The one that really surprized me though was that it was also the same as a Tesla Roadster
the bullitt vs the challenger is not fair at all poor big car 425 hp and i have still smoked three srt8s with my stock bullitt and you can get 500 n/a power out of our motor stl on my other forums was puttin 420 to the rears with heads cams long tubes and a few other bolt ons so thats around 475 at the crank and he was only at stage 2 setup livernois was hittin 451 to the rears and mmr got 502rwhp all out of n/a 4.6 liters im gonna try itAbsolutely, I agree. Its an apples to oranges match up. The corvette is a 2 seat, composite body, IRS purpose built sports car with much wider rear tires. Changing the tires alone would do leaps & bounds to even up the odds.
I just get sick of these Mustang vs XXX comparisons that are obviously skewed. Just like the comparison between the Challenger SRT8 vs a Mustang Bullitt. 425 HP vs 315 hp...DUH!!!! If they are going to do comparisons then they should match the vehicles up as closely as possible to make it a fair race. BUT obviously, that isn't the point. Like you said, Its all about making up something to write about..........
One thing that I do tend to side with alot of these writers about though is the fact that with all of the technology available, Mustangs are still a ~300HP car, and in order to get past that barrier, you need to add boost or nitrous. There are so many new offerings with 400+ naturally aspirated horsepower out there, and there are so many boosted 4 and 6 cylinder cars that the mustang has become easy prey for these writers. NOW is the time to bring back the BOSS and show the competition a thing or two, but unfortunately, in these hard economic times, and with the ever strictening emission laws, that not likely. I always have been and always will be a Mustang guy, but its somewhat disheartening to see Ford announce that they are "cranking up the rated horsepower of the 2010 Mustang to 315HP" and the Challenger RT (rough equivelent of a Mustang GT) cranks out 376HP wheras the SRT8 (rough equivelant of a Shelby makes 425 HP on all motor.
the bullitt vs the challenger is not fair at all poor big car 425 hp and i have still smoked three srt8s with my stock bullitt and you can get 500 n/a power out of our motor stl on my other forums was puttin 420 to the rears with heads cams long tubes and a few other bolt ons so thats around 475 at the crank and he was only at stage 2 setup livernois was hittin 451 to the rears and mmr got 502rwhp all out of n/a 4.6 liters im gonna try it
The interesting thing about the california engine is that it produces 350 lb/feet
A KR for example, does not do so well in the solemn. That would be important if you were buying a KR as a track car, but no one does. People buy the KR to keep as a collectable, or, to do burnouts around town. That is why it has 500+ hp attached to skinnier tires. It is a burnout machine, pure and simple. Look good and smoke the tires. Solemn runs are irrelevant.
Let's not get too hung up on the DOHC vs SOHC argument. Nascar engines are neither and they spin to 8K all day long on only two valves. Surface area of the valves will determine the ultimate CFM that they will flow which of course will enable power as long as the engine is capable of spinning faster. The valvetrain should be relatively easy to get to withstand high RPM uses. It's the bottom end that is the problem. The long stroke and the crank design don't really encourage high rev setups. Forced induction will always remain the more efficient way of getting these motors to make power.
Thanks for the info Walter, that is good to know-- probably would have taken me years to figure that out on my own. I had just assumed the valvetrain was always the weak link in an engine, because I hear so much about throwing a rod. I had no idea Nascar engines rev'd so high, though I suppose it does stand to reason. I knew they were basic old school V8s in the design...
Dan, your right, ft-lbs, my bad. I have always disliked that unit and so use it with a certain amount of contempt. Just like the Nm, Force*Distance is energy, and should be called Joules, unless its rotating. That was one of the concepts I am still struggling with from Phys 101.
Sparty, no, I meant solemn, as no one would use their KR in a solemn way, it is only possible for a KR to bring thrills, so if you use it to bring solemnity, of course your numbers are going to be bad.
Thanks for the responses all, this is a good thread.
Dan, your right, ft-lbs, my bad. I have always disliked that unit and so use it with a certain amount of contempt. Just like the Nm, Force*Distance is energy, and should be called Joules, unless its rotating. That was one of the concepts I am still struggling with from Phys 101.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?