When does an engine become a performance engine?

[M3AN 4016]

^ forget that, result of ridiculous forum software. 

[M3AN 4016]

11 minutes ago, Herbmiester said:

Brakes are easy, e46 brakes and better pads. 

But are they performance brakes? 

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2956]

6 hours ago, M3AN said:

But are they performance brakes? 

Only if they have more than 55kw/litre apparently...

[Herbmiester 923]

They are when I stomp on them. In all seriousness did the same update to my 325i and they were pretty bloody good!

[coop 261]

Ron, unless you were confusing Ducati for Harley, I wouldn't say the big dukes run out of breath. If they do, the same can be said for most engines as power drops off between peak and the rev limiter. A quick google search of dyno charts show the 1299s consistently drop off peak power about 500rpm before the cut out. My 1098 looks at tho it flat lines all the way to its 10750 rpm cut out. I've had it not much more than 260kmh and can't say its ever ran out of breath, but drag starts to take its toll from 260+ so 6th gear to the limiter may expose that. 

I've spent a but of time on the latest Multistrada DVT with panniers and she pulls strong up to 220k. I didn't try a top speed run in 6th but there was no signs of running out of breath. 

 

Ill take you up on the 1000cc BMW beating the Ducati on the road. Put simply you cant beat the effortless torque the big twins offer. For point to point speed the litre bikes need to be worked in comparison. Perhaps I'm spoilt spending the last five years on a 1098. Definitely have to rev the multis to achieve the same amount of pace up SH16 or over the para paras etc. it becomes tiresome if not in the mood.

 

How would the 1000cc manufacturers go at increasing the capacity by nearly 30% while retaining reliability, emissions same power per litre outpit?

A complete redesign? Bigger block, stronger, bigger internals?... issues with NVH due to the unbalanced nature of the I4? Just throwing ideas out there I'm no engineer and I don't have time to sit and read like I did when working 40 hour weeks but I don't think increasing capacity by 30% while retaining the attributes of the 1000cc engine is as easy as that. 

 

I see where you're getting at with kw/litre. Can't say I agree on you opinion of the LS motors, and others not meeting a specific power per litre out put. IMO in the age of component sharing, fuel efficiency and guilt fuelled emission control, enjoy it while it lasts. Soon the 'performance' vehicle to have will be some wank factor double cab ute on 20 inch rims, sticker pack and some macho small cock syndrome sounding name. 

Edited December 23, 2016 by coop

[polley 916]

They low down torque of the big twins just smokes the inline 4's off the line and out of corners without having to rev the sh*t out of it to red line. Your charts and dynos might say otherwise, but go take a 1098 or something and take it out against a R1 or ZX10r, yeah the jap bikes will have it in the top end, but low down I dont think they can compete.

[Herbmiester 923]

I have reread this thread a few times and what's patently obvious with the method used to calculate this is that it's all RPM dependent. If a NA engine makes power above 7000 RPM its got a chance of being a Performance engine based on the the stated criteria. Torque has been largely ignored. So Mazda wins the day with its Rotary engines it seems. 

[Herbmiester 923]

On 12/17/2016 at 8:00 AM, 3pedals said:

So in answer to the original post in todays framework I moot the following:

50 kW/l - average  cooking engine

60 kW/l  efficient engine

80 kW/l   sport engine

100 kW/l high performance engine

Mazda RX8 with the Renesis 1308cc and 177kw =135 KW/L  with no torque.....

[coop 261]

Ron, do you know for sure that the S1000RR walks the Panagale flat out? I can't dispute this as Ive never seen it myself. The 1199 and 1299 are suppose to be 9 second 1/4 mile bikes (as well as the BMW - all seriously fast). I guess that if one is faster than the other, there would be little in it, so much so that the slightest mishap from a rider will influence the outcome. 

 

Ive run a 10.7 on my 1098 at 136mph. My mate on his '08 ZX10 managed a 10.8, same trap speed and same day. There were a few ZX14s and Hyabusas running low to mid 10s so I think the timing was a bit off that day as I've seen stock ZX14s run 10 flat at Meremere. 

The ZX10 starts to pull away at 220kmh. Too many factors at play here - taller gearing than my Duc, my mate is also 15kg lighter than me. The 1098 is still putting out the same or very similar power to the Jap 1000cc bikes but at 2-3000rpm less. Not to say it's running out of breath. Just the nature of a big twin, which will never pull the same revs as a short stroke 4 cylinder that has cylinder capacity nearly a third of the size.  

 

Consider the 1299 spins out to 12000rpm... Huge revs for the size of it, and the same rpm 1000cc bikes with redlining at 5-10 years ago. 

 

BTW, that was the last time I was at Meremere. Fastest Harley there was a high 11 modified Night Rod. If you want to be put off owning a Harley forever, get along to the next drag meet and see the knuckle dragging Harley riders in form. I guess they're butt hurt from being destroyed by 600cc Jap bikes, so carried an attitude because of it. 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by coop

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2956]

5 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Your line of argument again appears to be "if the power / torque number is big then it is a performance engine"  

As power and torque are the two main criteria of an engines performance then I would say that is the case.

i don't care if it's only 500cc and producing 70kw it's not a performance engine but a 6.2ltr V8 producing 312kw is. Can't do much with 70 but 312 is plenty of KW under your seat.

[Herbmiester 923]

Ron are you admitting engine weight is a factor, surely not.

 

[Neal 544]

That's at the top of my ugly bike list and just because people can doesn't  mean they should !

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Neal

[Neal 544]

53 minutes ago, 3pedals said:

Coop there is bugger all in it we are talking about machinery where the biggest performance modifier is the operator - but the word from many more experienced than me  is the BMW wins on the road/track and in the numbers but the Duc gets the emotional vote . but on any day it can go either way.

Not talking race bikes.

I reckon. I've had more favourable nods and waves from the fairer sex on the Duc than any other bike I've owned bike put together. Should have been the gsxr1000 from a performance pov . 

No wait... I'm off topic .

Agree on opperator. Quite humbling when you thing think your a good road rider and attend a session where the Bernard team fly passed and are at the point of getting elbows down.

 

anyway, thread is reminding me that my a series turbo project needs dusting of. Not a performance engine, but certainly built to push the power to double the factory tags.

 

 

[Neal 544]

28 minutes ago, 3pedals said:

Neal,, my mate was out one day riding through the Waitaks on his race tuned H2 750 Kawasaki two stroke , had it fully cranked over  having a good scratch and a certain top production  rider passed him on the inside on a  stock GT185 Suzuki which belonged to his sister. Mate  was Ferkin shitty for weeks.

That's a serious performance differential !

 When I first competed in the Cliffhanger hill climb (748r)I was humbled by a 16 y/o on a RS125 who put the same time down. At this event you can enter on a road registered bike.

Ironically the Rossi weekend look alikes on 1000 il4s where never to be seen at this event, Too busy sipping soy latees at some alfresco cafe navel gassing at their chicken strips and exchanging bus ticket bitch slapping tales of how fast they are.

 

then you get a pro on a il4 doing it !

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Neal

[Olaf 3317]

man, that speed is almost incomprehensible.  WOW.

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2956]

14 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Hey Coop how good are you with a welder - reckon we can shoe horn this in your Ducati and ditch that pissy little 1299 ?

Capacity - 16 litres,

Power 894kW at 1800 RPM

Torque 3,500 Nm at 1300RPM

Weight 1290kg

Got big numbers so it MUST be a performance engine

 

The big V8 diesels CAN'T be performance engines as most truck builders won't fit them with a 3 pedal box.

[Herbmiester 923]

So here's what I take from this thread.

NA engines that make power at 7000 RPM or better are pretty much the only engines that get classified as performance engines.(By Ron)

LS Engines (alloy)are not performance engines even though their light weight and size allow them to fit into small engine bays and give significant power to weight increases.

The E36 is not an exciting chassis (even though Ron owns one) 

Torque is largely overlooked in this discussion but it's a real factor in street car performance and while turbo motors can emulate this level of torque they lack the linearity.

Finally to dispel the rumour that pushrods dont rev read this. http://www.hotrod.com/articles/4-8l-crank-ls3-block-how-to-build-an-8000-rpm-ls-stroker/ no rocket science here just short stroke big bore basics. Now that in an E36 sounds like some fun. Over 100 HP per litre. And unlike some of the mythical motors Ron has put forward this one is a bread an butter build.

Now I already know from posting this in the wrong area that's Ron's response is basically to abuse but the above build shows that by Ron's metric an LS can be a performance engine. 

[M3AN 4016]

How will we measure "performance" when the "engine" plays only a part in overall power delivery? i.e. Hybrid cars?

 

[huff3r 347]

10 minutes ago, M3AN said:

How will we measure "performance" when the "engine" plays only a part in overall power delivery? i.e. Hybrid cars?

 

Good point. How many litres is the average 150kw electric motor? Perhaps kw/kg is a better metric for electric

Edited January 2, 2017 by huff3r

[M3AN 4016]

Here's a non-performance engine in a shitty chassis... doesn't go like a cut cat at all.

 

 

[M3AN 4016]

And I bet this is just terrible...

[Herbmiester 923]

On 12/14/2016 at 2:21 PM, gjm said:

What thoughts do folks have? When does an engine become a performance engine? Is the absolute power produced (or torque) make any engine a performance one, or is it the case that specific power output - hp per litre - is the yardstick? Does forced induction move the line?

So Ron part of the original question on the thread asked "Is the absolute power produced (or torque) make any engine a performance one." Now what you have focussed on is your KW/L arguement, and for the umpteenth time Ron that was not the only part of the question! And as people other than me have demonstrated big cc engines that have horsepower ouputs above high revving small dipacement engines can be considered performance engines based on thier power alone! Whats also clear is that the only NA engines that meet the criteria are high reviing engines, which is fine because these engines are great in thier own right. The simple metric that meaures this is yet again power to weight. This drags on to 5 pages as much because you dont accept this. 

There is no derailment here, how could there be when the acual question is being answered. 

The reality Ron is that you have very pronounced likes and dislikes and your biases cloud your arguement. For me I like most engines and have owned big CC pusrod engines High revving 4 cyls, rotaries and of course the smooth BMW 6s, and its clear that a great chassis like an E36 would match up very well to an engine with 400plus horsepower, how I go about that is yet to be realised but whats clear is that its unlikely to be a NA engine unless the cc rating is above 5000

Edited January 3, 2017 by Herbmiester

[M3AN 4016]

You've changed your name Ron (William)?

Anyway, the problem here, and in many similar threads, is that there's simply no universally correct answer despite the insistence of some.

If one has to rely on semantics to prove their own paradigm is 'correct' then they've missed the point of the discussion. This was never a thread about absolutes, it was always going to be subjective. Discussions so often are.

Being a member of a society invariably requires, from time to time, one to stand down from their position, however informed and accurate they believe it to be, in the interests of promoting harmony. Recognising when doing so is in the best interests of the wider community is a very respected trait and when a 'discussion' has devolved to semantics that point has well passed.

For most people being harmonious some of the time is much more important than being right all of the time.

[M3AN 4016]

Are you a human William?

Do you understand that beyond a certain point you're only talking to yourself because everybody else has tuned out?

Do you recognise that in such situations however "correct" you are nobody else cares?

When nobody else cares you've lost your argument, your position and any authority you had. It no longer matters how 'correct' you are because you're already 'wrong' in the eyes of all observers. Not because of your argument but because of your attitude.

I used to be "right" all the time at work until an astute manager taught me long ago that always being "right" was simply wrong, irrespective of how accurate I might have thought I was.

Carry on as you wish.

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2956]

25 minutes ago, 3pedals said:

I do agree with the "attitude"  comment but this cuts both ways - you and others are coming at things with an attitude  of your own - perhaps the best thing is that we recognise each others "attitudes" and find a  middle ground - perhaps then we might get some  interesting discussion ?

That sounds like a great idea let us all try that shall we?