TOP NA ENGINE

  • Click here to become an Official Member of BMW Club Malaysia Download Form
You try beating a Merc SL55 AMG using a Ferrai 430 in the real world, my friend. Don't be too obssessed with the numbers.

I'm not offended, I'm just intolerant.
 
Originally posted by The Necessary@Jan 9 2006, 05:53 PM
You try beating a Merc SL55 AMG using a Ferrai 430 in the real world, my friend. Don't be too obssessed with the numbers.

I'm not offended, I'm just intolerant.
:) cool down... just a discussion....

sl55 n f430, level abit different rite...

5.5 supercharge ~ 500hp 700Nm vs 4.3L na ~ 490hp 465Nm

torque different by 235... cannot la..


mb we can compare slr mcLaren n enzo...

5.5 supercharge ~ 626hp 780Nm vs 6.0L na ~ 660hp 657Nm

i think enzo abit faster than slr...

yes, dun just look at figure... we shd consider other factors like build quality, comfort, luxury, handling...
 
Huh? Why would you consider SLR vs. Enzo the "same level", but F430 vs. SL55 as unfair?

Plus, I thought you said the superior technology of N/A can still "beat" everyone?
 
Originally posted by The Necessary@Jan 9 2006, 06:26 PM
Huh? Why would you consider SLR vs. Enzo the "same level", but F430 vs. SL55 as unfair?

Plus, I thought you said the superior technology of N/A can still "beat" everyone?
cos 5.5 vs 4.3, somemore supercharge....

anyway, some ppl put them in same level...


3.0 turbo vs 3.5/4.0 na still fair....

3.0 turbo vs 3.0 na of cos nt fair....

anyway, if really stick to this , hard to find a car to compare also.... :)

p/s : benz 1.8 (163hp 220nm) kompressor vs bmw 2.2 (170hp 210nm)........
 
chill pills for all.

First of all, what is the purpose of this thread?
What are the things u want to know?
Or what are the points u want to bring forth?

Without a clear objective, this discussion won't be going anywhere
 
Originally posted by The Necessary@Jan 9 2006, 06:26 PM
Huh? Why would you consider SLR vs. Enzo the "same level", but F430 vs. SL55 as unfair?

Plus, I thought you said the superior technology of N/A can still "beat" everyone?
i think u misunderstanding... :)

na is the basic technology of engine. so i very impressed tat ppl using na engine can beat turbo engine.... wat if they add in turbo also....


turbo, kompresor, supercharge all need high technology also....

bt i still prefer na bcos they work smoothly.... produce power without leaking... bra bra... i think u knw also la....
 
Originally posted by fabianyee@Jan 9 2006, 06:38 PM
chill pills for all.

First of all, what is the purpose of this thread?
What are the things u want to know?
Or what are the points u want to bring forth?

Without a clear objective, this discussion won't be going anywhere
hihi....

these r the top engines i knw in the world nw...

i just want to c got other engine better than these...

c wat is ur ppl opinion lo.....

of cos i would like to hav discussion abt different kind of engine also...

V, I, rotary, flat, .....

turbo, kompressor, suprecharge....

i like car very much.... bt i dun knw technical stuff.... hehehe.....
 
Originally posted by The Necessary@Jan 9 2006, 07:01 PM
Well, you're definitely missing out the BMW-McLaren 6.0 V12.
yes yes...


6.1L ~ 627hp 650Nm = 103hp/L

bt this one tuned by McLaren...
 
On this pointless topic... who cares who made, tuned, or whatevered the engine? Sigh.

I'm going to shut this one down by tomorrow if nothing more concrete happens.
 
wait...

ewicong made a good point which, perhaps is plain for all, but then again, perhaps got lost in all that heat that gave no light.

he said that the max torque of the engine is related to the displacement where the hp isn't.

strictly, thats only applicable for NA engines. but yes thats a very good point.

lets take a 1.6L NA engine since its quite common and most have experienced it. the famed honda b16 dohc vtec engine pushes probably around 160hp(ball park figure) whereas a wira 1.6 probably does 110hp, if that. yet if you compare their torque figures, i'd say they are within 10% of each other. just look up the spec of any 1.6L NA be it a corolla/sentra/wira/civic etc.. even a 316.

the other factor that controls the torque when displacement is held constant is the compression ratio. of course other things like cylinder head design and config, intake and exhaust components play a role too, albeit to a more diluted extend.

yet ewicong pointed out that the hp can b e vastly different and this alludes to the question-at what rpm did these same displacement engines make their max torque?

you'd find that the higher hp ones make their peak torque later up the revs and thats the key. hp is simply the product of torque and rpm.

maybe this is not subtle but plain elementary. maybe. in which case, just a gentle review chaps. :D
 
My vote goes to Alfa's classic 1962 c.c. 4 potter. First designed way back in the 60s and evolved all the way into the 90s. 150 BHP from 2000 c.c. was a big achievement back in 1970. Sodium cooled valves in the 60s? Yup. Twin overhead cams with chain belting? Yes.. All alloy engine? Yes.... Twin Spark? Yes and in the 60s. All matched with a true 5 speed gearbox in the 60s.

Their V6s aren't bad either.
 
screw all ur newfangled technology! my vote goes out to the yankee pushrod big block V8 with 500 cubic inches, 500 hp and 500 lbft - yes, that's POUND-FOOT! - of torque. puts hair on ur chest.

oh, and if the timing belt snaps, u can just take off ur belt and use it in the meantime. nothing beats old school! :D

redd
 
Originally posted by Redd@Jan 9 2006, 02:45 PM
screw all ur newfangled technology! my vote goes out to the yankee pushrod big block V8 with 500 cubic inches, 500 hp and 500 lbft - yes, that's POUND-FOOT! - of torque. puts hair on ur chest.

oh, and if the timing belt snaps, u can just take off ur belt and use it in the meantime. nothing beats old school! :D

redd
Redd, I'm amazed and glad you didn't go with an Alfa engine!

Porsche 2.7L flat-6 as fitted to the 2.7RS.
 
LOL! dont get me wrong, i love my Alfa V6. i also loved the old VW VR6 that i had.

i basically love anything that makes a beautiful noise and has big displacement. all those small economical lumps with hairdryers attached are for suckers! ;)

no replacement for displacement, baybee!! and in that arena, nothing beats american muscle. :D

too bad roadtax structure here is not big cc friendly or id be driving a mustang.

redd
 
agreed!!! ..but my vote goes to audi's new 4.2 V8 from the new RS4..screams all the way to 8250rpms!!
 
Jaguar Straight Six-60's as fitted in E-type
Aston Martin Straight Six-DB4,5&6
Ferrari V12-any period
Alfa Romeo V6, best production v6 ever, period
Rover V8- One of the best serving affordable v8 , as used TVR, Triumph & Land rover
Lancia V4, as used in Fulvia, light & compact , low gravity.
Porsche flat 6
Mazda Rotary-revolutionary engine
Fiat & Lancia 4cyl-Also known as the Lampredi twin cam, ex ferrari man designed the famous fiat lancia twin cam used in variety of models from integrale to abarth for 32 years, the last incarnation seen in Fiat coupe 4cyl
BMW straight six-I am not good with engine code but as seen in the e36 and e46 m3
Alfa 4cyl- 1954 to 1994, need i say more, powered the most modest alfa romeo to most exotic such as the TZ2.
 
Another thing to look out for is drivability... But yeah, HP per ltr is harder to achieve when the displacement gets larger. Hence high tech wins over low tech here... There is only so much hair your can have on your chest with wonderful sounds, and big torque with a old skool pushrod engine (N/A)... All the ego and hairs on the chest gets put into perspective when a high revving V10 or V12 blows your doors off :)

Seriously tho.. I think Ferrari makes the best NA engine in the supercar class. They sound so hair raisingly good as well when they are tach'ed up to their redlines... Beats the rumble of push rod V8's IMHO.. but thats just my preference..
 
Top Bottom