nelg said:
G-Loader!!! These are sweet, but only saw these in Alpina B5. VERY nice!
Direct Injection?
- Thread starter mkillio
- Start date
G-Loader!!! These are sweet, but only saw these in Alpina B5. VERY nice!
PC-Engine said:Ouch! That really sucks and your gasoline prices are really high too.
Why do they charge so much for labor over there?
until recently i worked at my local nissan dealership and the labour rate was..........
£83 an hour! believe me when i say this is just the tip of the iceberg,mate.
WhiningKhan said:
Look at the weight of those engines, the materials, costs, exhaust, so on, so on. Long story short, that is an 80's engine. Noone would (or could) build something like that today for many reasons. Look at the 60's Mercedes, many of these with over 1000 000 km are still driving around but it was a totally different kind of engines which couldn't be used today. Remember that it's not power/torque driving further engine development but the economy, enviromental laws, sound and attached laws, electromagnetic interferences, blah, blah...
It is flat, but at quite some more than what the non-charged engine could ever reach
Vibrations indeed are worse in inline-4 compared to larger V-engines, that is true. And the turbo does have its lag, which in practical life means nothing unless you do traffic-light races with teens a lot...
I suggest you try one of the new Mercedes or BMW turbos. Even diesel don't have these problems anymore, at least not very noticable. That's so 80's...
What is practical to you? And to me? Or someone else? Overtake where, in which circumstances? What you say is that you favour a certain kind of car, which is just _your_ taste, whatever that might be. For the rest, numbers speak for themselves.
The technical side is less than a half of the development, the rest is a struggle in fullfilling all the latest laws/rules and making sure you'll be able to build upon that for at least one generation of products. THAT is the hard part of the business that customers don't really understand or even bother to think about
Ach, didn't know you germans had slid quite that far, making plastic engines now are you eh? Where's that renowned sense for quality of yours, huh?_xxx_ said:
Why not? Surely the concept is a lot better than a four-stroke engine. Much fewer moving parts, much higher power to weight ratio... Efficiency potentially better than a four-stroke also, at least if a ship engine is anything to go by (not neccessarily the case as economics might not scale linearly with, well, scale, but still... Hard to get any WORSE than current engines anyway, heh!)No way in hell
YeuEmMaiMai
Regular
Direct Injection has one purpose and one purpose only. TO make the engine as efficient as possible and this can be divided into 2 areas:
1. Max HP for fuel consumed
2. Max fuel economy for fuel consumed
There is one potential problem with DI, when you place the injector directly into the compustion chamber as this requires the injector will not offer the same service life as one outside of the cylander. They have injectors that are capable but they are very expensive.
I think the H22a is a prime example of an engine done right 230+hp NA 2.2L that is lightwieght fuel efficient and durability that is excellent for an engine that can reach 8.9K
1. Max HP for fuel consumed
2. Max fuel economy for fuel consumed
There is one potential problem with DI, when you place the injector directly into the compustion chamber as this requires the injector will not offer the same service life as one outside of the cylander. They have injectors that are capable but they are very expensive.
I think the H22a is a prime example of an engine done right 230+hp NA 2.2L that is lightwieght fuel efficient and durability that is excellent for an engine that can reach 8.9K
OT:
At my community college auto dept. we recently got a chassis dyno
The instructor for my class ran his 2004 mustang cobra with a few mods(exhaust, smaller SC pulley, k&n system and reflash) and the type of dyno we have is the kind where you set it to a certain speed to apply the load and he was makin 280HP before it startin spinnin the tires (at 70MPH 4th gear) and today he tried it in 5th at 80MPH and he made 230 before the tires startin spinnin.
wtf is up with the traction of that?
It's rated for 500HP yet it doesn't have enough traction to hold over 230hp!
Oh and a guys Sced mr2 made 128hp~ at 5000 rpm at 80.
Pretty good for such low rpm it's rated at 145 at 6500rpm...
Maybe next time he'll try it in 3rd.
At my community college auto dept. we recently got a chassis dyno
The instructor for my class ran his 2004 mustang cobra with a few mods(exhaust, smaller SC pulley, k&n system and reflash) and the type of dyno we have is the kind where you set it to a certain speed to apply the load and he was makin 280HP before it startin spinnin the tires (at 70MPH 4th gear) and today he tried it in 5th at 80MPH and he made 230 before the tires startin spinnin.
wtf is up with the traction of that?
It's rated for 500HP yet it doesn't have enough traction to hold over 230hp!
Oh and a guys Sced mr2 made 128hp~ at 5000 rpm at 80.
Pretty good for such low rpm
it's rated at 145 at 6500rpm...Maybe next time he'll try it in 3rd.
Last edited by a moderator:
WhiningKhan
Regular
One more reply (not wanting to argue about taste preferences, just to keep facts straight)
It is from the 80's, but my original comment compared it to the new 3.6L engines, which it still beats e.g. in fuel economy. It was well ahead of its time in terms of engine management technology (more a 90's engine, not remotely like a 60's engine...) Also, it was only replaced from production in '98 with an evolution version of the same basic construction. OK I admit it, the newer engines are not as robust and what you said applies.
The fundamental driving force is unfortunately production cost savings and sales maximization with almost anything. If only those damn economists wouldn't always be spoiling all the fun from the engineers...
This I don't understand, what's the issue then? You think it's bad to have huge torque on a wide RPM range? In that case you're screwed if/when electric motors take over in cars in the future...
Sure I know that, I don't drive that good old Saab anymore. As the lag always was a non-issue for me, it's even much less so nowadays - I was more responding to MPI's post than to yours, excuse me for my lazy quoting.
_xxx_ said:
It is from the 80's, but my original comment compared it to the new 3.6L engines, which it still beats e.g. in fuel economy. It was well ahead of its time in terms of engine management technology (more a 90's engine, not remotely like a 60's engine...) Also, it was only replaced from production in '98 with an evolution version of the same basic construction. OK I admit it, the newer engines are not as robust and what you said applies.
The fundamental driving force is unfortunately production cost savings and sales maximization with almost anything. If only those damn economists wouldn't always be spoiling all the fun from the engineers...
_xxx_ said:It is flat, but at quite some more than what the non-charged engine could ever reach
This I don't understand, what's the issue then? You think it's bad to have huge torque on a wide RPM range? In that case you're screwed if/when electric motors take over in cars in the future...
_xxx_ said:
Sure I know that, I don't drive that good old Saab anymore. As the lag always was a non-issue for me, it's even much less so nowadays - I was more responding to MPI's post than to yours, excuse me for my lazy quoting.
Just a thought, but unless the car is super/turbocharged, won't air temperature/pressure make a noticeable change in engine output? If the difference is negligible (or perhaps the rig accounts for such changes), then maybe the 5th gear isn't as efficient as 4th... Still, 230 HP is a respectable amount, I personally would not complain.radeonic2 said:
Guden Oden said:Just a thought, but unless the car is super/turbocharged, won't air temperature/pressure make a noticeable change in engine output? If the difference is negligible (or perhaps the rig accounts for such changes), then maybe the 5th gear isn't as efficient as 4th... Still, 230 HP is a respectable amount, I personally would not complain.
SC= supercharger.
Well he'd making a ton more if the wheels would stop spinnin, his 280HP run he didnt have it floored...
It's likely the torque it makes since even at a lower rpm it spins the tires good and a old camaro made 230~ hp also without spinning the tires.
Figure that it's rated from the factory for 380 flywheel HP at 6000 and he was in 5th at 80mph it's very good.
The dynos that work by lettig you pull from a low rpm to a high rpm are teh best.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's no reason to have quad cams on an inline engine. The most you would need would be two: One for the intake valves and one for the exhaust. The reason for quad cams on a V engine is so you can have this configuration on each cylinder bank: One intake and one exhaust for each side.
