Results 31 to 40 of 130
-
November 3rd, 2006 06:08 PM #31
mukhang nahihilo ka na... :puyat:
300C Hemi with 5.7L V8, 340hp 525Nm torque, 0-60mph in 6.4s
E39 M5 with 5.0L 32v V8, 400hp 500Nm torque, 0-60mph in 3.9s
LS7 7.0L OHV V8, 505hp, 637Nm torque, 0-60mph in 3.7s
p.s. don't confuse Nm (newton meter) with lb. ft in the torque outputLast edited by mazdamazda; November 3rd, 2006 at 06:12 PM.
-
-
November 3rd, 2006 06:58 PM #33
3.9secs for the M5 (E39)?...it's more like 4.8secs (C/D march 2000)
i just cite an example wherein magkalapit ang engine displacement where the bigger (american) engine doesnt really have that much of an advantage.
pero, my point is just that smaller Japs and Euro engine can match the performance of behemoth USDM engines. maximizing the output ika-nga... ;)
-
Tsikot Member Rank 4
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 1,046
November 3rd, 2006 07:08 PM #34are you calling an engine that has the ability to shut half of its cylinders low tech and "raw power?" what is high tech to you? an OHC engine designed in the early 1900s? :lol: OHC engine with variable valve timing has been around since the early 1960s, so it is not something new.
wrong. GM is continually advancing the development of their OHV engines, which will be applied in their various Chevy cars. Their Vortec "V" configuration engines are all pushrods. their OHC engines are going in their Caddies and some in their Vortec Inline configuration.
wrong again. GM had used an OHC design in their C4 Corvette (the ZR1 LT5) . it failed immensely as the car gained a few hundred lbs and cost kept this car from being much of a success. heritage may be a part of the reason it still uses the pushrod engine, but mainly because it is the best solution for the car. it is more compact, durable, lighter design, and it produces all the torque and power at a relatively low price compared to an OHC engine.
i said it before and i'll say it again. PEAK power is rarely what's important in a production engine. what is more important is maintaining a healthy amount of power over the usable rev range, which is what a lot of non-turbo japanese cars lack (or shall i say a smaller displacement OHC design). i can guarantee that aforementioned Civic will have to be driven hard and you'll have to rev the piss out of it in order to get it moving.
-
November 3rd, 2006 07:12 PM #35
sorry! ako ang nahilo dun. :puyat:
===
back to the 300C versus E39 M5 comparo.
300C Hemi
- base price of around $34K
- 5.7L V8 w/ MDS, 340hp * 5000rpm 525Nm * 4000rpm torque
- EPA mpg 17 city / 25 hway
E39 M5
- base price of around $70K (a few years ago)
- 5.0L 32v V8, 400hp * 6600rpm 500Nm torque * 3800rpm
- EPA mpg 13 city / 21 hway
so... which is a more "efficient" vehicle as a daily drive?
-
November 3rd, 2006 07:12 PM #36
0-60mph in 3.9 sec? thats for the new 500hp V10 M5(4.1 sec in some tests), the E39 M5's 0-60mph acceleration time was around 4.8 sec.
Originally Posted by niky
Hemi's peak hp comes at a much lower rpm, but the max torque is reached at 4000rpm, 200rpm higher than the E39 M5.
BMW E39 M5
5.0 liter V8 DOHC
Max Power: 400hp * 6600rpm
Max Torque: 500Nm * 3800rpm
Chrysler 300C Hemi
5.7 Liter V8 OHV
Max Power: 340hp * 5000rpm
Max Torque: 525Nm * 4000rpm
the closest BMW engine to the 300C's Hemi, is the 5.4 liter V12 of the previous gen 750iL
1999 BMW 750iL.
5.4 Liter V12 SOHC
Max Power: 326hp * 5000rpm
Max Torque: 490Nm * 3900rpm
-
Tsikot Member Rank 4
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 1,046
November 3rd, 2006 07:15 PM #37
-
November 3rd, 2006 07:28 PM #38
i wish that 7.0L "potential" is really usable to you. unless you haul a trailer using a corvette. ;)
-
Tsikot Member Rank 4
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 1,046
November 3rd, 2006 07:39 PM #39
-
alas, much as we might want to rely on our noses, we may not use our noses to do emissions...
LTO accredited emission testing centers