My 200SX is faster than an MR-2 and it weighs more !

 

The optimum engine size depends on the weight of the car and the performance criteria - it's all down to physics. The 300ZX is not a rally car, hence it has a 3-litre TT engine for high top speed and lots of power. A 2-litre engine is usually better for racing (eg. Subaru Impreza) because the car is lighter and won't go at excessive speeds. A bigger engine provides less proportional power to increased mass, but the optimum engine size depends on the car's overall mass and what the performance criteria are. Engine size is a limiting factor, but engine design also plays a big part.

 

I wrote a nice long reply, but it got wiped?!? booooo

Anyways, 200zx not SO much faster than an mr2 turbo. Maybe win but by 1/4 length, you say as if it would beat by a big margin

You asked potential power, I said about the 3sgte engine, TTE etc chose it for a reason.

I mentioned the devlepment of an engine etc. the RB engine in the skyline has more POTENTIAL power than the vg engine in the zx, its as simple as that. Big displacement does not matter as much, its the engine deisgn. The TTE developed 3sgte would have considerably more power and torque, more than enough to pull a zx around, regardless of how big the car is. Thats my take on the situation anyway.

This isnt meant nastily (may read it), but I pissed off at the thing wiping my original message, and i cant be arsed posting it again

Regards

Performance & Consumption Cyl/CC BHP MPH 0-60 MPG

Nissan 1.8 Turbo 4/1809 169 137 6.7 30.3

 

Toyota MR2 4/1998 119 124 9.3 35.9

Toyota MR2 GT/T-Bar (92-94) 4/1998 *154 135 7.2 35.8

 

Toyota MR2 1.8 VVTi 4/1794 140 130 7.9 38.2

 

AND THE 200SX IS HEAVIER WITHOUT VVTI - it does have a turbo tho' !

 

So engine design is more important than capacity, aspiration and no. valves/cylinder - what else is left ?! I believe you are implying that the 300ZX engine is badly designed - if that is true why did you buy one ? Maybe it is a SLIGHTLY inferior design to the one you mention, but surely the extra litre of engine capacity should produce more potential BHP than a 2-litre one. It wasn't chosen because of MASS.

 

 

I dont own a zx, I contribute to the board, I am saying that the rb skyline engine is better than the vg zx engine. You asked a question, I gave you my answer! I dont want another argument, and Im sure anyone will attest to the skyline having a 'better' engine. As per your original potential power question.

 

You failed to give power etc for the mr2 turbo. the 3sgte engine is the engine from the mr2 TURBO, not the N/a engine the mr2 has.

Im saying the supra engine is no better than its toyota stablemates engine as toyota chose one over the other.

I said I would like that engine in a zx cos the race engine is what i would prefer assuming i could afford to keep it in tip top condition.

 

[This message has been edited by Ay3388 (edited 27-06-2002).]

I think we are arguing about different things. Firstly, the MR2 Turbo is not listed on the Parkers website I took the figures from (www.parkers.co.uk). I've never heard of a Turbo version, but I'm sure you're right. In that case the MR2 may even be faster than the 200SX as power would be similar and the MR2 is probably lighter -it's a roadster not a coupe.

 

You're trying to argue that a smaller engine may be chosen because it may be of a better design and therefore capable of greater power than the larger engine. YOU ARE RIGHT. I am trying to say that a smaller engine may be chosen because it is lighter NOT because it is more powerful, because the extra weight is more detrimental to performance than the extra power from more cc's.

You must agree that other things being equal, MORE CC = MORE POWER. You cannot seriously be suggesting that you can compare the power of a 2-litre engine with a SIMILAR 3-litre engine ?! The Skyline is 2.6 litre, more comparable with the 3-litre engine of a 300ZX. I can believe [although it galls me] that the Skyline engine is a better design than the 300ZX and therefore has more tuning potential and power; but not a 2-litre engine [unless it's a Formula 1 engine!]. The power of an engine ultimately boils down to how big the explosions are - so bigger cylinders, bigger explosions, more power. Engine design would only have more importance than engine size if you were comparing engines of SIMILAR size or a very old engine with a modern one. The 2-litre engine you quote was chosen over the 3-litre not because it is more powerful but because it gives a better power to weight ratio when installed in the car you mention. In other words, if 2 Supras raced and one had the 3-litre Supra engine and the other had the 2-litre engine [not tuned higher than the Supra engine as would be the case in the final engine you mention], the 2-litre engine would be slaughtered. Subaru's Impeza is 2-litre and the car is faster cross-country than the 3-litre 300ZX, but in a straightline, the 300ZX would stuff it. That's why they have different engine sizes, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CAR, not because the Subaru engine has a better design which makes it as (or more) powerful than the 3-litre Nissan engine. If the 2-litre engine is only better than the 3-litre in design, then why didn't they increase the engine size to 3-litres - how good would the engine be then ?!

 

A smaller engine also has a greater surface area to volume ratio, so more potential for more efficient cooling - very important for race cars.

 

I mentioned room in the engine bay because it may not be possible to fit, say, turbos greater than a certain size into the 300ZX as the engine bay is really cramped as stock.

This would seriously affect the performance potential.

 

Please reply is you still disagree.

 

Dave.

 

Where've you been Nelson mate??? LOL

 

MR2-Turbo(Mid Engined Rear wheel drive 2 seater Twin Entry turbo)

 

Engine is also used in the GT-4 Celica and are made by Yamaha.

 

Older versions of the MR2 Turbo pre-'94 were 200bhp but '94 onwards gets 245bhp. Trust me it would wipe the floor with a 200sx if both cars were in standard form.

 

I've got vids of it caining an RX-7 Twin Tub and a Honda Integra on 1/4 miles runs. Scooby WRX only beat it by points of a second and it kept up with a Skyline GT-R aswell. Imagine 245 horses in a 2 seater with fuck all weight! Bingo! Rocket power.

 

 

 

------------------

As I said I am no car expert; I have no interest in MR-2's (not bad shape but rear spoiler ruins it for me)

If I wanted a roadster, I would probably go for a Honda S2000...(as fast 0-60 as a 300ZX with no turbo's !!). This must be a bloody good engine ! http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/car_reviews/main_review.asp?model_id=1051

 

My friend has a Scooby and a Tiger Super Six - that is ~200 BHP and weighs ~500kg - how about that for power-to-weight ratio !!

Aerodynamics are crap, but early acceleration is awesome. It scares the shit out of me !

Ok, I was quoting the toyota situation as it was a prime example that *that* particular engine had a better design than a corresponding toyota 3 litre, as it (the two litre I mentioned) could be developed further than the 3 litre.

I was linking this to your statement about the two nissan stablemate engines in the zx and the skyline, and the simple fact is the skyline engine has more tuning potential that the zx engine, regardless of its size. I used the toyota situation as a prime example, and yes for that particular car it was the correct choice, as the skyline and zx are two particular cars. Had you said a 2.6 over a 3 litre and not mentioned specific cars then yes in simple terms the 3 litre would have more potential, but thats only a broad sense. In which case, engine design would then have to be looked at. I wish i hadnt mentioned toyota, i was using it to try and demonstate that simple size isnt always the biggest factor. but never mind eh!

 

Regards

You say the Skyline engine has more pontential power then the 300, so how comes the JUN Bonneville 300 of 1991 fame which attained a top speed of 419 kmh had a 1000bhp

VG30DETT engine, so both the RB and the VG can produce the same amount of big power!!

So disputes your argument.

 

for fucks sake, if youve got enough money, then any engine can have enough power, a la f1 turbo engines, some rumoured to run 1500bhp in qualifying 'trim' OK that was a fucking 1.5 litre turbo.

Now how many of such zx are knocking around that can do the same? not many, whereas the skyline is different theres many more powerful skyline, and the potential power is more easily attainable.

You can't compare a Formula 1 engine with a road car engine FFS !! There's the little matter of them revving to > something like 15,000rpm as opposed to ~ 7,000 rpm for a road car.

 

As I have said several times, IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO CC !! The strength of the engine, it's components, the engine design, the aspiration , the number of valves, the valve timing, NOS, nature of turbo's, ECU setup, gearing, transmission, etc. all affect the power of an engine, but the simplest way to get more power is with more CC's. A 1.5 litre engine in a road car(ie. not a Formula 1 engine) will probably NEVER achieve 600bhp, let alone 1,500 !

 

If engine size is not important, why do all top sports cars (not roadsters) have engines over 3-litres ??? [waits for nonsensical answer]

This conversation is getting stupid, I can have as much power as I want if I throw enough money at the engine, as per JUN bonneville super fucking duper car. Is that ok for you? At the end of the day, is boils down to the CCs of your fucking wallet not the CCs of your engine! that ok?

Why do you own a 3litre? go and buy a chevy small block if you want CCs.

You just want lazy power and to hell with good design, do you aspire to own a trans-am?

 

Why are you even asking the question, you arent even listening to any other views. There are points in your previous statements i cant be arsed to answer, but you just disregard what I am trying to get across to you.

1 Being: All things being equal, etc simply put bigger engine = bigger explosion bla bla. The fact being, all things arent equal, YOU are the one who wnated to know about TWO DIFFERENT ENGINE DESIGNS, i.e. ZX and SKYLINE, yes? do you agree? so they arent equal are they? they have a different engine design dont they? do you agree? so why insist on saying all things equal etc? you did originally not want to know that.

You insist on looking at the smaller picture, of big cc=big power, thats why american cars end up with stupid CC engine and reasonably little power per litre, cos all things being equal, *i* want an 8 fucking litre engine cos it has more power than your 5.7 litre engine, and I cant be arsed trying to do anything a bit different in design with the 5.7 to make it run more efficient and have more power.

 

[This message has been edited by Ay3388 (edited 29-06-2002).]

You are completely missing my point !

CC's AND engine design etc. BOTH affect engine power. We both agree on that right ?

I am trying to suggest that cc's are more important ultimately than engine design etc. BUT ONLY IN CAMPARABLE CARS (ie.road cars of today). My 3-litre TT has similar power to a 5.7 litre non-turbo - so clearly here engine design makes a BIG difference as you say. There's only so much you can squeeze out of a given engine AND CC'S IS A LIMITING FACTOR. I can believe that a 2.6 litre TT is capable of more power than a 3 litre TT becuase it has a better/more easily modifiable/tunable design. From other post her, I am not sure that is true, but I believe the Skyline is probably the fastest car across country than any other car ever made largely due to 4WD/4WS.

 

My main contention with what you said is that Toyota chose a 2-litre engine ove a 3-litre PURELY because the design was better. I think the reason was probably more to do with a combination of a)the 2-litre engine had already been seriously modified and was a proven unit, b)the 3-litre engine probably wouldn't fit in the car, and c)using the 2-litre engine gives a better power to weight ratio of the overall car NOT MORE POWER....let me explain this...

The engine with the greatest efficiency is the smallest...but when installed in a car a small engine does not have enough power for practicality or performance. So you need to increase engine power. This is most easily done by upscaling engine size. However, a 4-litre engine does not have TWICE the power of

a 2-litre engine, so you are subject to diminishing returns. The bigger the engine, the more cooling, aspiration and elimination of waste gases is a problem. So components in other engine subsystems have to be bigger and sometimes stronger = more weight. Also, a bigger engine needs a bigger chasis etc. = more weight. So a small engine is underpowered, a very large engine weighs too much for the power it gives. Only when an engine reaches a certain size does it become the major weight in a car and then THE EXTRA ENGINE MASS AFFECTS THE OVERALL WEIGHT OF THE CAR MORE THAN THE EXTRA POWER HELPS MAKE IT FASTER. THE HEAVIER THE CAR IS, THE BIGGER THE ENGINE NEEDS TO BE TO GIVE IT GOOD PERFORMANCE, BUT A HEAVY CAR WILL NEVER BE AS FAST AS A LIGHTER CAR WITH A SMALLER ENGINE, NO MATTER WHAT SIZE ENGINE YOU PUT IN IT. THIS IS WHY ROADSTERS WITH MODEST ENGINE SIZES CAN ACCELERATE AS FAST AS BIGGER CARS WITH MUCH BIGGER ENGINES. YOU MAKE THE ENGINE BIGGER FOR PRACTICALITY BUT REDUCE IT FOR EFFICIENCY. BUT FOR TOP SPEED, YOU NEED A BIG ENGINE AND GOOD AERODYNAMICS, BECAUSE DRAG INCREASES AT THE SQUARE OF SPEED.

 

(Note - I prefer a 300ZX to any roadster even if it's a little slower because it's more comfortable and it has higher top speed - good aerodynamics, and it looks sexier!)

 

There are 3 different reasons to choose an engine - economy, fast acceleration and/or top speed. For economy on motorways/A roads, a 1.4 or 1.6 litre is chosen. For fast acceleration, a ~2-litre is usually chosen and for top speed and acceleration, a 3-litre or greater is chosen. This is all affected by the weight of the car, however and other things like aerodynamics. Turbocharging helps raise power without adding much extra weight.

 

This explains the engine sizes, in ALL production and race cars. Formula 1 cars are 2(or 3)-litre V-10 , rev to at least twice that of a road car, ~800bhp and weigh about 800kg I think. They optimise speed and acceleration at the expense of practicality and comfort. This is why a sports car is not INFERIOR to an F1 car, it's just got different qualities.

 

you right we agree, CCs are king hehe.

I think we are trying to say the same thing, but toyota COULD get more POWER from the 2litre than they could from the 3litre AND it was lighter. This is in the case of the two toyota engines. OK? most other engines require a larger CC, but ther are other engine designs which dont necessarily require the larger cc.

Glad we sorted this out !

 

Dave.