200-220 HP (net) is the maximum output of a late production 460 --
200-220 HP at 2,500 RPM. Do the math. That's 425-450 ft lbs of torque.
Hard to get much more power than that from 8.5:1 compression without
screwing with the valve train or force feeding air (my 11:1 460 max's
out at 475+ ft lbs, but you pay a cost in fuel consumption and noise).
Obviously you're unfamiliar with large bore engines (unbuilt) or you'd
never have asked the question. Is basically impossible for them to
spin much more than 4,000 RPM (beyond that all you're making is noise,
not power). The thing is: they have no need to go up there. Spend
their whole life between 500 and 2,500 RPM. That's why they're so
smooth and quiet. Also why they never wear out.
Your first sentence demonstrates you're starry eyed with HP numbers
just like the rice burners that populate the Autozone parking lot like
so many gnats on a summer day. Don't even bother popping my hood for
them anymore because I weary so of trying to explain "only" 200 HP to
people who have no idea what the number even means. Would rather
simply smoke them at a stop light and put the issue to rest.
Translation please: what's a "pillock" anyway? If Ford Motor Company's
a pillock, has been enormously successful as one for more than 100
years...
Bill Robertson
#5939
>--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin Gutkowski <martin@xxxx> wrote:
> I have one simple question: What pillock quotes an engine as 200hp
if it
> is capable of more?
>
> > Real world example: one of my BONE STOCK UNBUILT 200-220 HP 460's
> > versus any of the various 400+ HP small bore engines you love to wave
> > like a flag (none of which sit in YOUR own driveway I hasten to point
> > out). By the HP numbers alone your small bores ~sound~ twice as
> > powerful. But can they:
> > - Accelerate a vehicle weighing TWICE as much as a DeLorean 0-60 MPH
> > in 8-9 seconds?
>
> How about 1700kg (that's 1.5 times as much) in 4.2 seconds from a
single
> turbo 2-litre? That's my friend's Nissan Skyline GTS-R, which I've had
> the pleasure of driving, and being driven in by someone who can really
> drive. Have YOU ever been driven in, or driven such a car? I was
given a
> spin in one of the Chevvy-powered D's in Memphis and my impression was
> very much that it acted like a huge diesel engine. Loads of torque but
> bugger all top-end, and not exactly as rewardng or exciting.
>
> > - Move FOUR times the weight of a DeLorean (Class III) effortlessly?
> > Of course not. A small bore is going to be lucky to ever produce much
> > more than 200 ft lbs of torque, which is the true measure of power.
> > But HP numbers taken totally out of context will never indicate such.
>
> Did you really just say that torque is the true measure of power? Is
> that like voltage being the true measure of electrical power? Or inches
> being the only true measure of volume? HP figures, by and large, and
> stop me if you've heard ths before, tend to be quoted as the maximum hp
> generated by that engine. Torque maximum will be quoted relative to the
> rpm at that point, as power is a product of torque and rpm.....
>
> I drive my 1.3 tonne Citroen towing a 0.8 tonne trailer with a 1.3
tonne
> DeLorean on it from Germany to England (700 miles). My Xantia puts out
> 110hp maximum and 250Nm of torque (185ft-lb) at 3000rpm. It's a 2 litre
> turbo diesel.
>
> > BTW: Freightliner builds over the road trucks, not railroad equipment.
> > (I clearly stated such in my first reply). That's why I used them as
> > an example. Throwing unbased HP numbers around the way you do, a "500
> > HP" sports car engine should outpull their "400 HP" plants, or so the
> > uneducated might infer.
> >
> > Did you notice your last reply inadvertently proved my point?
> > -"Torque" is distinct and measureable, irrespective of any other
> > measurement
> > - "RPM" is distinct and measureable, irrespective of any other
measurement
> > "Horsepower" is *NOT* distinctly measureable. It can *NOT* be
> > calculated without *BOTH* torque and RPM
>
> Want a bet? It's dead easy to measure power without measuring component
> parts. Does your speedometer in your car constantly look at the
distance
> the car's travelled and divide it by the time it took to do it?
>
> Martin (getting bored very quickly)
Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN