500 HP SVX at Subaru Training Center? - Page 6

wawazat?? · #76 10-11-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Porter
I think I'll call Rousch on the phone and ask them some questions about this mysterious SVX motor.

I had dinner on Friday with a friend who works at Roush and asked him to check around on this rumor. We'll see......

Todd

Phast SVX · #77 10-12-2003, 12:23 AM

good, something smells like bull****...
phil

Andy · #78 10-12-2003, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tong
For those wondering the displacement on the rotary it's actualy 1.3 litters per rotor and there are two rotors so it's 1.3 x 2 wich is supposed to be 2.6 but they don;t call it that cause it doesn't make the kind of power a 2.6 does.

The actual displacement is 654cc per rotor, giving 1308cc total.

I believe the following quote explains it better than I can.

"Unfortunately, the RENESIS used by RX-8 is normally aspirated only. It displaces the same as RX-7, that is, twin rotors with a total displacement of 1308 cc. Because a rotor chamber combusts once every revolution, compare with piston engine’s once every 2 revolutions, its effective displacement is actually 2616 cc by the norm of piston engines. The RX-7 with twin-turbochargers generated 280 hp in its final phase of development. Without any forced induction, the RX-8 can still achieve 250 hp (240 hp for European version), very good for a 2.6-litre engine. Its power curve is peaky though - maximum power occurs at 8500rpm. The turbine-like engine can spin to a genuine 9000rpm, no joking. "

mohrds · #79 10-13-2003, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wawazat??
I'll get the beer if you get the popcorn!

Awaiting the next volley in the "You don't know *%&^$#@*() about cars you ^&&$%*+##@ moron" war!

Todd

I got the popcorn and the lawn chairs. Phhht! This beer is warm!

Doug

Chicane · #80 10-13-2003, 01:58 PM

FYI: You are about to be own-inated.

Quote:

Originally posted by tong
Wow you are as ignorant as you seem.

Let's see shall we???

Quote:

1. I mentioned the turbo just to say that anything is possible.

Well that's great and all, but if you read the FIRST POST in this entire thread the subaru guy insisted that it was NA, and NOT a forced induction motor. HENCE, the whole argument here was getting 500hp out of a naturally aspirated H6. Apparently you missed that somehow..... and were ignorant of something.

Quote:

2. No where in this thread was it ever mentioned that the Car being mentioned retained the stock displacement. (and knowing what we all know about subaru's team of tunners i can bet it probably doesn't.)

Interesting point. In the original post, the guy hinted it might have been bored out. What's weird is that nobody on this forum has ever heard of a bored out h6, pistons for a bored out h6, or any performance parts like that. However, let's pretend it's bored out to 3.6 liters. Sound good? Let's also assume the redline for these engines is 7.5k, because these are not honda engines, and 7.5k seems pretty reasonable for a modified H6.

500hp/ (7.5* 3.6)= Mep is 18.51

Hrm. Well, like Fyrce said, a modern F1 engine makes 850hp out of 3 liters at 19,000 rpm, and its MEP is only 14.91.... so somehow, I really think getting a MEP of 18.51 is completely out of the question.

But maybe they bored it bigger you say! Alright, lets do it with different displacements:

500hp / (3.8 liters * 7.5 redline)= 17.54

Hrm. Nope. Even with 3.8 liters it'd be impossible.

500hp / (4 liters *7.5k redline)= 16.4 redline

Closer, but still a no go. What if we raised the redline to 8.5k? Could it then be possible?

500hp (4liters * 8.5k redline)= 14.7. Hrm, its definitely possible on paper, but its still bests the MEP of most Moto GPs, and the McLaren F1, so I'd still say its not bloody likely.

Let's reverse engineer what we'd need for an h6 with a mep of about 14 that makes 500hp.

Well... an engine that has a mep of 14, and makes 500hp with a redline of 8.5k would need a displacement of :

4.2 liters. You can doublecheck my math if you'd like. That's .9 liters over the stock displacement, or 27% increase in displacement. Possible? Hrm..sure... but I'll put my money on not bloodly likely.

Okay, well lets pretend it has a displacement of 3.6 liters.... what redline would it need?

About 9,900rpms. Again, not bloody likely.

So once again, we have you being ignorant of reality.

Quote:

For somone with a lot of car knowledge, you know nothing because even the newest car enthusiast knows how a rotary is displaced; lol 3 chambers = 3.9 lol; each rotor all by itself displaces 1.3 litters that's one rotor with 3 chambers in case i confused your small brain, and every one knows every rx-7 had either a 1.2 liter or a 1.3 liter 2 rotor motor so you double it to get a close assumption of displacement.

I admit that I don't know a whole lot about rotaries, and when I attempted to figure out the MEP of one, I did in fact multiply it by 3, because I assumed since the rotor has 3 sides, you would multiply its displacement by 3. When the Mep came out to be 22, I realized that something was wrong. So yeah, I am ignorant of how you're supposed to figure out the displacement of a rotary, but at least I admitted it, instead of bringing up something completely unrelated to a naturally aspirated discussion, such as turbos.

>continued in a few minutes<

Chicane · #81 10-13-2003, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tong
Morons? Furthermore go check out porche's gt3 race car not the street version the race car it's a 3.6L boxer and last i checked it pushes 420hp and that's only cause of the class limitations (http://www.mcarsweb.com/porsche/gt3rs.htm) if you do some research you'll find taht the car is well capable of over 500 hp and that's from a 3.6 L NA track car YES NA

Okay, again, lets check.

420hp / (8.2k redline * 3.6 liters) = Mep of 14.22 so yes, that is ENTIRELY possible.

But 500hp?

500hp / (8.2k redline * 3.6 liters)= Mep of 16.937. Hrm. Uh, no that isn't possible. Maybe they raised the redline, perhaps?

500hp/ (9k redline * 3.6 liters)= Mep of 15.4

See, its still over 15. That isn't really possible. An F1 engine is 14.9, so you think the porsche engine can really do 15.4?! No way jose.

Higher redline: 500hp/ (10k *3.6)= Mep of 13.8.

Entirely believable. That's definitely possible. A porsche engine spinning 10,000 rpms making 500hp, with a 3.6 liter displacement.

HOWEVER, I strongly disagree with your next statement.

Quote:

so 3.3 liter boxer is well capable of 450 Hp, and no one in here said the displacement was stock (READ PLEASE THIS COUNTRY SUFFERS FROM ENOUGH IGNORANCE) also no one said it wasn't.

NO WAY IN HELL.

450hp / (7.5k redline * 3.3 liters) = MEP OF 18.18!!!!! NO WAY, NO HOW, NO CHANCE. EVER.

In order to make 450hp out of 3.3 liters, and a reasonable Mep (of around 14), you'd need a redline of 9,740 RPMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So yeah, BULL-**** my friend. Say it with me. Once again, you are ignorant of facts and the real world here.

Quote:

Who's the one who has no grasp of english,

That NikFu guy, obviously.

Quote:

from what I can attain from your posts you lived here all your life and STILL DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPELL. References you ask? Read some of your posts. NikFu S. is at least trying.

Give me an example. FYI: You didn't spell 'quote' correctly.

Quote:

Oh and the most they gotten out of a naturaly aspired 350 small block on 92 octane pump gas is 562 hp(last i checked) so redo the calculations,

Okay. What's the redline? Wanna pretend its 8k? A real screamer?

350 cubic inches= 5.737 liters.

562hp / (5.737 * 8) = mep of 12.24.

Like I said last time, getting 500hp from a 350 small block is ENTIRELY BELIEVABLE. I have no problem with that. What ISNT believable is getting 500hp from a 3.3 liter H6 engine. Maybe an indy car engine, sure. But not an SVX engine, it is just IMPOSSIBLE.

[B][QUOTE]actualy don't seing as a 3.9 displacement for a 13b rotary is what you came up with i don't trust your math or "knowledge".. [B][QUOTE]

Fine, go ahead and fit right into that 'ignorant' catergory and ignore FACTS and TRUTH. When I calculated the MEP for a rotary, I was wrong in its displacement, and I KNEW something was wrong. I was admitting something wasn't right. I posted it in hopes that someone could see my mistake, and I could learn from it. I did. But as for the rest of these calculations, I stand by them. It's simple algebra, and although it isn't EXACT, it does give you a pretty good 'estimate' of whats possible, and what ISNT possible.

Quote:

And to prove my Original point of thread crapping:

You had to make two posts in an atempt to make people look bad, .

FYI, its ATTEMPT, not atempt, so once again we have you being ignorant of how to spell.

Quote:

and with a knowledge is superseeded by my cat,.

(hint to Tong: Don't use big words if you cannot spell them correctly!!! I believe the word you were looking for was SUPERSEDED, so once again we have you being ignorant of how to spell)

Quote:

in fact you are sooo stupid i remeber you started a post asking how to check your ATF level, anyone and i mean anyone who has had the least amount of mechanical experience knows how to check their ATF

Up until this car, all of my cars have been manual transmissions. I don't really see how asking a question about something one has never had to deal with before is 'stupid', but hey, since your knowledge superseeds (hahahahah!) mine, maybe I should take your word for it.

Quote:

and nooooo it don't change from car to car) sooo furthermore, with your sh!tty math and cr@py knowledge i think you are the last person anyone in here should be listening to.

Hrmmm... yeah. Actually, my math was all 100% correct, I just had the wrong theory on how to figure out the displacement of a rotary engine. Oh, and btw, I believe the word you were looking for was CRAPPY, not crapy, so once again we have you being ignorant of something.

Quote:

Comments about being single and fat

Actually I'm married, and I weigh 156 lbs, so sorry, both of your insults were incorrect. Once again, we have you being ignorant of something. ALTHOUGH, according to your own definition of 'stupid', which is 'not having knowledge about something you don't have any experience with', you are stupid. Yep. See, you don't have any experience with me, and since you were wrong about it, using your own definition of stupid you yourself are indeed stupid.

Quote:

You are sooo self centered that you have to be right all the time;

I don't HAVE to be right all the time. It's just in this case I AM RIGHT, and you are ignorant of facts, truth, and reality.

Quote:

And you are racist and/or narow minded (comment about 2pac)

Racist? Uh, no. My best friend is from Nepal, and I have friends of all races. I am classist though. I have values and morals, and a bunch of uneducated morons yelling about *****es and ho's and capping cops pisses me off, and I don't associate myself with people like that.

Quote:

so please keep it out of this WHOLE forum because i don't think anyone appreciates it.

Hrm. I don't think anyone appreciates someone who can't spell 'quote', 'superseded', 'attempt' or 'crappy' giving advice on how to spell. I also don't think anyone appreciates somebody who's own words contradict themself, who's own examples shoot themselves in the foot, and who's own idea of retaliation boils down to calling someone 'fat'.

And, on top of all that I conclude with a cooler link than you:

http://homepage.mac.com/spheric/generic/owned28.gif

- Rob

Andy · #82 10-13-2003, 03:19 PM

Got any of that beer left?

Just off to roast my nuts, be back shortly

#83 10-13-2003, 03:36 PM

Andy hold my spot i got to go to night school i'll be back here with some more peanuts, popcorn, and might even bring a "thirsty" pack cause this looks like it's going to be a long ball game.

Chicane · #84 10-13-2003, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tong
Andy hold my spot i got to go to night school i'll be back here with some more peanuts, popcorn, and might even bring a "thirsty" pack cause this looks like it's going to be a long ball game.

I'd suggest a spell checker, the concept of MEP, and a fork to eat your humble pie.

- Rob

#85 10-13-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chicane

I'd suggest a spell checker, the concept of MEP, and a fork to eat your humble pie.

- Rob

YUOR TEH WINN3R!!!!!!!!11

How does it feel, Rob? I bet your dick is growing by the minute, you superstar you!

Come on man, chill out and have a reasonable discussion without resorting to personal attacks. I just threw out the above to prove the point.

#86 10-13-2003, 06:06 PM

Also, I'd like to point out that Formula One engines are NOT the most highly tuned in the world. They are tuned for a specific purpose, and that purpose is NOT maximum horsepower or even maximum torque. They are tuned to deliver power in the most controllable way possible by the driver, to keep the chassis at the utmost limit of grip the entire way around the track. Part of that process is keeping just enough power at the wheels, but not too much. A car that is too torquey in the midrange will roast tires and overcome the grip of the vehicle in the corners, which makes the car much more difficult to drive.

I have no question whatsoever that a tuned motor in a Porsche touring car could have a higher MEP than a Formula One motor. Formula One is NOT the "holy grail" of engine technology. Maybe in the '80s, but not anymore, sorry. There's just too much regulation in the series now, and the focus is much more on chassis technology. Motors push the car, but reliability and chassis dynamics win races.

The MEP principle is also thrown off severely by some of the new racing fuels being used, i.e. 120+ octane oxygenated race fuels and the like. Ultra-high ignition energy and 35+ degrees of timing advance on 15:1 compression can make some serious power. Basically, if you can build the cylinder to hold enough pressure, you can turn any kind of forces you want out of a motor. The materials by necessity get expensive and exotic, but the results justify the means.

Besides, PFP is a better theory tool for measuring cylinder pressure than MEP anyway, it is more significant in terms of what is actually happening to the gases in the cylinder.