing can wind to 7 or 8K without flying apart, but small displacement and high rev aren't my style becuase that usualy means sacraficing low-end torque and in some cases, long-term reliability
|
|
| #48 |
1-10-2003 @ 04:04:19 PM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#46, Bingo. That's what I was trying to say. :)
My car seems to have some decent torque for a 4-banger. I like that. :)
|
|
| #49 |
1-10-2003 @ 04:04:22 PM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#46 - yep, faster RPMs means more chance of *KAPOW* 5500rpm is good enough for me... which is about the max for all of my fleet.
I prefer to buy my cars with $$$$$ - no payments!
|
|
| #51 |
1-10-2003 @ 04:06:49 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#46, The linear speed at which a piston has to move is a function of RPM. So a high-revving engine will generally have a shorter stroke and a larger bore to keep piston speed down to a manageable level. However, if it (piston speed) is too low, things become a little inefficient because the flame front of the exploding gas moves faster than the piston, and that's bad. So, generally speaking, there's a point where you encounter the law of diminishing returns--you simply cannot make the bore any larger and expect the engine to function properly. Once you hit that point, you basically have to face the fact that the linear speed of the piston simply has to increase if you want to build a higher-revving engine, and that's where the reliability issues come in, wearing out rings, etc.
F1 engines are rebuilt after every race. Anyone care to speculate WHY? Anything that can wear..has.
[Edited by Lemming on 1-10-2003 @ 04:07:32 PM]
|
|
| #52 |
1-10-2003 @ 04:07:38 PM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
yeah, you can build a 327 with a torker intake, big head flow, and some big headers... can wind it out 'til kingdom come, but it will be shit on the street. Low torque is what you need unless you are racing on a twisty course or something...
|
|
| #53 |
1-10-2003 @ 04:08:19 PM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#49, the lower RPM you can get an engine to produce max HP, the longer, generaly, it tends to last, for example, piston-driven light plane engine, like a Cessna, has a redline of about 2800, but can be utterly relied upon to run at that speed for hours on end, and it has some large displacement, of like maybe 8 Lt. or so
|
|
| #54 |
1-10-2003 @ 04:08:47 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#48, Induction matters. The major difference between the 140hp and 190hp engines I've had have been intake manifolds--one had a single plenum, one-runner-per-cylinder setup; the new one has a split plenum with dual runners.
|
|
| #55 |
1-10-2003 @ 04:09:10 PM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#50 - I can't afford do it it... which is why I drive a $3,000 buick park avenue!
|
|
| #57 |
1-10-2003 @ 04:10:28 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#53, I'm willing to bet the reason I discussed in #51 plays a role. An engine designed to operate primarily at low RPMs simply won't encounter some of the wear issues that are inherent in building a high-revving motor.
|
|
| #60 |
1-10-2003 @ 04:12:27 PM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
*slaps himself* - gotta get outta here... time to go home...
|
Showing page: 3 of 6
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
