PDA

View Full Version : Street racers are retarded



All4Traction
02-15-2006, 06:00 PM
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/street+racer/0/5262D54A-7C16-40EE-BD46-A6594E0C23DE.htm

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/street+racer/0/7253AC11-3EA9-4050-90F0-CA9266465B57.htm

Waffle
02-15-2006, 07:58 PM
Lol, Thos stupid high reving vtec engines. Get a turbo you retards!!

creech_r
02-15-2006, 09:25 PM
High rev doesn't always = bad. Low quality parts installed by people who don't have a clue what they're doing and WHY they're doing it = bad. Couple that with poor driving abilities and the urge to race in busy areas where there are people all over the place. You get why cops and people with intelligence are so pissy about the average street racer. Heck, high rev with turbo got BMW a 1.5L moving somewhere around 1300hp...

wrongboy
02-15-2006, 09:43 PM
Isnt this from MTV True Life "I'm a Street Racer"? I seem to remeber that guy....

alltracman78
02-16-2006, 12:35 AM
High rev doesn't always = bad. Low quality parts installed by people who don't have a clue what they're doing and WHY they're doing it = bad. Couple that with poor driving abilities and the urge to race in busy areas where there are people all over the place. You get why cops and people with intelligence are so pissy about the average street racer. Heck, high rev with turbo got BMW a 1.5L moving somewhere around 1300hp...

word

How do you think they got so much power out of the F1 engines?
BMWs redline is like 20 THOUSAND rpms......

hobbie2k
02-16-2006, 04:41 AM
word

How do you think they got so much power out of the F1 engines?
BMWs redline is like 20 THOUSAND rpms......

Damn straight! Don't diss the Hondas, it takes a lot more effort and engineering prowess to make 240hp out of 2.0 NA litres than it does to make 240hp out of 2.0 FI litres.

creech_r
02-16-2006, 07:43 AM
word

How do you think they got so much power out of the F1 engines?
BMWs redline is like 20 THOUSAND rpms......


if i remember reading correctly it was only 11.5 K BUT they're also moving 5.9 bar of boost...

creech_r
02-16-2006, 07:45 AM
Damn straight! Don't diss the Hondas, it takes a lot more effort and engineering prowess to make 240hp out of 2.0 NA litres than it does to make 240hp out of 2.0 FI litres.

Now if only they implemented it in a more attractive format...AWD NA 240hp...lighter car than the AT (2 seater maybe)...i'd buy that.

hobbie2k
02-16-2006, 11:17 PM
Now if only they implemented it in a more attractive format...AWD NA 240hp...lighter car than the AT (2 seater maybe)...i'd buy that.

yeah...but the problem is that AWD and high-strung NA motors don't go well together. After all, why would you need AWD except to help get excessive torque to the ground? I'd rather they stick with 2wd and save a couple hundred pounds and a couple thousand dollars.

ciento44
02-17-2006, 12:45 AM
ST184 on the tow truck though.

GT4SOM
02-17-2006, 01:01 AM
You can't compare a F1 motor to a honda consumer motor. IE new Civic SI specs 197hp @ 7800, 139 torque @ 6100 and the curb weight is 2877 lbs. (I assume those are power ratings at the Flywheel)That is one torque less dog. From the hole I bet that car won't move. As far as I4 consumer engines go, I would take a FI motor over any N/A, hands down.

hobbie2k
02-17-2006, 03:40 AM
It may be torqueless, but that doesn't mean it's slow, with proper gearing and technique it'll be plenty fast. After all, if they couldn't make the car fast without FI, why would they spend billions on the development of NA motors, when it's easier and cheaper to go FI?

partyball
02-17-2006, 04:10 AM
That does seem like an aweful low torque number for as high as the hp is.

Celicaguy13
02-17-2006, 06:12 AM
It may be torqueless, but that doesn't mean it's slow, with proper gearing and technique it'll be plenty fast. After all, if they couldn't make the car fast without FI, why would they spend billions on the development of NA motors, when it's easier and cheaper to go FI?

Why don't they just put a V6 in cars and make it easier to get power and torque? And it's not easier and cheaper to just put in a FI motor. You have to build a motor to handle boost and be reliable. A FI motor takes way more development then a NA and costs more to develop.

creech_r
02-17-2006, 06:15 AM
space conservation and fuel efficiency...

Celicaguy13
02-17-2006, 06:19 AM
Also IMO Any car Manufactuer, If wanted to, can create something similar to a F20 motor. They just choose other routes. I don't think other car companies want to spend who knows how much on developing something like a F20 and only putting it in 1 vehicle that doesn't sell as much as you think. It's all about $$$.


Damn straight! Don't diss the Hondas, it takes a lot more effort and engineering prowess to make 240hp out of 2.0 NA litres than it does to make 240hp out of 2.0 FI litres.

Toyota's Beams 3s-ge black top I believe makes 210hp. I'm sure if they redesigned it to have vvtL-i, it would easily make 240-250hp. So Toyota obvioulsy has a REALLY good chance matching or even Beating the F20 If they cared to. But obviously Toyota has gone to the Eco/sedan way so they obviously don't care.

ciento44
02-17-2006, 08:06 AM
^I thought the Beams did have vvtl-i?

creech_r
02-17-2006, 08:31 AM
^I thought the Beams did have vvtl-i?
you be right.

Celicaguy13
02-17-2006, 09:34 AM
^I thought the Beams did have vvtl-i?

you be right.

Beams only have VVT-I, Not VVTL-I. The 2zz-ge is the only Toyota motor I know of that actually has the technology.

And if you don't think it would make a difference go drive a 2000 Celica GT and a GT-S and see if there is one. The GT engine is a 1.8 vvt-i and makes 140hp. The GT-S has VVTL-I and is also a 1.8 and makes 180hp. The "L" or what 7th gen celica owners call "Lift" in vvtl-i makes the engine have a True 2nd cam lobe like VTEC and personal experience driving a GSR and GT-S, Lift hits a hell of a lot harder then VTEC .

david in germany
02-17-2006, 10:48 AM
Just a comment about High RPM's

I know a dude over here that built a RWD corrolla with a blacktop 4a-ge that can maintain over 9k rpm on the track. He has never had a problem with it either. :woot: toyota! :wiggle:

Colossus20v
02-17-2006, 01:25 PM
Blacktops and silvertops are made to breath, with some fine tuning and strong valves it floats in the higher rpms.

jaded_driver
02-17-2006, 03:28 PM
wow... what morons.. and me.. i'm an old school chevy lover... hoss engines huge torque massive HP... but i'm a 4cyl man now... and its amazing what they can do

ciento44
02-17-2006, 07:02 PM
Beams only have VVT-I, Not VVTL-I. The 2zz-ge is the only Toyota motor I know of that actually has the technology.

And if you don't think it would make a difference go drive a 2000 Celica GT and a GT-S and see if there is one. The GT engine is a 1.8 vvt-i and makes 140hp. The GT-S has VVTL-I and is also a 1.8 and makes 180hp. The "L" or what 7th gen celica owners call "Lift" in vvtl-i makes the engine have a True 2nd cam lobe like VTEC and personal experience driving a GSR and GT-S, Lift hits a hell of a lot harder then VTEC .


I stand corrected. :wiggle:

hobbie2k
02-17-2006, 10:54 PM
Toyota's Beams 3s-ge black top I believe makes 210hp. I'm sure if they redesigned it to have vvtL-i, it would easily make 240-250hp. So Toyota obvioulsy has a REALLY good chance matching or even Beating the F20 If they cared to. But obviously Toyota has gone to the Eco/sedan way so they obviously don't care.

I wasn't attacking Toyota, they make excellent engines, too (though is the Beams 3sge a factory motor like the F20? I thought it was a tuner motor...). I was just saying that people on here should be slower to dismiss the high rpm/high hp NA formula. And as for the turbo/NA development and building costs, if you're designing a motor for high rpm and high NA hp, then you need to design if from the ground up to handle the unique environment that creates, just like a turbo motor.

The engineering problems are different, but the talent, resourcefulness, and tenacity required to overcome them is the same. It's just that there have been road going turbo cars for decades, whereas motors like the B18c and 2zzge have only had a few years of serious road going development behind them, which means it's relatively uncharted territory.

That said, I'd still rather have torquey 200hp than a torqueless 250hp...

GT4SOM
02-18-2006, 12:53 AM
Speaking from my personal experience with variable valve timing, I'm very disappointed with it. I have driven a 6 speed S2k I4 verision. This girl literally made me take it up to 7k and I was scared to keep pushing it b/c it wasn't my car, I didn't wanna blow it up.(never driven a high reving car) So anyways I think while in the range of 7k she say's "feel the vtec, its awsome!" I go ....Huh?? While pushing the car I believe to almost 9k. This was a 3rd gear pull btw. So anyways I was shocked to realize how slow the s2k was, on the good side, it does handle great! Once we hit the "vtec" It just felt like a little umph that hit the engine, nothing major. Nothing to be compared to what a stock celica swapped feels like. Considering the S2000 makes 240 hp / 153 ft lb tq @ 7500 rpm. Last time I checked, a jdm 3s makes only 225 hp. To conclude stock 3sgte swap > s2k. Boost > VVTL-I or Vtec

Dr.Auto
02-19-2006, 07:26 AM
if i remember reading correctly it was only 11.5 K BUT they're also moving 5.9 bar of boost...


The rules for F1 change from year to year. for 2005 they were running 3.0L V-10's. Thw Bmw powered williams car during testing was capable to hit nearly 20,000RPM with over 1000Hp. The rev limiter was set to I think 19,200 RPM becasue the drop off in power at that point was pointless. In 2005 forced induction was prohibited. For 2006 they are switching to V-8's which I haven't been able to too much info on as of yet.

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/4

I personally love N/A engines. There is nothing like them....it takes a real MAN to know how to build a real N/A engine. But it takes a Bigger man to build a good strong small displacment engine. As the saying goes.... theres no replacment for displacement. But I know a guy that says "yes there is! it's called boost". In short a engine is going to produce only as much power relative to how much air (mixed with fuel) you can get into it regardless of displacment. N/A can be difficult especially with small displacment engines becasue to get any real power out of them you HAVE to build them for very high RPM usage to flow the air needed to get any power.

So anyways I don't know whaere the RPM thing came in at but just because a car revs doesn't mean it's gay. I know Hondas have a horrable reputaion but it's merely because of the crowd that hosts them. And no Hondas are not known for their torque. But when you get people that know what they're doing.......those hondas will kick your butt if you don't look out.

the picture in my mind right now is a felly auto-x friend that's about 50 years old that drives a 91 civic hatch. Crazy adjustable suspension, r-compound tires......rundsgood in the corners. But watch out cause it runs good in the straights too. Given the suspension is not set up for launching it from a stop. But he has a B-20 with a V-TEC cyl head with type-r cams. Running 10.5:1 compression with a supercharger running about 6PSI. AND........ it redlines at 9,500RPM!!!!!!!!! And it gets there crazy fast because he has lightned the rotating components insane. It is not uncommon to go for a ride through the canyon with him constantly bouncing off the rev limmiter.

Moral of the story. Don't judge a product because of a stupid consumer that has hacked and destroyed the product into crap and then on top of it doesn't know how to tie his shoe laces let alone drive a car.

Dr.Auto
02-19-2006, 07:34 AM
Speaking from my personal experience with variable valve timing, I'm very disappointed with it. I have driven a 6 speed S2k I4 verision. This girl literally made me take it up to 7k and I was scared to keep pushing it b/c it wasn't my car, I didn't wanna blow it up.(never driven a high reving car) So anyways I think while in the range of 7k she say's "feel the vtec, its awsome!" I go ....Huh?? While pushing the car I believe to almost 9k. This was a 3rd gear pull btw. So anyways I was shocked to realize how slow the s2k was, on the good side, it does handle great! Once we hit the "vtec" It just felt like a little umph that hit the engine, nothing major. Nothing to be compared to what a stock celica swapped feels like. Considering the S2000 makes 240 hp / 153 ft lb tq @ 7500 rpm. Last time I checked, a jdm 3s makes only 225 hp. To conclude stock 3sgte swap > s2k. Boost > VVTL-I or Vtec


hahahaha.....you should see the testing they do on brand new engines regarding RPMS! The rev limiter and the red line are there for a reason. The red line means......... don't go past that point because then.......... and only then you can start to damage the engine. The engine is desighned to operate quite safely within it's rev range including up to red line. But remember that having a load on the engine and free revving have a differant effect on the engine. A s2000 has no power at all untill you wind it up. You HAVE to almost bounce it off the rev limiter all the time just to make it move. Engines like this measn you are either at idle or wide open throttle.

Besides what you are talking about is torque. When you can "feel" it that's the torque part ot things. Hondas have always been low on torque, and you have to drive them like you hate them and your going to blow it up other wise they don't move.

Edicius
02-22-2006, 03:52 AM
so $50-60k and it only makes 320 hp with nitrous? that is so sad. no, pathetic.

Dr.Auto
02-23-2006, 06:27 AM
so $50-60k and it only makes 320 hp with nitrous? that is so sad. no, pathetic.


Technically speaking............ hoarsepower is relative (or in other words...irrelavant). I have no clue why people get all hyped up about Hp. Torque Vs RPM is what is important.




Besides..................I totally agree that this dude is screwed in the head. But he also has alot of ricer crap on the car too......so the 50-60 k probibly covers the cost of the whole car with the ricer crap, and the engine. And knowing this guy (through strereotype) he probibly only has maybe 8k tied up in the engine. And the engine mods are probibly nothing but bolt ons anyways. And also with how un-fast the car is he probibly didn't think it was nessessary to buy anything but some cheap street tires...........that offer no traction.

Morwan
02-23-2006, 06:56 AM
Technically speaking............ horsepower is relative (or in other words...irrelevant). I have no clue why people get all hyped up about Hp. Torque Vs RPM is what is important.

Uh, horsepower is a measurement of Torque Vs. RPM:

Power = 2*Pi*Rotational Speed*Torque

In the more practical form:

Power (hp) = [torque (ft-lb) * rpms]/5252

Horsepower is more important because it determines the rate at which you're applying power through your transmission-- that's what determines the actual torque you're putting down.

creech_r
02-25-2006, 09:33 AM
I stand corrected. :wiggle:

i guess i do too.

Edicius
03-08-2006, 04:34 AM
Technically speaking............ hoarsepower is relative (or in other words...irrelavant). I have no clue why people get all hyped up about Hp. Torque Vs RPM is what is important.

Besides..................I totally agree that this dude is screwed in the head. But he also has alot of ricer crap on the car too......so the 50-60 k probibly covers the cost of the whole car with the ricer crap, and the engine. And knowing this guy (through strereotype) he probibly only has maybe 8k tied up in the engine. And the engine mods are probibly nothing but bolt ons anyways. And also with how un-fast the car is he probibly didn't think it was nessessary to buy anything but some cheap street tires...........that offer no traction.

He didn't mention how much torque he made. So I can't really comment on it. But considering its an LS VTec 4 cylinder, my guess would be that it makes less than 150 lbs. off the juice. Even his engine mods are pointless. Does he really need to be able to disconnect the fuel line like that? No.

Dr.Auto
03-09-2006, 04:32 AM
Uh, horsepower is a measurement of Torque Vs. RPM:

Power = 2*Pi*Rotational Speed*Torque

In the more practical form:

Power (hp) = [torque (ft-lb) * rpms]/5252

Horsepower is more important because it determines the rate at which you're applying power through your transmission-- that's what determines the actual torque you're putting down.


:wtf: :slap:

I will not go into this......... I'll just say, I think you agree with me. If not, Define: Horspower. If you do agree with me then, please let's let this subject die.

Street racers are dumb and so is this guy.




Edicius
He didn't mention how much torque he made. So I can't really comment on it. But considering its an LS VTec 4 cylinder, my guess would be that it makes less than 150 lbs. off the juice. Even his engine mods are pointless. Does he really need to be able to disconnect the fuel line like that? No.

My point exactly. It's officially called....RICE BOY!

Oh yeah....and :slap: Edicius for bringing this back up