New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines



Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 130
  1. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    14,824
    #31
    Quote Originally Posted by basti08 View Post
    yes, and they need 7.0L of displacement to achieve that kind of torque.

    take for example, both performance models...
    300C Hemi with 5.7L V8 engine and E39 M5 with 5.0L 32v V8.

    300C 340hp 525NM, M5 400hp 500NM

    i dont see the relevance of its .7L displacement advantage. what? the 25NM of torque?
    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 output
    Last edited by mazdamazda; November 3rd, 2006 at 06:12 PM.

  2. Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,317
    #32
    hey i'll take the 7L engine any time!!!

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,465
    #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... ;)

  4. Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,046
    #34
    Quote Originally Posted by basti08 View Post
    sorry, that is still low tech in my book. you call that raw, brute power.
    are 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by basti08 View Post
    even GM is slowly killing those engine from their new cars,
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by basti08 View Post
    save the Corvette (were it not for their tradition, patay na rin siguro yun.)
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by basti08 View Post
    pushrods? i dont think you'll ever pick a Lumina engine over twin cams of its competitors... heck! even a 2.0L Civic (4cyl) is almost as powerful as that!
    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.

  5. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    14,824
    #35
    Quote Originally Posted by basti08 View Post
    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... ;)

    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?

  6. Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,543
    #36
    Quote Originally Posted by mazdamazda View Post
    mukhang nahihilo ka na... :puyat:
    E39 M5 with 5.0L 32v V8, 400hp 500Nm torque, 0-60mph in 3.9s
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by niky
    Take that the 300C is a much cheaper car, with a mass-produced engine, and it produces a goodly amount of HP and useable low-down torque (matters a lot in city driving, and in low-rpm highway cruising).
    The 300C's 5.7 liter Hemi V8 also has multiple displacement system... when cruising, stuck in traffic etc, the engine switches off 4 of its 8 cylinders to save on fuel.


    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

  7. Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,046
    #37
    Quote Originally Posted by basti08 View Post
    yes, and they need 7.0L of displacement to achieve that kind of torque.
    it is called potential. that 7L has more power waiting to be unleashed.

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,465
    #38
    i wish that 7.0L "potential" is really usable to you. unless you haul a trailer using a corvette. ;)

  9. Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,046
    #39
    Quote Originally Posted by basti08 View Post
    i wish that 7.0L "potential" is really usable to you. unless you haul a trailer using a corvette. ;)
    that 7L potential can give you 700hp without resorting to force induction.

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,465
    #40
    to each his own lang yan dude.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
American muscle vs japanese ingenuity