Skeedatl

You're the one saying SBC can't do it. It's not up to me to prove YOUR stupid claims. I said aluminum permits higher compression, up to 3 CR points and I've shown you plenty of motors from other manufacturers that do this...prove to me that GM can't.

harddrivin1le

You have shown me NO Otto cycle, mass produced AUTOMOBILE engines "from other manufacturers" that are running 11:1 or better on 87 octane - REGARDLESS OF THE HEAD DESIGN/MATERIAL!

GM runs 9.4:1 with iron heads and 87 octane fuel...

That glorified Accord you're driving needs 91 octane to run 11:1, despite the fact that is uses a DOHC/4 valve ALUMINUM HEADS...So that's a bump of 1.6:1 with DOHC/4valves, ALUMINUM HEADS and 4 more points of octane COMBINED!!!!

Why would Acura require 91 octane if 87 would work just as well?

Skeedatl

Now in addition to them being otto cycle, and automobile engines, now they have to be mass produced.

When are you going to stop adding criteria every time you're shown to be full of sh!t.

I've shown you motors from other manufacturers running high compression on pump gas and you just make excuses for them.

What's next, you going to bitch about valve overlap? VVTi or other valve technologies?

PROVE THAT SBC CAN'T. You're the one making the claim. It should be very easy for you to prove.

harddrivin1le

Actually, they don't have to be mass produced.

Crate Motors and performance builds (e.g. HOT ROD, CAR CRAFT) are also acceptable.

If they could exist then would exist because doing so would be simple (according to you). Why would people be building expensive, dedicated performance engines and NOT running the max possible CR for whatever fuel they plan on using?????????????????????????????????????????

Why would they spend BIG BUCKS on custom engines and then throw away all of that free power power potential that exists (in the form of higher CRs with the same octane fuel)?????????????????????????

Norse396

Because they sell them for 10 cents at bone yards..... big deal.

Skeedatl

Hmmmm...still no proof you can't run 11:1 SBC on pump gas? For shame 1LE. You're making the claim...PROVE IT.

BTW...like all threads 1LE gets used it...it always goes back to his foolish Al head rants :lol1:

TLover

Uh, no, that's NOT the control group. Let me propose this to you: What if a NON RAM AIR motorcycle was shown to have the same/similar pressure increase (static vs. moving) in the airbox? That would, in effect, prove the ram air does nothing.

harddrivin1le

:lol2:

Unfortunately for you:

P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2

harddrivin1le

I said 87 octane...at least 50 times....

I see that you've since redefined it to "pump gas." Pretty soon you'll show me 100 octane racing fuel coming from a pump and an 11:1 SBC that runs on it....

The new LS2 runs 10.9:1 on 93 octane with aluminum heads.

That's essentially the current state-of-the-art in terms of small block Chevy heads (and it's a STRETCH calling an LS1/2/6 series engine a "small block Chevy.")

Norse396

It is a small block so don't worry about stretching it, it will live.

harddrivin1le

How many "traditional" engines ( 2 valves/cylinder, modified or stock) have you seen running 11:1 plus on 87 octane gasoline?

GM's state-of-the art LS2 requires 93 octane to handle 10.9:1.

Their 3.8 V6 with iron heads (also a 2 valve/pushrod design) runs 9.4:1 on 87 octane.

That's a net difference of 1.5:1, which is hardly "vast." MOST of that difference is attributable to the 6 point difference in octane ratings and the fact that the LS2 uses a newer head design and a hotter cam (which lowers dynamic cylinder pressure).

Norse396

Me thinks you meant this for someone else since I haven't been arguing this point? Traditional engines are meant for CAFE numbers, as high as possible so they can build that LS1 you keep talking about. Why would anybody want to build an 11:1 "traditional" engine... You don't agree with Skeedatl then argue your points with him.

How nice for them, for the TL it's 11:1, so, would you like to give them a ribbon? Per GM the minimum octane is "Premium" which can be as low as 91 since not all places sell 93 octane. I visited several GM links where the minimum would be anywhere from 91 to 93, heck they can't make up their minds so Premium works fine.

Well this could be because that's how they designed it, your point?

Alrighty then, why are we comparing a 3.8 liter grocery getter engine with a high performance engine? Also, why are you addressing me when all I said was the LS1 series engines are small blocks?

harddrivin1le

I associate the term "small block Chevy" with 1955 265s right up to the last 350 LT1/VORTEC and every other small block variant in between.

The LS1/ LS6/LS2 and even their VORTEC truck cousins have too many differences to fall within the same grouping as their predecessors.

Check the high performance, premium fuel CRATE ENGINES from GM, Chrysler, etc and see what they're running for CR. The vast majority of those have NO fuel economy or emissions issues to contend with.

harddrivin1le

The recommended fuel for the 2005 Corvette (with the LS2 engine) is 93 octane. It's not "required" because the PCM will permit it to run lower octane fuels (via retarded timing, etc). In order to produce maximum power, however, the LS2 needs 93 octane.

http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2005/specs.shtml
http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2005/specs.shtml

harddrivin1le

The TL uses 4 valve/dohc heads/pentroof combustion chambers. It also uses smaller cylinder bores for each cylinder. All of those things permit higher compression ratios.

An iron version of THE SAME HEAD on that SAME ENGINE would probably tolerate 10.5:1 on the same 91 octane fuel.

That can't be proven, since there are no iron heads for that engine.

That's why one needs to look at engines like the SBC (for which there are iron and aluminum heads avaliable) in order to establish a true, APPLES TO APPLES comparison.

And APPLES TO APPLES, aluminum heads permit ~ 0.5:1 of additional static compression. That doesn't result in additional dynamic compression, since the additional heat energy is transferred more efficiently through the aluminum heads. The end result is NO ADDITIONAL POWER.

Norse396

1le,

For all of your recent posts in reply to me, who cares, nobody.

harddrivin1le

Again, all other things being equal, aluminum heads (vs. iron) can tolerate an additional ~ 0.5:1 of static compression. The resulting DYNAMIC COMPRESSION is the same due to aluminum's vastly superior heat transfer properties.

Norse396

Again, nobody cares and I wasn't the one arguing about heads, take a hint, NOBODY CARES.

What, you took a couple days off to recharge the argument batteries?

harddrivin1le

Actually, you DO "care about heads."

You were the guy who STARTED this by claiming that L78s fitted with the factory ALUMINUM HEADS made more "gross rear wheel hp" (335 GRHP) than their iron-head counterparts. :lol2:

The 2001 Z06's LS6 made ~ 335 RWHP (385 SAE NET HP). No stock L78 could TOUCH that kind of output.

Norse396

Actually, no I don't, not one bit.

Unlike you, we posted our opinions on it, you didn't agree and we got over it. You are obsessed with it. We can agree to disagree, you can't, grow up.

How nice, now ask me if I care? What is wired wrong in your brain so badly that you can't understand three simple words? I DON'T CARE, if you want to feel as if you won some stupid internet argument, fine, you won, now go away. Let this stupid thread die in peace, this is my last response to you in this thread. You get the last word, which we all know you simply must have, so have it and be on your way.

Edit: Can the mods close this dead thread? After he gets his last word in of course lest he gets set off on another tangent.

harddrivin1le

"335 GRWHP" :lol2:

UminChu

HD, I realize that you have every right to be here, and I would never do anything to change that. As much of an asset as you could be to this forum if you could just get your ego out of the stratospere, sorry dude, but the honest to God truth is that this forum was a heck of a lot nicer site for the few days you stayed away.

Chilli

We don't care about heads. We care about getting head-and as much head as possible.

By the way, virtually every comparison of Camaro/Firebird vs Mustang (Cobra included) was won by GM.


:ar15: Hardrivin1le
:ar15: Skeedatl
:ar15: Norse396


You boys are a bunch of children.

harddrivin1le

Yeah...REALITY always does tend to make things a little tougher. :lol2:

harddrivin1le

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/

"KAWASAKI ZRX1100: As a test control, we fitted the Pi System to a non-ram-air-equipped motorcycle. If you think figures like 17mb seem insignificant, take a look at how much vacuum is present in a regular airbox and you'll realize even that amount of positive pressure can make a huge difference. With a pressure of -27mb, it's obvious that power gains can be realized by converting that vacuum into positive pressure. :cop: :lol2:

harddrivin1le

Where are the all of the examples of 2 valve per cylinder/Otto cycle engines (like small block Chevies, 455 Buicks, 351 Fords, etc) running 12.4:1 on 87 octane (via Aluminum heads) that you WOULD be able to produce if your original claim was valid?

I thought you said that air is "incompressible" at anything less than MACH 0.5?
If that's true, then why would you ignore an equation that SUPPORTS that hypothesis? :lol2:

UminChu

How sad that your continual denial of the core message, combined with your egomaniacal, never ending chase for the flippant last word and snickering emoticon, so warps and skews your own perception of reality as much or more than all those you so feebly attempt to belittle. Go ahead and have your last word now HD, I promise not to challenge it. I pity you.

harddrivin1le

You are OBVIOUSLY nearly completely IGNORANT of all things automotive, which is why your posts consist primarly of personal attacks against those who aren't.

How about giving YOUR opinions on aluminum heads and the Bernoulli effect, as it applies to RAM AIR?

If aluminum heads (due solely to a material change from iron, per his original claim) permitted "vastly higher" compression ratios (which he later "clarified" as meaning 3 full points) then we'd SEE it in the form of typical modded engines (e.g. Chevy 350) running ~ 12.4:1 on 87 octane (and aluminum heads).

We don't see it because it's not a legitimate claim.

TLover

"Ignorant," eh. Riddle me this, HD, explain your two quotes. First, you said ram air increases velocity, thereby increasing pressure. But Bernoulli's Principle states an increase in velocity causes a drop in pressure.

OK, I'm done with this thread. My apologies for not letting it die.

And yes, HD, you were right about the control group. I didn't see that.

harddrivin1le

Bernoulli's principle (as applied within the context of this conversation) results in lower DYNAMIC PRESSURE (due to the slowing of air as it passes through the intake ducting), which translates into HIGHER STATIC PRESSURE (in the airbox and aft of it)!

That is FACT.

harddrivin1le

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/

The bike without RAM AIR was drawing a peak negative pressure (vacuum) of - 27 mb. The best RAM AIR bikes produced peak positive pressures of 28 mb.

Hence, the NET difference of RAM AIR is more than what's suggested by the 28 mb figure alone. (28 - -27 = 55 mb delta).

That's ~ 0.8 psid, which is pretty significant for such a simple, inexpensive device.

http://www.campbellsci.ca/CampbellSc...ressure_F.html

Norse396

Care to explain? Is GM still building the Camaro or Firebird? Nope, seems to me Ford won. if you don't care about anything but getting head, why did you chime in?

Chilli :bigun2:

Let me know when you grow up so we can be just like you.. :yack:

carcar

Hi guys.....

Here's the drillio.......I'm a teenager and I'm simply obsessed with cars; have been since i was three.

We have a Honda Odyssey and a Plymouth Breeze. The funny thing is that these cars do not represent my family at all!!!!! We should really have some sort of SUV because we tow A LOT, and my mom likes 4WD...and my dad should have a nicer sedan becasue he can afford and deserve one. But he insists on value and keeping your cars for 7 years because of depreciation yahdah yahdah yahdah. My sister is getting her license soon and will recieve the beater (the Breeze) although it is in good condition.

So that leaves my fasha needing a car, around February of 05. Can' wait. Of course I've been on this for the past six months researching everything about this next purchase. I've come to this conclusion thus far:

Initially, since we....well they....love the minivan, which is Honda of course, Accord came to mind. We went to the dealer....twice, and looked at LX, EX, and EX-V6 Navi models. Dad liked the EX-V6 Nav the best so at least that's good. Then I thought about it and i said, you know what.....everyone has an Accord and it's so bland and the leather feels cheap and the rear-end is approaching the Bangle-But in ugliness.....It just so happens that my aunt and uncle just purchased a gorgeous blue 2004 Lexus ES330, so we went to the dealer and checked that one out.

Liked it a lot, and EVEN THOUGH my dad can afford it, he just cannot SEE spending more than $31k on a car...he sees them as fun toys, yes....but mainly as just transportation. I KNOW that he likes fast cars and exciting styling and neat high-tech features..but the value seems to be his only barrier. Okay....we need to re-group. Let's go for a 1 year old CPO or a demo. Seems perfect.

THE TL INSTANTLY SEEMED PERFECT the first time we saw it. Sweet high-tech features, sporty styling, potent power, it has THE WORKS!!!! The only problem is is that its $35k for a NAV. Some people get them for 1400 off MSRP and stuff, but that 's still too much. Here's my daring plan: Wait til February of 05 and buy a demo leftover 04.....Now this is where you come in. Do you think an 04 TL can be had for less than $30k in 05? a Demo or CPO w/ less than 4k miles?!?!?!? One other problem......our nearest Acura delaer is and hour and 45 minutes away......and the nearest Honda dealer is 38 minutes away. Of course picking up the TL at the Acura dealer and having major major service done there is okay...if kept occasional. But for regular maintenance, I was wondering if most Honda dealer's service Acura under warranty with parts....?

I would love nothing more in the world just to be driven to school in a cool car.....not have to be attached to the piece of crap that he drives now, and just have a nice set of wheels. The Acura is perfect for my fam and I know it. Please resond with all thoughts. Thank you in advance for respecting me even though I'm 14....I hate being looked over and labelled non-credible just because of my height and age....all's i want is an equal playing field on this site. Thank you again!!

Carl

jjsC5

Uhhh, Carl - haven't we seen this somewhere else?

And about your age. 14??? Look at the upper left side of your post. It shows your age as 28.

TLover

And why restart this thread to answer your question?

Aegir

You resurrected an 18-page 3 1/2 month-old thread to ask this?

Ron A

Since this thread got opened up under false pretenses, and is not providing any new or useful information, I am going to close it.

If anyone objects or has comments, please PM me.