Engine how much BHP bullsh!t???

Plug

Ok me and a friend are having a little argument in work and now its turning to a bet:eek:
He told me the engine from a 1998 Toyota Levin is a 1.6 20v engine with no forced induction, ok that parts right but this part? 175BHP:rolleyes:
I just thought it has no were near that, i mean the M3csl engine for example(enginering marvile) pushes out 111hp to the litre and the toyota supposingly 109hp to the litre.
Another thing I thought was the MK5 GTI engine, 2.0litre 20V and a turbo it pushes out 200BHP thats only an extra 25BHP above the supposingly claimed 175hp of the toyota engine.
I searched google about the specs and got nothing only boards.ie stuff and RTE selling cars:o
Could someone just settle this bet and but him back in his shoes FFS.

HungryJoey

http://www.4age.net/tech/4age/index.htm Thats the closest I could find.. I could of sworn I read about the 20V engine on http://carfolio.com before but couldn't find it. Same goes to wiki, not easy. The only 160/170 BHP 20V levin is supercharged, its not normaly aspirated(from what I can see). But then again I'm no expert.

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

Hj

cyborg

HungryJoey wrote:

http://www.4age.net/tech/4age/index.htm Thats the closest I could find.. I could of sworn I read about the 20V engine on http://carfolio.com before but couldn't find it. Same goes to wiki, not easy. The only 160/170 BHP 20V levin is supercharged, its not normaly aspirated(from what I can see). But then again I'm no expert.

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

Hj

it actually is 165bhp standard and there are lots of other N/A 1.6 cars pushing out over this, mitsubishi Mivec,honda Vtec ,nissan neo vvl etc , are all pushing out 100 bhp/ litre or more and have been for over the last decade and a half!

blastman

Have you not met Mr VTEC?

Can't help with Levin argument, though, sorry

Kimbot

Levin is 165BHP out of the factory on Jap fuel. You will loose power on our fuel unless you get a remap.

Anan1

HungryJoey wrote:

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

The 1.6 Civic VTEC has been doing it for years.;)

dub_dan

HungryJoey wrote:

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

Hj

I've seen a civic type r, 1.6 n/a, totally standard pushing 184bhp atf, r/r proven.

Levin's are around 150bhp on our fuel. But there's the new higher octane stuff coming in soon that'll make a few levin owners happy.

Plug

So ye say about 150-160HP mark?
I bet the torque is low compared to similer sized engines that won't push as much HP out as them.

Eg.
Golf GTI:
Power bhp at RPM: 200 / 5100
Torque lb-ft at RPM: 207 / 1800

Honda Civic:
Power bhp at RPM: 225 / 8000
Torque lb-ft at RPM: 159 / 6100

Big difference there!

Anan1

Plug wrote:

So ye say about 150-160HP mark?
I bet the torque is low compared to similer sized engines that won't push as much HP out as them.

Eg.
Golf GTI:
Power bhp at RPM: 200 / 5100
Torque lb-ft at RPM: 207 / 1800

Honda Civic:
Power bhp at RPM: 225 / 8000
Torque lb-ft at RPM: 159 / 6100

Big difference there!

The Golf is turbocharged. High power output in NA engines is usually achieved through high rpm. The same torque x more revs = more power.

Plug

Anan1 wrote:

The Golf is turbocharged. High power output in NA engines is usually achieved through high rpm. The same torque x more revs = more power.

Ohh I see.
So more power in the low revs equals fast acceleration and more power in the high revs equals faster top speed?

Owen

HungryJoey wrote:

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

I've seen MINI engines, with a new exhaust, manifold, air intake, and remap exceeding 150Bhp, and they're normally aspirated. The 2001-2006 MINI engine, while reliable, and powerful (comparitavely speaking) was a little agricultural in that it had a single Camshaft, and fixed valve timing. I've no doubt that a twin cam engine with variable valve timing, and a decent standard engine would be able to break 160 Bhp without any issues.

Anan1

Plug wrote:

Ohh I see.
So more power in the low revs equals fast acceleration and more power in the high revs equals faster top speed?

Not exactly. At full power, your engine is using a certain amount of its power to overcome friction, wind drag etc - the rest goes into acceleration. The faster you go, the more these losses mount up. Top speed is the speed at which all your engine's power is going into overcoming drag etc - there's none left for acceleration.

FOGOFUNK

Or when you start bouncing off the limiter.......

dogz

[QUOTE=HungryJoey

I'm 99% positive you are correct. I can't imagine a 1.6 N/a engine pushing 160/170bhp without any modifications.

Hj[/QUOTE]


nissans neo vvl 1.6 engine produces 175 bhp in the pulsar and 200 bhp in the pulsar vzr-n1, both do this with no additional mods just they way nissan built them

Mr.Diagnostic

Anan1 wrote:

Not exactly. At full power, your engine is using a certain amount of its power to overcome friction, wind drag etc - the rest goes into acceleration. The faster you go, the more these losses mount up. Top speed is the speed at which all your engine's power is going into overcoming drag etc - there's none left for acceleration.

I think gear ratios may have a little influence too.........

Anan1

Mr.Diagnostic wrote:

I think gear ratios may have a little influence too.........

I'm assuming that this hypothetical car is geared for top speed at max power in top, and that the driver of the car knows how to drive.;)

JHMEG

I think the record for bhp/litre for a normally aspirated engine that was used in normal production is held by the S2000 at 237bhp out of a 2.0-litre.

The Pulsar VZR-N1 (I & II) was unfortunately only a very short "special edition" production run (1,000-1,500 in total) of the VZR.

Plug

Sorry mate, 474HP out of a 2 litre N/A? Utter sh!t where ever you heard that.
Maybe your in heaven afterall:p

Ahh no seriously I think you should of said 118BHP. Alot of horsepower but bollox torque i reckon.

Anan1

Plug wrote:

Sorry mate, 474HP out of a 2 litre N/A? Utter sh!t where ever you heard that.
Maybe your in heaven afterall:p

Ahh no seriously I think you should of said 118BHP. Alot of horsepower but bollox torque i reckon.

He said 237bhp out of a 2 litre, ie total rather than per litre. And he's right.:)

bushy...

blastman wrote:

Have you not met Mr VTEC?

VTEC and friends are there to give you more power at low rpm really. Without it you'll end up with a peaky motor .

Anan1

bushy... wrote:

VTEC and friends are there to give you more power at low rpm really. Without it you'll end up with a peaky motor .

It really depends on your perspective. VVT allows an engine to be tuned for both low and high-end power, rather than one or the other.

Rippy

All are beaten by a good bike engine. For example, Honda CBR1100 XX Blackbird = 160 BHP from 1.1 litre .

Anan1

Rippy wrote:

All are beaten by a good bike engine. For example, Honda CBR1100 XX Blackbird = 160 BHP from 1.1 litre .

Yeah, but try pulling a car with that.;)

JHMEG

Rippy wrote:

All are beaten by a good bike engine. For example, Honda CBR1100 XX Blackbird = 160 BHP from 1.1 litre .

That's because bike engines can spin so much higher. More revs = more power as you can burn fuel faster.. ie burn more fuel, get more power. The same applies to VTEC etc: more power by spinning faster. VTEC's only function is to allow the engine to breathe at higher rpms.

nastysimon

Anan1 wrote:

Yeah, but try pulling a car with that.;)

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/sales/198347.htm
It's a bike engined car and quite quick (think Porsche 911 Turbo or quicker on a track).
As for the Toyota 20V engine, as standard it'll do between 145 and 155 as Toyota were telling slight porkies (even on Japanese fuel). For a 1.6, it's quickish.

Anan1

I meant a car car.:)

Plug

nastysimon wrote:

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/sales/198347.htm
It's a bike engined car and quite quick (think Porsche 911 Turbo or quicker on a track).
As for the Toyota 20V engine, as standard it'll do between 145 and 155 as Toyota were telling slight porkies (even on Japanese fuel). For a 1.6, it's quickish.

The thing weighs less than half a ton, now put a ton of bricks in that caterham and see will it move.

I have a little theroy to get over all this torque/bhp thing and correct me if im wrong.
The likes of the toyota engine or the honda v-tec engine have plenty of Horsepower becasue they spin much faster due to the fact that they have a smaller stroke on the crankshaft than most cars.

If they had a larger stroke they would put out less bhp but more torque. Think of it as a seesaw, the bigger diameter of the crankshaft the larger the torque but since it is big it means the piston has further to travel on the strokes therefore it has lower revs.

Diesel engines have low revs becasue it takes a longer stroke to compress and heat up the air in order to ignite the fuel/air mixture. They have a lot of torque, alot more than petrol but suffer from less horsepower due to the low revs. Thats why trucks have diesel engines.

JHMEG

Plug wrote:

The likes of the toyota engine or the honda v-tec engine have plenty of Horsepower becasue they spin much faster due to the fact that they have a smaller stroke on the crankshaft than most cars.

This is correct, simply cos shorter stroke = less distance to travle and therefore less time to complete a stroke. Some are "square" (stroke = bore) and some are "over square" (stoke < bore). Most "normal" petrol engines would have a stroke that's greater than the bore.

Plug wrote:

If they had a larger stroke they would put out less bhp but more torque. Think of it as a seesaw, the bigger diameter of the crankshaft the larger the torque but since it is big it means the piston has further to travel on the strokes therefore it has lower revs.

Without increasing displacement (or artificially increasing it by using a turbo) I don't think more torque is possible with a petrol because petrols can never have a stroke a comparatively long as a diesel (the petrol would ignite long before the end of the stroke).

Plug wrote:

Diesel engines have low revs becasue it takes a longer stroke to compress and heat up the air in order to ignite the fuel/air mixture. They have a lot of torque, alot more than petrol but suffer from less horsepower due to the low revs. Thats why trucks have diesel engines.

You are correct, but as said above a petrol could not manage that sort of compression stroke.

nastysimon

Anan1 wrote:

I meant a car car.:)

It is, it's a real sports car, unlike luxobarges like the 911 Turbo

Plug wrote:

The thing weighs less than half a ton, now put a ton of bricks in that caterham and see will it move.

It'll still move, especially if you gear it correctly, but you'll be using lots of revs to do any work. This kind of design is perfectly suited to a sports car and not to a general workhorse (think thoroughbred v. draft horse).

The likes of the toyota engine or the honda v-tec engine have plenty of Horsepower becasue they spin much faster due to the fact that they have a smaller stroke on the crankshaft than most cars.

Yes, they are short stroke engines, which results in high revs (good power) and poor low down torque, which is due to a number of factors, not least of which is piston speed. The VTEC system overcomes some of the problems of big bore engines by allowing for a hot cam suitable for the higher revs and a more gentle cam for lower revs. If it was to use the hot-cam for lower revs it wouldn't idle properly, emissions and economy would be terrible and it would generally be a pig to drive.

Diesel engines have low revs becasue it takes a longer stroke to compress and heat up the air in order to ignite the fuel/air mixture. They have a lot of torque, alot more than petrol but suffer from less horsepower due to the low revs. Thats why trucks have diesel engines.

Not exactly, but not too far from the truth either. Diesel engines rev lower for a number of reasons, not least of which is your one above. Since diesels have to be stronger due to much higher compression ratios, the components are heavier and therefore not suitable for higher revs. There are a few other reasons, though I'm pretty sure that they could all be overcome.

JHMEG wrote:

Without increasing displacement (or artificially increasing it by using a turbo) I don't think more torque is possible with a petrol because petrols can never have a stroke a comparatively long as a diesel (the petrol would ignite long before the end of the stroke).

Not exactly. A petrol engine can have just as long a stroke as a diesel engine, but must have a larger combustion chamber (roughly 1.8 times) to keep the compression ratio down.

Much of the reason for diesels having more torque is due to the fact that they are generally turbocharged. Turbos are great for torque, but aren't so great for throttle response (something diesels are bad at anyway).

AntiVirus

The Toyota Celica's VVTL-i engine pushes out 106.7 bhp/litre

Owen

nastysimon wrote:

Turbos are great for torque, but aren't so great for throttle response (something diesels are bad at anyway).

Actually, a lot of modern Turbos are twin scroll Turbos, which have virtually no lag.