| If nobody buys the Sivik race chassis.... - Click HERE for Original Thread |
| Pro Drag |
You can look forward to this
It makes me feel all warm inside just thinking about it.:bthumbup: |
|
|
| blown_mr2 |
Blasphemy!!!
Soichiro Honda must be turning over in his grave!! :D :lol: :bthumbup: |
|
|
| Bucktown |
| holy shit......thats overdoing ut a lil dont you think? no wheelie bars? what a maniac.... |
|
|
| REFLUX |
| I'd like to see that! |
|
|
| SketchifisT |
| lol thats unreal, lol wow well good shite i would like to see that thing go |
|
|
| 4G63PWR |
| That will need a bit of frame re-enforcement. |
|
|
| DeathBy240 |
| Crazy, I always thought those 2 pics of that car were a chop. |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
| That's just too weak. Slap it in the hatch and make it FWD with a blown big block!:bthumbup: |
|
|
| SplineZ |
haha do it!
the last car I think looked that funny limped its way down the track every time ive seen it race... (grey r100) :)
Yours better run! :D
James Z |
|
|
| oldraven |
| I'd like to see what would happen if he tried to make an emergency stop from speed. :lol: Ever see a CRX on its nose? |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
quote:
Originally posted by SplineZ
haha do it!
the last car I think looked that funny limped its way down the track every time ive seen it race... (grey r100) :)
Yours better run! :D
James Z
Hahaha, that's hardly a blown big block car though. |
|
|
| JDMJOSH1 |
| So that car really does exist. I always thought that photo was a chop too |
|
|
| Nightstalker |
| I personally view that as dumb, crazy and interesting.. but why would you take a step so far back technology wise.. But I guess you guys are mostly DSMers so I can kinda understand. ;) :p |
|
|
| Pro Drag |
quote:
Originally posted by Nightstalker
I personally view that as dumb, crazy and interesting.. but why would you take a step so far back technology wise.. But I guess you guys are mostly DSMers so I can kinda understand. ;) :p
There is a supercharger on the motor and it sounds like it is running on alchohol. That isn't a step back in technology. That is big displacement running forced induction, the chosen chassis appears to be the only drawback. It is either going to flip over backwards, light the tires the entire track, or pretzel the chassis. |
|
|
| Nightstalker |
pushrod = shit
technology wise.. |
|
|
| SplineZ |
ding ding..
not true..
the LS1/6/2 are just as 'high tech' as the import wonder engines
GM chooses pushrods due to space contraints and nostalgia
James Z
quote:
Originally posted by Nightstalker
pushrod = shit
technology wise..
|
|
|
| mike3 |
| I wonder what that would run, if it did have traction, and didn't flip |
|
|
| Nightstalker |
There is another video of that doing a burnout for a whole city block pretty much, It was postes on my groups message board but its down tell sunday. I belive it might be somewhere on Cevo but you would have to use the search feature.
And pushrods engines don't have the same level of control of the valves as you would find in any OHC system. SOHC, DOHC, and the best which is the direct OHC systems are the best for that kind of thing. RPM = HP, and the pushrods heavy valve control system would never be able to make the kind of revs that the other systems do.. How many Pushrod F1 engines are there (currently) .. lets count.. ummm ZERO!
I would like to see a pushrod 3.0L put out 800+ HP, its never going to happen |
|
|
| S O |
One big reason for pushrod v8's is the center of mass: look at any OHC cylinder head and tell me that having all that weight at the top of the engine compartment is good for handling (excluding boxer engines). It's not as bad for the CG in a four/six banger because there's only four cylinders to run valves on.
There was an early Jaguar racecar that was a prime example of this - the pushrod, although it made 50 less horsepower, killed the DOHC version because it could handle better with a slightly lower CG. |
|
|
| SplineZ |
The only one of the large 7 mfgs in F1 that used pushrods in the last 10 years is ford.. currently NONE of them do.. besides its stipulated in the rules to use a 3L v10 ohc engine.
3.0L pushrod make 800HP? why stop there? there are lots of 5.7+L's making well over double/tripple that.. Longevity is not very high with any engine at this power level; doesnt matter who makes it..
Whatever, both are here to stay, who the hell cares? Everyone has a reason for choosing what they did..
James Z
quote:
Originally posted by Nightstalker
How many Pushrod F1 engines are there (currently) .. lets count.. ummm ZERO!
I would like to see a pushrod 3.0L put out 800+ HP, its never going to happen
|
|
|
| Mavrick |
quote:
I would like to see a pushrod 3.0L put out 800+ HP, its never going to happen [/B]
How about a Buick 3.8L V6 putting out more than 900 horse? It's been done several times.
By why speak in terms of a 3.0L engine? Pushrod engines are typically a 'domestic' design, and the engines that are designed to produce power in terms of competition are rarely made that small. It just doesn't make sense to put so many reciprocating parts to drain the power out of a small engine, but it does make them tough and reliable.
Mav. |
|
|
| Pro Drag |
quote:
Originally posted by Nightstalker
RPM = HP
True.
(Torque x RPM)/5252 = HP
If you drive a low torque motor, you do need alot of rpm to make alot of hp.
Or you could have a motor with some decent torque to start with, then you don't need to rev it as high to get an equivalent amount of hp.
Two different paths to the same goal. I prefer to start out with more torque, makes it more fun to drive IMO. |
|
|
|
|
|
